In Employment Division v Smith which ultimately led to the RFRA, it was the opinion of Justice Scalia that “To permit [a person to use a religion as a reason not to obey the law] would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.” The case had something to do with the use of Peyote (which is an illegal substance) during religious ceremonies.
Now according to your logic: as a member of a Thuggee death cult I should be free to rip out someone’s heart and cook them in a volcano because that is part of my worship of Kali. So obviously there is still a line somewhere.
How is it “ridiculous”? Exactly the same statement could be made about a business with a “whites only” sign in front. Or a more subtle homophobia.
And people may “choose” to work there maybe because it’s the first and only job offer they received in the past five years – most people in that employment tier are not exactly flooded with job offers and they may have a family to support. And they may also have “chosen” to work there under the reasonable assumption that the owners were sane normal people and not religious nutcases.
You said you didn’t think that “religion” should be a “protected class” .
If religion is not a “protected class” then they aren’t covered by anti-discrimination laws.
If I’m a pizzeria owner and I have a pathological hatred of say car salesmen I can refuse to either hire people who used to work as car salesmen or deliver pizzas to a car dealerships because that isn’t a protected class.
If I’m a pizzeria owner and I have a strong aversion to practicing Catholics I can’t refuse to hire them or deliver pizzas to Catholic groups because “religious groups” are a “protected class”.
It’s not the group of people who are the protected class. It’s the characteristic that is protected. IOW, you don’t get special treatment for being black, gay, Christian or a woman. That just can’t be the reason you get fired or refused service.
That wouldn’t affect me, since I don’t work at Hobby Lobby.
If a company chose to discontinue buying health insurance for its employees, the employees could buy individual health insurance plans. Indeed, under Obamacare, they would be required by law to do so. Anything else obvious that you’d like me to explain?
Yes, you could explain the relative costs and affordability of employer-subsidized group insurance vs. individual insurance. This is exactly the same logic as saying “employer abusing you? Violating your civil rights? Meh, just walk across the street and get another job! If that one sucks, too, just walk next door and get hired again. What could possibly be the problem with that?”
Individuals should not be discriminated against for any reason - religious beliefs being one of them.
I also firmly believe that YOUR religious beliefs are YOURS and that you have no “right” to impose your beliefs on your employees or your employer and that if you are running a public business or working in a public accommodation, there may be times you need to check your beliefs at the time clock.
if you can’t do that- you may need to consider a different line of work - we all make these choices every single day.
What I mean that ‘religion’ should not be a protected class - I am not referring to the individual’s protection against discrimination - I am referring to the employer (or Gvt) using that protection to impose their beliefs, which I feel is happening more and more these days.
Hopefully that clears it up.
So then I can’t refuse to hire someone because I think they’re an asshole or that they’re stupid?
I ask because if you’re serious about your claim that nobody should be “discriminated against for any reason” then yes I shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate against people who are stupid or people who are assholes.
Respectfully, I think you took a position without thinking it through and also don’t seem to understand actually how anti-discrimination laws work or the rationale behind them.
Have I ever said that? I’m pretty sure I have not.
I support reasonable laws governing the workplace concerning such as issues as physical safety and health and protection from sexual harassment and violence. Physical dangers, harassment, and violence are actually bad for employees.
But buying health insurance for your employees that doesn’t cover all forms of birth control is not bad for employees. Neither is choosing not to buy health insurance at all.
I will also point out the obvious once again: anyone who doesn’t like an employer’s health insurance options is free to not take a job with that employer.
Yes, in Oregon. Thankfully, most of us don’t live there. Of course, Oregon is free to enact whatever goofy laws they like, and even to hire bureaucrats to try and enforce them. Shrug.
Some people are trying to make like there’s some sort of constitutionally protected civil right to gay wedding cakes, and there is not.
I asked a similar question in one of the numerous threads on this topic but I phrased it as: Can I legally prevent menstruating women (both workers and potential customers) from being inside my store as they are unclean?