Once again we await Jan Brewer’s keen analysis of a law she has read. After reading the AZ immigration law she declared it ‘both reasonable and constitutional’ it was found to be unreasonable and unconstitutional. Maybe her brilliant legal mind can get this one right before signing it…
Yes, this! My wedding cake had frosting roses on top, and the bride-and-groom figurine (which my husband festooned with eyeball ping-pong balls…don’t ask) was displayed on the table in front of the cake. The bakery had no idea who I was marrying, they were happy to take my money and make me a lovely wedding cake to my specifications - chocolate cake with pale blush and ivory frosting. I miss that bakery, they went out of business before our 10th anniversary.
If I were king of the world, no, there’d be no religious exemptions for anything. It’s all well and good to do these things on your own time, but when there’s real work to be done, put away childish things and do your stupid jobs.
They don’t have to know. They can make an assumption and act on it.
How they gonna know? Some guy walks in, their Black and Decker Gaydar Unit registers over 700 millieltons, they don’t have to serve him? If I came in and they told me they wouldn’t sell me a cake because I’m gay, I don’t know if I’d laugh, get mad or just stand there blinking in bewildered confusion.
“Hey, its me. Yeah, you too, but listen, I’m gonna put somebody on the phone here, wants to ask you if I’m gay. This isn’t funny, Alice, I’m trying to buy a cake here!..”
Just to clarify… does a reading of 1000 millieltons (1 elton) mean you’re flaming? What about, say, 500 mE’s? That’s, what, a Rock Hudson? :dubious:
Yes, this was my point as well. I don’t care what you believe, just don’t ask me to somehow “honor” your beliefs by letting you NOT DO YOUR JOB.
Well, historically, freedom of religion has been considered a “extrasuperduper privileged argument” in the country. I understand that you’re suggesting that (at least for the purposes of non-individuals) it should be limited to religious organizations engaged in devotional activities. That strikes me as an overly narrow view.
As to your second paragraph, that is why I’m uncomfortable with the notion of a corporation holding a religious belief (notwithstanding the fact that the fact that corporations are legal persons and have rights has been settled for a very long time). But that’s why you have the requirement that the corporation demonstrate that it has sincerely held religious beliefs. That requirement (which for individuals is almost meaningless in practice) has some teeth here. The reality is that I think it unlikely that a publicly traded corporation could ever have religious beliefs. But it is not at all difficult for me to believe that Mercy Ministries has religious beliefs (despite being a corporation and clearly being outside of your definition of a “actual religious organization”). I think this protection for an organization would likely be limited to religiously-motivated organizations (outside of those that you think qualify as “actual religious organizations”) and closely-held secular corporations. Frankly, I think it’s designed mostly to protect against the situation in which, for example, a photographer refuses to photograph a same-sex wedding and the suit is brought against the corporate entity.
Whether or not one is required to abandon one’s religious convictions in order to enter the public sphere is a source of plenty of debate, but I don’t think expanding it to include organizations whose religious beliefs can be demonstrated alters the balance much.
I’m certain you overlooked my question becuase of the tangent on notaries public, but I’m still curious why you think the law “is pretty much doomed once it hits a federal appeals court.”
The accommodations are based on the law that requires employers not to discriminate based on religion though. As such, they protect religious freedom, including freedom from religion. So, for example, a company can’t force an atheist to join a morning prayer.
And such accomodations are generally considered to be only incidental to the job. For instance, a Jew can usually do his job just fine while still wearing a Yarmulke.
Maybe that was her point - she is busy reading it, so everyone stop asking her what she’s going to do until she’s done reading it.
Morning prayer interferes with people doing their jobs. Wearing a yarmulke doesn’t. See what I’m getting at here? If you personally want to be religious, fine. The moment your being religious interferes with someone else, knock that shit off and save it for your own time.
No it doesn’t!
The employer defines the job. If the employer holds morning prayers, that IS part of the job.
But according to you, the employer could FORBID a Jew from wearing a yarmulke even though it doesn’t.
You’re way confused. These accommodations are precisely for things that don’t interfere with someone else or doing the job.
I am also interested in this analysis from boytyperanma. What, specifically, makes this law anathema in the federal decisional law context?
What if part of my job is wearing a uniform that includes a hat?
Then you can either wear the yarmulke under your uniform hat, or you can decide whether the uniform hat itself meets the same requirements as the yarmulke.
This should be taken as read, but let’s assume the yarmulke doesn’t fit under the hat and doesn’t meet the uniform requirement.
Then it is part of the job and can legitimately be forbidden by an employer.
Sh"t Igrot Moshe Y”D 4:11(3) says that if the rules of the job forbid it, then one can take the job and not wear the kippah, since wearing it is not a mitzvah. But if the job allows one to wear a regular hat or a uniform hat, then that’s what should be done. See also C”M 1:93 and O”C 4:2.
If I were king of the world, if the hat is necessary because of the job, such as a hard hat at a construction site, they would be strongly advised to figure out a way to make it work. If it’s a stupid paper hat like from goodburger than they can tell the manager to stuff it. Again, if I were king of the world.
An interesting recent case:
http://www.hrmorning.com/court-no-beard-policy-violates-religious-bias-law/
A firefighter said he has a beard for religious reasons. The fire dept. said no beards is a legitimate job requirement because of gas masks fitting properly.
(The court said its not because there’s a type of mask that works with beards, so he can keep his beard.)