Indiana "Religious Freedom" (right to discriminate)

by Simon 274 Replies latest social current

• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  If somebody owns a florist and they are the only employee, if they don't want to service a gay wedding, then the gay couple should move on to the next florist, somebody else will be more than happy to take their money.

  Earlier I opined that might be a way to split the baby, but on second thought I don't see that as a solution for multiple reasons. State and local governments issue permits. If someone is to conduct business legally they have to abide by whatever conditions are tagged to that business licence/permit, whether it agrees with their religious preference or not.

  But I still contend that permit issuing authorities and associated judiciaries owe it to the business community to convey clear and unambiguous rules on this issue, and if it's not clear now that time should be allowed for business owners to get their proverbial houses in order. The choices would end up 1) obey the law 2) sell the business or 3) shut the business down. Alternately, business owners can lobby legislative bodies to change law to their liking.
• 

  EndofMysteries

  Marvin - If that's the case then will all JW's be forced to partakes in holidays, military things, gay events, etc? If the jw refuses then the company fires them, can they no longer claim religious discrimination? Or if they are not hired no longer claim religious discrimination? (A jw works at any restaurant, they must partake in happy birthday or they are discriminating and the business can get in trouble so they don't hire them or fire them, etc,etc.) Can't say they can use other employees, what if they are the only server at the time?
• 

  DJS

  INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Indiana's Republican legislative leaders have unveiled changes to the state's new religious objections law that has faced criticism it could allow discrimination against lesbians and gays.

  The amendment to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act released Thursday prohibits service providers from using the law as a legal defense for refusing to provide services, goods, facilities or accommodations. It also bars discrimination based on race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or United States military service.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Marvin - If that's the case then will all JW's be forced to partakes in holidays, military things, gay events, etc? If the jw refuses then the company fires them, can they no longer claim religious discrimination? Or if they are not hired no longer claim religious discrimination? (A jw works at any restaurant, they must partake in happy birthday or they are discriminating and the business can get in trouble so they don't hire them or fire them, etc,etc.) Can't say they can use other employees, what if they are the only server at the time?

  That's a good question, and one of the complications at issue.

  In the USA it's a tedious thing to compel an employee to do something that is directly contrary to a bona fide religious tenet. But for business owners it's a different thing. The business owner will have to offer products and services for one person as they would to another person without regard to their own bona fide religious views. As one poster suggested earlier, the owner should have realized what they were signing up for before they signed up. As employers maybe business owners can take the same position by disclosing to applicants the full range of duties to make sure the individual knows what they're agreeing to do as employees. Then, if later on an employee says their religious belief disallows something that is a condition of employment they have three choices: 1) comply, 2) quit or 3) be fired. This is one more reason for issuing authorities to make rules clear and then allow business owners time to get their house in order.
• 

  Viviane

  I have no problem whatsoever reading "BS" keyboard by your hand to mean what I've just told you in expressly stated language is rejected by you as something other than what I'm thinking. You don't even address that response coming from you for what it says in terms of YOU telling me that YOU know what I'm thinking better than I know what I'm thinking.

  <fartpicture.jpg>

  It's all you deserve at this point. I honestly didn't even bother reading it.
• 

  DJS

  Marvin,

  Ditto. They are called bona fide occupational qualifications. Employers can legally require employees to work shifts, weekends, retire at a certain age, etc. and the employee does not typically have a legal right to sue, but the employer must include the BOQs in the job description and they must be 'bonafide' or legitimate essential job duties/requirements. If they are, employers are almost always A-ok, unless they administer these BOQs in an unfair manner (some get favors, some don't). Courts will always look at practices as more compelling than policies or procedures.

  In a past life I worked with an HR employee hiring/relations team.
• 

  Fisherman

  The Watchtower fought for their religious rights but forgot to give each person the right to quit the church without being disfellowshipped.

  In the USA, religious rights are provided by the US Constitution to practice their religion including disfellowsheeping. The WT has no secular or religious duty or obligation to practice their religion another way for the purpose of showing appreciation for Constitutional Rights or for any other reason.
  
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  They are called bona fide occupational qualifications.

  In my experience JW's working in, for instance, retail outlets have no problem whatsoever installing all manner of seasonal religious decorations. I know one JW who did the seasonal Santa Clause gig! No problem.

  On the other hand, when there's a potential payday to be had, I've seen JWs work the system to the hilt even when what they were saying was false in terms of a bona fide religious tenet. Two of these cases are documented on my blog where JWs refused to sign oaths of allegiance and/or lost employment or employment opportunity. The courts were duped into thinking the claim was true based on how Watchtower publications have presented information, but it turns out the claim is false and a careful reading would have born that out. Of course, later on it was discovered that Watchtower's very elite had been signing the oath of allegiance the whole time. (See: Jehovah’s Witnesses and National Oaths of Allegiance, look in the Employers and Employee Sub-Sections)
• 

  Jonathan Drake

  @DJS let me try to say what I meant differently.... *thinking...

  Okay so I was saying kind of I think what you're saying here:

  Within a generation or so this will be a moot point. Gay marriage and equal access will be the norm, and people in the future will look back at the haters in 2015 and compare them to the KKK and other 20th Century hate mongers. And that's not an opinion.
  

  The difference being, in my opinion, this law and any like it that come, along with the attitudes that support it, will slow down the inevitable outcome you spell out here. It's an outcome I agree is inevitable, I think though that this sort of thing happening (this law and these attitudes that support it) actively push back the date that inevitability is realized. What if by the time we, as a people, are finally at that point of enlightenment it's too late?

  im not sure, but re-reading your posts I think I'm mostly agreeing with your point. I just don't know what libertarians or x-tians are.
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  I honestly didn't even bother reading it.

  Why break the pattern now? You've been doing that very thing throughout this discussion at various times. You respond before you read. I made that very observation three days ago way back on page 3 of this discussion! You've been running in circles telling folks what they think and disregarding clear and unambiguous statements of the same folks declaring what they think. Your argument looks like this: I say so, so it must be true regardless of what you say you think.