|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Religious Exemption From Laws
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
I came across this, which naturally reminded several past DH discussions. (My first reaction was to check the calendar and verify what year it was.)
quote:
In February, Dunahoo, 40, and her 37-year-old husband, Stanley Hoskins, who have two children, were looking to rent an RV space when she contacted Baker. “We were trying to save money to get our life on track,” she said.
On Feb. 28, she arrived at the RV park and gave Baker a $275 check for rent for the month.
“He was real nice,” she said. “He invited me to church and gave me a hug. I bragged on him to my family.”
The next day, she said, Baker telephoned her and said, “Hey, you didn’t tell me you was married to no black man.”
She said she replied that she didn’t realize it was a problem.
“Oh, it’s a big problem with the members of my church, my community and my mother-in-law,” she quoted him as saying. “They don’t allow that black and white shacking.”
“We’re not shacking. We’re married,” she replied.
“Oh, it’s the same thing,” she quoted him as replying.
So, do Mr. Baker's religious beliefs entitle him to an exemption to the Civil Rights Act? I'd say no, but I'd say the same thing about exempting believers from other generally-applicable anti-discrimination laws, including ones incorporating sexual orientation. It seems like an impossibly narrow needle to thread to argue that laws against racial discrimination are widely applicable but saying "it's my religion" gets you out of obeying anti-discrimination laws when it comes to sexual orientation, but I'm confident some shipmate will make the attempt.
The article does not mention which church Mr. Baker attends. I'd be quite interested in any responses they might have on this subject, should some enterprising reporter track them down.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I don't think religion gives a license to discriminate against anyone, be it based on skin color, sexuality, gender expression, national origin, or whatever.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
In fact you can. It would astonish you. Don't forget you can already deny your employees birth control (even if they are not of your faith) and claim it is a religious issue.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Forgot to add, I am waiting for this to go to its logical conclusion. I murder you, and claim that it is a tenet of my worship of Cthulhu, or Baal, or whoever.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Well yes you legally can. But I assert you should not be able to. Our constitution is meant to protect our religious beliefs, which has to include protecting us FROM the religious beliefs of others.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
There was a link there to a Christian objection to a "religious freedom bill" in Mississippi which seems designed specifically to overthrow the Civil Rights Act.
How long will it take for people not to think like this?
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Religious organizations have long had special carve-out exemptions from certain non-discrimination laws, particularly in areas of religious discrimination. From a legal perspective churches (and other religious congregations) are more akin to private clubs than they are to public accommodations, so they're allowed to discriminate in ways that wouldn't be available to secular businesses. What intrigues me is that what was originally a narrow exception instituted for obvious and pragmatic reasons (e.g. a church is allowed to engage in religious discrimination by insisting the new pastor is an adherent of their faith) is being asserted by ordinary lay believers as their inherent right (e.g. an auto mechanic insisting all his employees be of his faith).
[ 04. April 2016, 17:58: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Racist jerks. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Auto mechanics are kind of dicey, but I could easily see that you would want all the employees of your Episcopal church to be at least Christians. Hospitals are another gray area (it is probably not possible to get all your nurses to be Catholics; there just aren't enough nurses as it is).
The auto mechanic IMO should not get to employ only his co-religionists, unless he fixes cars by the laying on of hands and anointing with holy motor oil. He should certainly not be able to bail out on other laws by claiming that it is against his religion to pay health benefits/allow people to have vacations/work on Sunday/whatever dingbat concept he fishes up out of his left ear.
Otherwise, if he alleges that God said to hit you on the head with a socket wrench and bury your body out back, do you have any recourse?
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
I bet the argument will be that the "closely-held corporations" of the Hobby Lobby include every small business owned by an individual or family as well.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I'm not entirely sure this is a DH topic, though I guess an open discussion on the US constitutional position would seem, inevitably. to bring a couple of nags into play. So it can stay here pro-tem, to await developments.
Barnabas62
Dead Horses Host
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Discrimination as a religious accommodation was ruled out by the Supreme Court, for example in Bob Jones University and the IRS.
However, a number of southern states are not convinced that the U.S. constitution overrules state decisions, e.g. Alabama and the ongoing court cases about same sex marriage.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
I'm not convinced that there should be any general religious exemption. If an obligation is not sufficiently important to impose on religious people then it probably shouldn't be imposed on anyone.
There are probably counter-examples, where someone's beliefs make compliance unduly burdensome, and granting an exemption won't hurt others, but racism isn't going to be in that category.
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Eliab, where would that leave women as clergy in the various churches where that is still banned? Or referring to the Vosper thread in Purg, would it be impermissible discrimination to refuse to accept/ordain an atheist or Muslim in any of the Christian churches, where the candidate has obtained the necessary educational qualifications? How do you draw the line, if we agree that it is wrong to refuse (eg) gays? Very hard.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
My understanding of Canadian nondiscrimation law is that any Church exemption only applies to clergy. Church advertisements for janitorial or administrative staff do not specify that the employee must be a member of that denomination.
Of course, some advertisements specify "should be familiar with the tenets and traditions of the church." Usually, the people who are most familiar with the tenets and traditions of a particular church, are members of that church. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
There are probably counter-examples, where someone's beliefs make compliance unduly burdensome, and granting an exemption won't hurt others, but racism isn't going to be in that category.
Giving communion wine to children?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
There's a story from yesterday, of having stewardesses on flights to Tehran wear headscarves. What about Orthodox Jews refusing to sit next to women on trains or planes? A woman filed suit the other day after being forced to move to accommodate the guy next to her.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291
|
Posted
If he had the problem, why didn't he move?
M.
Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I wrote to the Guardian on that very point. They didn't print it.
The woman asked him where in Torah it said he should not sit next to a woman - and there was a screen or curtain between them. He agreed that there was nothing on that precise point but that if someone were to be put in danger "he" should remove "himself" from it.
The woman felt that she would not be comfortable sitting there through the journey, so accepted the offer of another seat which was not the one she had booked.
The airline uses her acceptance of the offer as an excuse for not compensating her for the way they treated her.
My feeling is that 1) as a result of his objection, and bearing in mind news items about the ways Orthodox men have treated women, she was more obedient to Torah than he was: 2) If he was that concerned about the unspecified danger to him from girl cooties, he should, at the time of booking his seat, have specified that it should not be next to a woman: and 3) he was the one who saw a danger, so he should have moved.
keqr lqightwcopiqernhcxzmpi hgqoireujx; GR
Deliberate gibberish substitute for real feelings.
[ 05. April 2016, 17:18: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
The Atlantic magazine seems to be doing a series, or maybe it's an issue, on modern religion. Here's another religious-freedom article, this one about Bible verses on cheerleading banners.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The Atlantic magazine seems to be doing a series, or maybe it's an issue, on modern religion. Here's another religious-freedom article, this one about Bible verses on cheerleading banners.
Before I clicked, I thought the highlighted phrase meant "Bible verses having to do with cheerleading banners" and was eager to find which those were.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
There are probably counter-examples, where someone's beliefs make compliance unduly burdensome, and granting an exemption won't hurt others, but racism isn't going to be in that category.
Giving communion wine to children?
That's a great example of what shouldn't be a religious exemption.
Does it do children real harm to sip wine? Yes? Then ban it. No exceptions. Faith does not justify child abuse.
Meanwhile, on this planet, where it's harmless, don't ban it. Let them have a sip to try the taste. Or join in a toast at a wedding. Or to receive a sacrament. No exceptions.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
There's a story from yesterday, of having stewardesses on flights to Tehran wear headscarves.
Story here. This is not exactly under the same category as the other examples in the thread because it involves a dispute between an employer and employees, not a request to ignore a generally applicable law. It's been recognized that certain employers have the right to dictate how their employees dress on the job, and flight attendants have long been considered to be within that category. As far as I know neither Air France nor the flight crew union is arguing that their religious beliefs (or the religious beliefs of their customers) provides an exemption to whatever labor laws govern disputes like this. They're each simply claiming that the change in uniform for Tehran-bound or Tehran-originating flights [is/isn't] within an airline's authority to dictate the uniform of flight crews.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It's been recognized that certain employers have the right to dictate how their employees dress on the job, and flight attendants have long been considered to be within that category.
Is this the inverse of the British Airways cross necklace case? The flight attendants are being asked to wear what they regard as Islamic dress. It's particularly interesting given the French laws against religious dress - my understanding is that it would be illegal for an Air France flight attendant to wear this uniform in a French courthouse.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
As far as I can make out, the rules about what the women wear applies off the plane, not on it, so isn't this about what they wear in their off-duty time? And thus not exactly about in work dress codes.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
My understanding of Canadian nondiscrimation law is that any Church exemption only applies to clergy. Church advertisements for janitorial or administrative staff do not specify that the employee must be a member of that denomination.
Of course, some advertisements specify "should be familiar with the tenets and traditions of the church." Usually, the people who are most familiar with the tenets and traditions of a particular church, are members of that church.
The same here, at least under Commonwealth and NSW laws - can't speak for other states. Th question is why is that justified?
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
As far as I can make out, the rules about what the women wear applies off the plane, not on it, so isn't this about what they wear in their off-duty time? And thus not exactly about in work dress codes.
It's a little more complicated than that. From the previously linked article.
quote:
Female members of flight crews have been ordered to cover their hair once they disembark in Tehran and unions are demanding that the flights be made voluntary for women.
<snip>
[Deputy head of the SNPNC flight crews' union] Mr. [Christophe] Pillet said flight crews were prepared to wear headscarves in Iran when out of uniform, but objected to being ordered to wear them as part of their uniform.
Unions want Tehran flights to be made voluntary without penalties for staff, deductions from wages or consequences for their careers.
The main points of controversy seem to be whether headscarves can be required while on duty but not in flight (not all of a flight attendant's duties take place while in flight) and whether flight crews can voluntarily decline duty on the Paris-to-Tehran route.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
In the original post, we have a quotation that "it's a big problem with the members of my church". Do we read that as saying that "it's a big problem with the leaders and theology of my church"? Is this religious bigotry or a cultural bias?
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
In the original post, we have a quotation that "it's a big problem with the members of my church". Do we read that as saying that "it's a big problem with the leaders and theology of my church"? Is this religious bigotry or a cultural bias?
I'm not sure there's a clear dividing line between those two. During the civil rights era you'd often see pro-segregation demonstrators with signs that said things like "Integration is Un-Christian", or quoted one of the many Old Testament verses on keeping various tribes separate. If there's a cultural bias religious belief will often be used to support it, and if there's religious bigotry the culture will typically be shaped to emphasize it.
So I guess the answer to your last question is "yes".
[ 21. April 2016, 18:24: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
Just came across this story of a small town postal carrier refusing to deliver mail to a recreational marijuana facility. (For the record, the recreational marijuana use is legal in Washington state.) The same for the local adult book and video store. This differs a little from the racist landlord mentioned earlier in that a postal carrier is an agent of the state, but it really is striking how religion seems to have become little more than an excuse for otherwise inexcusable behavior.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Just came across this story of a small town postal carrier refusing to deliver mail to a recreational marijuana facility.
It is normal for postal workers to refuse to deliver mail to the door of someone with a poorly-controlled aggressive dog, on safety grounds. (For the record, owning dogs, even big ones that bark at people, is legal everywhere.)
It's legal for you to own a big dog, but it's also reasonable for the postal worker not to want to come anywhere near it. So there's more here than "It's legal for me to do this, so you gotta".
I find it easy to imagine people not wanting to go in to a sex shop. Probably almost everything in the sex shop would be illegal to display on a billboard outside the shop: if it's not suitable for public display, is it reasonable to force a public employee to look at it?
As far as the marijuana store goes, I assume that the store is for the sale, and not for the consumption, of marijuana. If the mail carrier was asked to walk into a cloud of marijuana smoke to deliver the mail, then refusing is clearly reasonable on exactly the same grounds as "I'm not going near that dog." If, on the other hand, the mail carrier wants protection from seeing plastic tubs containing the different varieties on offer, and shelves with pipes and other smoking paraphernalia, then I'm don't think it's reasonable.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I could easily see that you would want all the employees of your Episcopal church to be at least Christians.
Can't imagine why. I know many a church organist or choir member who is Jewish. And speaking of Jewish, synagogues have since time immemorial employed a "Shabbas goy" (Sabbath gentile) to do all those things that Jews can't do on the Sabbath.
[ 08. June 2016, 20:11: Message edited by: Amanda B. Reckondwythe ]
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
After the Supreme Court refused to intervene, Washington State pharmacies are still required by law to fill prescriptions even if a pharmacist working there has a religious objection to the medication in question. This is a decent summary of the case and the issues surrounding it.
I understand why a healthcare worker might want to refuse to provide care based on religious objections. But if a patient has a right to receive care, it seems that the healthcare providers have a duty to provide it.
Not too long in the past, I nearly died as a result of a GI bleed. Had anyone on the medical staff said, "Oh, I can't participate in this treatment; I have a religious objection to blood transfusions," it might have gone badly for me.
I'm not entirely sure how you accommodate both the patient and the worker in these cases.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I think you assess degree of harm, and decide that someone's health is more important than someone's belief in something. And if someone tries to discriminate then the media does a story like this. The business was sold shortly thereafter with the understanding that it was hurt quite significantly financially.
I guess God left not being an asshole out of the 10 commandments. Which in addition to discrimination, resulted in a whole whack of really bad badness in the Old Testament.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Some Muslim cabbies refuse passengers with guide dogs on a religious basis, considering the dogs unclean. (I knew some Middle Eastern cultures considered them unclean; but I thought that was cultural. Of course, culture and religion can get mushed together.) Some also refuse passengers who have alcohol with them.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
In my younger days I had two doctors refuse to deal with contraception. They each had some excuse, but it turns out they were both Roman Catholic. I wish they had said up front, like when I made my appointment, that they wouldn't deal with birth control or contraception.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I think you assess degree of harm, and decide that someone's health is more important than someone's belief in something.
If your "conscience" prevents you from complying with the law, don't get a job/own a company which deals with the public.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
In my younger days I had two doctors refuse to deal with contraception. They each had some excuse, but it turns out they were both Roman Catholic. I wish they had said up front, like when I made my appointment, that they wouldn't deal with birth control or contraception.
I used to have a GP who took the same position, but there was a big sign up in reception to that effect, advising those who wanted to discuss contraception to make an appointment with one of the other partners in the practice. Seemed a fair enough balance to me.
[ 08. July 2016, 17:31: Message edited by: Albertus ]
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
If the other doctors in the practice had ample time and no objections, it is a workable solution. Not sure about acceptable though. How far do you extend the inconvenience? The practice next door? Down the road, across the city? A hundred miles away?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
The two doctors I mentioned above worked alone, which was more common back in the ancient times when birth control was an issue for me.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
No inconvenience involved there for anyone, as far as I can see. Sole GP practice is quite uncommon in the UK (OK, England & Wales- can't speak for Scotland & NI) nowadays and pretty much everywhere I've been registered with, you'll usually be offered a choice of an appointment with 'your' doctor or, if one is available earlier, one with another member of the practice.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I think you assess degree of harm, and decide that someone's health is more important than someone's belief in something.
If your "conscience" prevents you from complying with the law, don't get a job/own a company which deals with the public.
I once had to point out this possibility to a young Mormon who wanted to take a job as a retail clerk at a Liquor Control Board of Ontario outlet without having to deal with alcoholic beverages.
The clergy exemption in Canada is, in our context, common sense. I do not see courts taking action against RC or Orthodox bishops who refuse to ordain women or against mosques refusing to hire Coptic scholars of Islamic and Qoranic studies.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I once had to point out this possibility to a young Mormon who wanted to take a job as a retail clerk at a Liquor Control Board of Ontario outlet without having to deal with alcoholic beverages.
I'm surprised that he would even be allowed to work there. I would assume that his bishop or someone else in authority would have forbidden it.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I think you assess degree of harm, and decide that someone's health is more important than someone's belief in something.
If your "conscience" prevents you from complying with the law, don't get a job/own a company which deals with the public.
Sometimes circumstances or expectations change long after one takes a job. New boss new set of guidelines. Finding a different job can be difficult, esp if you are over 50.
Church history is full of people dying rather than obey orders to do something that contradicted their religious beliefs, so telling people to just ignore their beliefs isn't a realistic solution.
Taking a job that can be expected to require behaviors you disagree with, that's stupid and should result in being fired. So one solution is to make more clear at the start what the duties might include - driving people and their dogs in a taxi, handling and serving alcohol in a restaurant, selling cigarettes and pork sausage in a grocery. We could screen future MDs for willingness to do all medical procedures, but what happens if one converts later in career?
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Sometimes circumstances or expectations change long after one takes a job. New boss new set of guidelines. Finding a different job can be difficult, esp if you are over 50.
Any job which serves the public needs to understand that is the focus, not their personal beliefs.
quote:
Church history
is irrelevant to this issue. And thinking church is relevant, or at least has primacy, is a large part of the problem.
quote:
We could screen future MDs for willingness to do all medical procedures, but what happens if one converts later in career?
If one converts to a belief which conflicts with their career, they change careers. Will this always be easy? No. Will it always be without hardship? No. But Christianity doesn't call for defending your own beliefs at the expense of others, but rather at the expense of self.
I am rather tired of the followers of Jesus twisting his intent to engage in prejudice he would not have.
ETA: I am not accusing you of doing this.
[ 11. July 2016, 17:18: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Indeed, lB, this whole thing is about Christians protecting THEIR rights, defending THEIR beliefs, etc. At no point in church history has that been a good thing. It was either frowned on as the vainglory it is, or it led to bloodshed (religious wars, Inquisition, crusades, etc.).
Christians are called to lay down their lives for others, not to trample others for themselves.
Or as somebody put it, if thine adversary maketh thee bake one cake, bake for him two.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Or as somebody put it, if thine adversary maketh thee bake one cake, bake for him two.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If the other doctors in the practice had ample time and no objections, it is a workable solution. Not sure about acceptable though. How far do you extend the inconvenience? The practice next door? Down the road, across the city? A hundred miles away?
Yes, you need to consider inconvenience--but you also need to consider the depth of the injury to a person's livelihood and faith. The "hundred miles" you spoke of--is that a greater or lesser burden than saying to a doctor, "You must either leave your faith or your livelihood, for which you spent at least ten years of education"?
The contraception thing is a real issue for RCs, not a minor niggle, and it is a well-known position of the RC church--not something one individual made up, possibly as a scam. I disagree with them, but I defend their right to follow their faith.*
* I may be slightly influenced by the fact that an RC physician refused to prescribe birth control to my mother, and by the time she found a different doctor a couple weeks later, she was pregnant with me.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
