Then they can take a job of equal or lesser quality elsewhere, or subsist on some combination of welfare, charity, and the generosity of family and friends.
To state the obvious, hiring is an agreement between employee and employer. Obviously whenever it occurs terms are agreed on which may not exactly match what the employee wants. For that matter, the same could be said of every relationship between two human beings. There is no right to stop other people from putting conditions on a relationship.
I disagree. The fact that people need jobs and jobs are sometimes hard to come by can place thos who can offer jobs in a position of superiority which can be exploited. Most western countries have implemented laws with the intention to prevent or at least limit such exploitation.
Example: If a male employer hires a female employee on the condition that she agrees to have sex with him once a week, that agreement would be considered void in most jurisdictions (and probably a felony too).
You may want to reread the thread then. I’ve repeatedly indicated that I fully acknowledge that right. That is one of the two rights I talk about when I’ve repeatedly spoken of two competng rights. Just because I acknowledge both rights and don’t come out where you do when weighing them does not mean I have no interest in either of them.
Looks like you have more rereading to do. Namely American History and the U.S. Constitution.
Then they have a choice to make. They might also have to choose between taking a job that doesn’t offer health insurance at all and not taking a job at all. This notion that job opportunities should never ask the individual to make choices where they have to give something up that they want is odd in the extreme.
Is there some application process for new symbols?
A legitimate religious ground would be one that passed the test laid out in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (for federal laws, that is). Assessing the claimant’s interpretation of the Bible isn’t part of that test, thankfully. A person’s religious beliefs are what they say they are.
Because there’s a compelling government interest in preventing such discrimination. In some states, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation isn’t prohibited. Religion is really orthogonal to this: in those states, you don’t need a religious reason to discriminate, and in the states where such discrimination is illegal, religious claims don’t allow you to violate the law.
That door has been open for centuries. due to the First Amendment. The metrics already exist: Employment Division vs. Smith and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act are notable examples.
They certainly can, yes. But that’s not the end of the process, it’s the beginning. In addition to having a sincere religious belief, it must be a) substantially burdened by the government activity, and b) the burden must not be furthering a compelling government interest and/or not be the least restrictive way to advance that interest.
Whatever the practitioner sincerely believes. Religious freedom is an individual matter, it’s not abrogated to one’s pastor, or other peoples’ interpretation of your holy books.
How is that lacking compassion. He merely outlined the choice that we all have. We either work and earn money or we depend on money given to us. And if we work, we choose between different job opportunities. That’s simple reality. What part of it do you object to or consider lacking compassion. It’s not compassionate or not compassionate. It’s a factual iteration of the options we all have.
This is America. We exist to make the lives of Americans better. We do not exist for you to make money from us. To the degree that it makes our lives better, we are willing to allow you to engage in commerce with Americans and to profit by that commerce.
Oh, you’d like to do that? Okay, fine. Just keep in mind that you have to abide by our regulations, and we will be happy to allow you to take advantage of the infrastructure and population of consumers that America can provide you. Be aware, one of those regulations is that you have to provide your service to Americans (including people we say can be in America).
What’s that? You want to serve some Americans and not others? Too bad. It doesn’t make the lives of Americans better to have some of our fellow Americans excluded. Go profit from some other existing infrastructure.
What’s that you say? You love America? Great! Provide your service to Americans. Your conscience prevents you from doing so? Sounds like a personal problem to me.
That seems reasonable. I think, in applying this standard to people who claim a religious basis to refuse service to a gay person (or, to be more pedantic, to refuse to serve a gay person in furtherance of their wedding plans), that there is no legitimate basis for relying on religious beliefs:
A baker is not substantially burdened by being legally obligated to bake a cake to someone who is willing to pay for it; baking cakes is what they have otherwise voluntarily chosen to do.
It is a compelling government interest to encourage commerce and prevent people from being denied services due to their identity.
There is not a more restrictive way to enforce this interest then to require somebody who opens the doors of their business to the public to actually accept members of the public without regard to their sexual orientation.
I’m not religious myself, but I find this attitude fairly astounding. It’s akin to forcing a devout Jew to work on the Sabbath.
Yes, they chose to bake cakes. But they also chose to adhere to a particular sert of religious beliefs. I think many of the posters here are having a hard time with this because they view religious beliefs to be silly, so “What’s the big deal.” For some people, religious beliefs are very serious things. And whether everyone likes them or not is not the point, they are protected. It was a foundational principle of the founding of the country and is enshrined in the Constitution.
I ask - as others have - what distinguishes gay wedding cakes from interracial wedding cakes. And what distinguishes gay hotel guests from black hotel guests. And so on.
[QUOTE=ITR Champion]
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?
[/QUOTE]
Oooh, I know! Explain if you were able to type that with a straight face after starting 5,000,000 threads complaining about Obamacare and/or demanding its immediate repeal.
I agree, and so do the courts. The problem is this map. In most states, it’s not illegal to discriminate in housing, employment, or public accommodation on the basis of sexual orientation (though some, like my state of Kentucky, have laws at the municipal level). So, a baker in Oregon who wishes to discriminate is out of luck, whether their motivation is religious or not. A baker in Texas who wishes to discriminate is free to do so, whether their motivation is religious or not. Thus, the focus on religious exemptions is misplaced: it’s state laws that are out of step, not the concept of free-exercise claims or the RFRA.
Yes, but the government (including the Supreme Court) has already determined that this protection does not apply in all cases (for example, it’s not lawful to deny service to interracial couples even if your religious beliefs mandate that interracial marriage is wrong or not legitimate marriage), so it seems reasonable to me that this would apply to gay marriages as well.
No it isn’t. This is an entirely inaccurate metaphor.
Their religious beliefs prohibit homosexuality. They are not being forced to be gay or to marry someone of the same sex. They are being forced to sell someone a cake in the same way they sell all their other customers a cake. In other words, they are being forced to treat their customers equally. At no point in the process are they being asked to violate their religious strictures.
Well that’s not insulting at all. :rolleyes:
One’s religious beliefs are protected, but that protection ends at the point it causes harm to others. And that’s also a foundational principle of the founding of the country and is enshrined in the Constitution.