I’m referring to the concept of separation of church and state. How does “the bible says ABC” have any bearing in a country that is supposed to have separation of church and state? Or, has the bible simply been so popular for so long that exceptions are made, even though they should not be, not if you adhere to the separation standard.
Why the fuck do you keep referring to the Bible?
You realize that lots of religious Americans don’t believe in “the Bible”?
Anyway you ignored my questions.
For example who is the idiot who told you that employers could forbid Jews from wearing Yarmulkas air Muslim employees Kufi caps with no legal ramifications?
I don’t know who taught you about the “separation of Church and State” but they did a really terrible job
You’ll notice that many backward people in countries like the UK think that government funded schools can mandate prayer with violating the concept of “separation of Church and State”.
Thankfully, we live in the U.S., not the UK, Frane, Turkey, or Iran.
AFAICT, I think its something like aiding and abetting sin.
Its been a part of the law for a long time. EEOC rules on religious accomodation.
You can *believe *anything you like. However, at work, you must do your job properly.
If these two things conflict enough for you to have religious problems, then you need a new job.
I fail to understand why this is difficult for so many people in society to grasp.
People interpret stuff into the bible in pretty much the same way that people interpreted abortion into the constitution. There is probably more authority in the bible for refusing to abet sin than there is in the constitution for the right to abortion. There is at least some biblical basis for a prohibition against abetting sin.
Yes, IF the refusal could be reasonably accommodated. If not then the employee can be (not “must be”) fired and replaced. These sort of conscientious objectors are not going to pull this sort of stunt in a place like San Francisco, they are going to do it in a place like Wichita, Kansas where they will pretend they are being really really brave for taking a stand against gay marriage while getting the support of every government official they work for.
Nobody is talking about headgear! This isn’t about headgear! Forget about the fucking headgear! The topic is whether a religious person may use their religion as an excuse to actively discriminate against a customer while on the job. Whether they do it in a turban, a Yarmulka, a bowler hat or a fez doesn’t matter.
The constitution explicitly mentions religion. The first rights mentioned in the cornerstone of all American laws are religious rights.
Of course religion can have an impact on legal matters. What ever gave you the idea they can’t?
I think you have a distorted concept of what separation of church and state means. Separation of church and state usually refers to the establishment clause. The establishment clause says that the state shall establish no religion (and through the 14th amendment this means none of the several states can establish a religion). Permitting individuals to practice their own religion or let their religion affect their lives is not prohibited, even of government employees. In fact the next clause probably forces government to permit the free exercise of religion.
Because we have laws that say the opposite of what you are saying. if you have a religious objection to some aspect of your job, it is the employer that must make reasonable accommodation and if they cannot be made then it is up to you to do the job or get fired.
It doesn’t matter whether it is headgear or refusal to serve an unprotected class. The right does not depend on what the religious belief is unless the religious belief is illegal at the state level.
If you refuse to perform part of your job, do you get to keep it?
If your religious objection is itself a violation of other federal law, that’s problematic, especially if the religious “violation” involves passing over a piece of paper or printing something out. That does not affect you at all.
For example:
If an employee is an observant Hindu and don’t want to pick up a burger at the office cookout, that’s one thing. If the observant Hindu demands that no one get to have a burger because it offends his or her religion, that’s totally different. The first doesn’t involve anyone but the one person’s beliefs. The other affects others.
The closest similar situation I can think of is that of a grocery store accommodating a Muslim check-out clerk who doesn’t want to handle pork products. I’m not aware of any court cases setting a precedent, but I recalled the story from three years ago and was able to find an article that describes Wegman’s grocery story putting a sign above one check-out lane that the clerk wouldn’t handle pork, so use another lane: Sign at Wegmans draws attention | www.WHEC.com
You mean the “he who is without sin” part? Or the “render unto Caesar” part?
I was trying to keep my examples to government employees, but I bet there have been a fundamentalist Christian or two working in motels who rented a room to a clearly unmarried opposite sex couple. When the religious objection extends only to same sex couples then we can tend to see it as homophobia, not religion. Which is not protected for government workers. Same sex sin is only a tiny fraction of sins in the Bible, but seems to be the only one they care about.
And while he might say fire the person who refuses to issue licenses when there are no alternatives, you can just imagine the stink if someone tried to do so.
If it doesn’t matter, then why do you keep trying to divert the conversation away from what we are talking about to cases that have little to do with what we are talking about, then acting all put out about how we all want to discriminate against people with turbans and Yarmulkas? Let’s talk about the actual subject.
What people forget is that religious accommodation does not mean that a person can demand that others comply with their religious beliefs. I would argue that refusing to provide or print a form (such as a marriage form or license) does.
What next, refusing to marry people who’ve been divorced? Interracial couples? Couples where one is not American? Tattooed couples? Couples planning to have shrimp at the reception?
Eventually, there will be enough mandamus actions out there that some level of rationality will win out. I hope.
I can see that, especially considering the legal grey areas in this.
However, I think that in a small office at least, an appropriate conversation should be had with that employee say that although the employee is allowed his/her person’s religious beliefs, that employee does not have the right to force others to comply with those beliefs. However, because of low staffing, the office needs an employee who will provide requested paperwork to everyone. If the person is a longtime good employee, find them another job in government service, perhaps one that doesn’t interact with the public.
On a side note, it’s interesting that so many people scorn “government employees”, but on this issue, everyone seems to be jumping on their “rights”.
Perhaps it would be helpful if someone posted a list of “Bigot Friendly” job positions on the office bulletin boards?