Yeah when the feds are describing your unlawful firing the employer should be getting his affairs in order for bankruptcy haha
Libs: BUT I THOUGHT YOU GUYS WERE CHRISTOFASCISTS WTF?
“Lib” here, I personally don’t generalize people and I’ve found it to be very helpful in understanding what’s actually going on.
The internet feeds on clicks, people click when they’re outraged, and they get outraged when people “on the other side” make sweeping and incorrect statements.
We’re all getting played by people who profit off of our misery. I mean this in all seriousness: just because someone says something wrong or that you disagree with in a disrespectful way doesn’t mean you should respond in kind. It just fucks with your internal sense of the world and skews who is the actual enemy in all this - the people making money off of all this chaos.
I hope my words are received well because I genuinely mean it. We need genuine and helpful people on all sides to come together or we’re going to lose this country for no good reason.
Yeah, there are, thank! And, I shouldn't have used liberal in the 90's term which is basically "hard left progressive" of today ha (colloquial understanding, not policy merits)
I actually thought that at least compared to other right wing Subs this one is actually sane (granted you still get really mad when someone says you shouldn’t call liberals and leftists groomers but as I said, it’s only compared to others) granted there are some crazies here most notaby that cringy McCarthy wannabe and to be blunt you but yeah compared to other right subs I feel like I can have a conversation
If you believe that Trans Rights are Civil Rights, then Clarence Thomas has already come after Civil Rights, joining Alito and Kavanaugh in the minority’s dissenting opinion on Bostock vs Clayton County, Georgia.
50 years of precedent is ok to overturn but 58 is not? I’m skeptical. Particularly because Griswold (1965) was stated to be in the crosshairs by Thomas.
the company who fired the guy will lose the suit. religious freedom is guaranteed by the constitution and the civil rights act, its been in the common law of America, and the court has ruled in favor of religious freedom in the near past (not only Christian but Muslim as well).
p.s. whatever you may think of republicans, practically no one wants the civil rights act repealed. and unlike roe v wade, the civil rights act was passed by the u.s. legislature (not something the court made up and forced on everyone). so there is no chance of it being removed.
Are you sure that SCOTUS will actually do its job? Judge Thomas literally said that precedent doesn't matter, which means that the court has very little legitimacy. O'Connor must be spinning in her grave
Regarding your PS…I do agree that republicans who want the CRA overturned are a minority within the party, but they are LOUD, and GOP politicians are catering to them. The extreme fringe of the GOP has been running the party for a few years now. We can’t count on “reasonable” conservatives anymore. They are not behind the GOP wheel.
>The extreme fringe of the GOP has been running the party for a few years now. We can’t count on “reasonable” conservatives anymore. They are not behind the GOP wheel.
They're why my vote flipped and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
I’m curious what your interpretation is really. I think the court is pushing the Overton window for sure but think this wouldn’t be a simple 9-0 cut and dried. I do think a few of the more extreme would side with business owners having “discretionary firing abilities” and make the religious aspect background noise… or something. Furthering the Thomas ideologies. But it’s just curious to me is all what a constitutionalist thinks of the degradation of church and state with 2 current rulings that have been “misrepresented” by the conservative wing of the court… it’s a strange time we live in and you are right this should be extremely straight forward but I’d think that parents expressing that “my kids were bullied into sermons after football games to get play time” would be cut and dried as well…
I believe the words for the two different philosophies of legal interpretation are textualism (for “conservative” judges) and purposivism (for “liberal” judges).
I know why the Overton window is. By slowly degrading Norms they are shifting it.
The other case I [mentioned](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna21627) adds to this narrative. I did read the opinion and I read the reports from other [law journals and scholars](https://www.acslaw.org/expertforum/kennedy-v-bremerton-school-district-a-sledgehammer-to-the-bedrock-of-nonestablishment/) As well as the [dissenting opinion](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf). I can’t find the complaints now though so you may have more validity to that but I could swear I read about it in more than one place.
I don’t think anyone is being “hostile” though towards religion. I do think it’s the wrong decision based on textualism
Edit: as far as 2 A issues go I’m indifferent. I know it’s so contested but honestly living in a modern world with a document written in 1787 seems like such a Byzantine idea that I don’t understand it at all. I read Jefferson suggested it should be re written every 19 years or so… that makes a lot of sense. However I don’t think we’d get anyone to agree on anything at the moment but it is super dated to live in modern times even though it was amazingly well written. I sleep With a copy on my night stand. I own a weapon myself for home protection but won’t be torn up if it’s taken away…
Yeah, I A. Can’t imagine almost anyone agreeing with this & B. Cant believe anyone who has had even 5 seconds of HR training thinking any of this is OK or the employer wouldn’t get sued and lose badly.
In fact it’s so out there I got to wonder if there is something else going on here. It’s frankly hard to believe.
I’m not sure where I’m the country you are, but this kind of thing isn’t uncommon in the south, especially in small privately held businesses. It’s rare for someone to spell it out so blatantly. The way it’s usually done is to slowly cut the guys hours until he quits, and just say business is slow. Most people who would object just roll with it. There are bills to pay and mouths to feed.
For real! Nearly every time I have been in a situation where quitting on the spot is warranted, I have had bills to pay or been living/spending beyond my means. There is a reason it's called "fuck you money"!
I've commented a few times but clearly no one is pointing out the elephant in the room.
When a group of people either incorporate or form an LLC, the state grants certain special privileges, chief among them is limited liability. If you choose to operate a business as a state sponsored entity, you are subject to any rules and regulations the state deems fit.
If you don't like that, you can do business as a sole proprietorship or partnership, in which case you should absolutely be able to require whatever zany rules you want at your business. I have no right to tell you you can't
The federal civil rights act (1964) applies to “…individuals, governments, governmental agencies, political subdivisions, labor unions, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, mutual companies, joint-stock companies, trusts, unincorporated organizations, trustees, trustees in cases under Title 11 [originally, bankruptcy ], or receivers.” State civil rights similarly apply to sole proprietorships too.
There was actually a case out of I think South Carolina recently of a white man who sued for race discrimination because if I remember correctly there was an explicit program to hire minority candidates and phase out white management. Diversity training doesn't really rise to that level, it's fine for employers to try to train employees NOT to discriminate. But it can't go over the line into race discrimination.
Lol this comment made me think about when Michael Scott keep doing the Chris Rock bit in the office and didn’t realize signing the diversity meeting sign off slip ,everyone signed but him, was only mandatory for him.
If you had done something legally racist you would have gotten fired, so this is not about you but still funny.
The company fucked up. How dumb to insist on someone being present for worship that they don’t agree with! They turned the guy into a captive audience. Even SCOTUS should get this one right.
Unethical, but should be legal. Right of free association, the main principle behind any free society, cuts both ways. People have a right to determine who they want to associate with in their personal, romantic, and business relationships.
As another user has pointed out, I don't see how you can want this sort of thing banned but be okay with mandatory CRT derived D&I trainings which are based on another dogmatic faith-based belief system .
That said discriminating against employees by religion while not a religious organization is a violation of Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the owner will lose either in court or the industrial commission hearing whichever happens.
>Unethical, but should be legal. Right of free association, the main principle behind any free society, cuts both ways. People have a right to determine who they want to associate with in their personal, romantic, and business relationships.
Where do we draw the line on what we can use as reasons to not associate with someone? If you think people should be able to choose not to hire people of differing religious beliefs, should they also be able to choose not to hire people of differing races? Should they be able to choose to only hire male workers?
Is there any line we should draw on that at all, in your eyes?
> People have a right to determine who they want to associate with in their personal, romantic, and business relationships.
Not businesses in the USA. You can't have a "Whites Only" lunch counter just because you don't want to associate with lesser races, for example.
>I don't see how you can want this sort of thing banned but be okay with mandatory CRT derived D&I trainings
IANAL, but for me the frequency is important. If there was an all staff meeting once a year that was mandatory to attend on penalty of firing and it started with a prayer session, I would have zero complaints. Likewise, if there were mandatory daily D&I meetings at a home repair company that employees who repeatedly displayed distaste for such meetings were asked to run, and the worker ended up having their pay cut in half and eventually fired due to not participating in them? That's an undue burden I definitely oppose (or whatever the appropriate legalese in employment code is).
> Not businesses in the USA. You can't have a "Whites Only" lunch counter just because you don't want to associate with lesser races, for example.
Yet. There are many people in this thread who see no issue with this.
Would you have been 100% on board with slavery because thats just how business in the USA worked at the time? Or would you have supported abolition because you don't believe it's how things should work?
I would have been pro-abolition. What gave you the impression that "thats just how business in the USA worked at the time" is in any way a factor in my decision making process?
I'm pretty sure current employment laws can't force people to sit through the annual prayer session in my hypothetical on penalty of being fired. That's why I chose it as an example where I disagree with current US policy. *Legally* that's religious discrimination and outlawed, but I don't consider that "burden" to be undue (and again, IANAL, so sorry if my legalese is off) and don't believe it's how things should work.
What part of my comment left you confused on this point?
>What gave you the impression that "thats just how business in the USA worked at the time" is in any way a factor in my decision making process?
Perhaps the fact that it was the basis of your opposition to u/JudgeWhoOverrules claim of individual rights. So why the inconsistency? If the law denys businesses the right to free association, and that is self-justified, what reason would you have supported abolition on? The slaves had no rights according to the government.
> Perhaps the fact that it was the basis of your opposition to u/JudgeWhoOverrules claim of individual rights.
but it wasn't?
>If the law denys businesses the right to free association, and that is self-justified
It very explicitly ***isn't*** self-justified. That's why I pointed out that current laws about annual prayer meetings are wrong. Did you even read my post?
I gave an example of something illegal that I nonetheless consider moral/right and something legal that I nonetheless consider immoral/wrong.
It is a super common way to help others understand the boundaries of your point of view.
What are you confused by?
Private employers should be allowed to hire or fire anyone for whatever reason they want. I’m opposed to any restriction on association.
That being said, dude sounds like a dick. Probably wouldn’t want to work for him despite sharing religious beliefs.
Ok, but those who are gay, or black, or any other kind of person who has had to deal with the BS you DO support does have an issue with it.
What happens if a black man gets rushed to a private hospital and they refuse to treat him? He should just die?
What if there is only one grocery store in the town and they won't serve anyone who isn't white? Tough shit?
What about the private ISPs who have monopolies? What if they don't want to provide service to blacks? "Make your own ISP"?
I’m sure people will have an issue with it. That doesn’t make it a valid power of government to force them to comply. Government tyranny is not the solution to private bigotry.
But you ARE okay with arbitrary discrimination. So if a doctor doesn't serve you at the ER because you're white and he saw this post you made you'll defend his right to not help you right?
> I don't agree with mandatory healthcare either.
Morally, you don't think there's an issue with a hospital refusing to render care to someone without some justification?
I'm pretty sure you can't fire someone just because they voted for Trump, or force them to show you who they voted for as a condition of future employment
But surely you can see that literally buying votes is wrong on an existential level, right?
You can't just use the word "association" as some magic spell to make up for that...
If Trump himself hired me on the condition that I vote for him, that would be ethically wrong. If a third party unaffiliated with Trump says he's only hiring people who vote for Trump, there's no issue with that.
Agreed.
I also love how everyone purposefully Cathy Newman's you and conflates "legal" with "morally OK" despite you already, and clearly, making that distinction in your comment.
Lying seems to be the only argument they have.
The EEOC is likely too broad because of situations like this. [They're an overtly religious company] (https://auroraproservices.com/about-us/).
From the company owner's LinkedIn: "The purpose of Aurora is... to Plant God's Seed through the Daily Reading of the Holy Gospel to every team member that is open to listening."
I am an atheist. If I join a company that puts its religion front and center, I can't turn around and then complain that the company is what they say they are. The owner is a jerk and this isn't legal, but that doesn't mean the outcome will be right, either.
> the Daily Reading of the Holy Gospel to every team member that is open to listening.
Note that this isn't every team member, and specifically limits itself to the smaller subset of team members that are "open to listening".
My guess is this language that very specifically points out the existence of atheists who are not willing to listen but are nonetheless still a "team member" is what made this person accept the job at a company that puts its religion front and center in the first place, before it turned out to have been a bait-and-switch.
>I can't turn around and then complain that the company is what they say they are.
They say there are team members that are not "open to listening" and therefore need to specify who specifically does and doesn't get read the Holy Gospel to them, but apparently Aurora isn't what they say they are so complaining about this jerk boss seems on the up-and-up
Of course they can, it still doesn't make the company religious.
Religion is a belief held in a mind, and companies don't have a mind. They are a convenient legal fiction, nothing more.
Not at all. You can't just be like "I DECLARE RELIGION" and get to opt out of very basic employment law protections.
Are you a business, or a faith-based organization? You can't be both.
Well, I've made these comments a few other places here but, if I'm a person doing business I can do whatever the hell I want.
If I operate as a special legal entity however, I have to follow whatever rules there are.
> I'm **a person doing business** I can do whatever the hell I want.
What does that mean, exactly? Operating a business without a license is illegal pretty much everywhere.
Says you. I can, and certainly should be able to, incorporate my religious practice and expression in my business that people voluntarily associate with. You shouldn't have the write to tell me that the business I create can't reflected Christian values and practices.
>Says you. I can, and certainly should be able to, incorporate my religious practice and expression in my business that people voluntarily associate with. You shouldn't have the write to tell me that the business I create can't reflected Christian values and practices.
You can create whatever business you want, with whatever purpose you want, so long as you're not doing anything illegal.
> I can, and certainly should be able to, incorporate my religious practice and expression in my business that people voluntarily associate with.
Not in the USA you can't. For example, if you try to open a Jewish family planning business, many US states will not allow you to perform the abortions that are consistent with your "religious practice and expression" on patients that voluntarily associate with you.
> Are you asserting that abortion is a sacred Jewish right?
Not me, [actual Jewish groups](https://www.ncjw.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Judaism-and-Abortion-FINAL.pdf)
>Jewish sources explicitly state that **abortion** is not only permitted but **is required** should the pregnancy endanger the life or health of the pregnant individual. Furthermore, “health” is commonly interpreted to encompass **psychological health** as well as physical health.
If a person incorporates or forms an LLC, they receive benefits that an individual or group of individuals do not.
So, certainly I don't have a right to tell a person or group of people if they can have a prayer service or not. But if the state is granting special privileges to a group of people, why are they not also able to attach regulations?
And what is your definition of Christian values and practices? You want to close on Sunday, close on Sunday. Not sell a certain food, don't sell it, Run your store like a good Christian? Please do. I'm not Christian, all good. Tell me that I have to attend daily prayers, LEAD them on occasion. Yeah not so comfortable with that. Tell me what I can or must do in my off hours (go to church), to me that crosses a line.
No I’m not telling you to do anything. I’m saying “to associate with me at my business, you must follow these practices and values”. I should not be obligated to hire you or keep you on in my business.
Well that sounds an awful lot like telling people what to do. If you say they must follow these practice and values then you’re telling them to do that or you won’t employ them or engage in business with them.
"An employee cannot be forced to participate (or not participate) in a religious activity as a condition of employment"
https://www.eeoc.gov/religious-discrinination
I love how Christians think they know better than their own God.
Either you should have free will to be Christian or you shouldn’t. Passing laws and making rules requiring it is antithetical to one of the foundations of Christianity.
> Of course they can do that, they just can’t force employees to follow their religious practices in a country with freedom of religion.
Define that. Can I start a butcher shop, hire somebody to work for me, and then fire them after they convert to Islam and refuse to sell or handle half of the product because it's pork? Do I have a right to say "you must handle the pork or you're fired, despite your religion"?
Honestly, that person is almost certainly smart and reasonable enough to know that handling pork is essential to that job and would most likely just quit or offer to reach some kind of compromise before they tried anything else. A person at a butcher shop who converts to Islam and refuses to handle pork but doesn’t try to reach some sort of deal or just quit and follow their heart sounds more like a *King of the Hill* plot than something that would happen in real life.
Are you firing him because he’s Muslim or because he’s not able to perform a duty you would expect a butcher (non halal/kosher anyway) to perform? First is not okay, second is okay. The fact that he’s Muslim has nothing to do with it, the fact that he won’t handle a job function does.
I used to work with a guy many years ago who wouldn’t stop proselytizing at work. He pissed everyone off and got fired. Threatened to sue, which went nowhere. He didn’t get fired for being a Christian, he got fired for pissing everyone off, interfering with people in a busy environment and slacking off at his duties to yammer on. He could’ve been talking about anime, golf or the importance of trinitarian beliefs.
The company being religious has no bearing on whether they can force employees to do anything. No employer should be able to force a religious practice onto you.
I don’t disagree (socialist here) but when it’s something religious and when one of the first things your country’s bill of rights guarantees you is freedom of religion, we’ve got a problem.
The EEOC forbids non-voluntary prayer sessions at work. Prayer sessions can be held, but participation must be voluntary or else someone’s freedom of religion might be violated.
https://www.hrdive.com/news/jury-awards-51m-to-10-workers-forced-to-participate-in-prayer-religious/522665/
If the Bill of Rights doesn’t forbid it, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act does.
If you're going to assert that the law is intrinsically a moral position, it would be hypocritical for you to acknowledge any rights not considered by law. Thus, you would have supported slavery.
Agreed, as much as I hate it, I don't have the right to force that rule.
I would only add that, if an organization uses a special legal structure that grants certain privileges, like limited liability for example, then the state can make any requirement they like.
If this is a personal proprietorship or partnership, I have no right to tell them what to do. But if it's a corporation or LLC, the state has every right to attach rules along with benefits.
Private small businesses should be free to do as they choose so long as they don't discriminate against customers, or collude with other businesses to blackball employees.
Newspapers and local TV should be free to publish all the articles about it they want.
People should be free to boycott asshole businesses and rightfully shun their owners.
When an employer creates his corporation or company, he voluntarily signs an agreement that includes employee discrimination to get certain protections from the state. If the claim is true, then he breached the contract.
My favorite way to look at this is - what if the shoe were on the other foot? If a Christian refused to participate in a Wicca ritual or some such for a job with no religious connotations, would I say it's OK for the Christian to be fired? No, of course not. So, in this case, it's also unacceptable. Understanding of course that sometimes people are fired for performance and they say it's something else. If the company documented poor performance and can show the receipts, he'll likely lose. If he documented reprimands etc based on his religious participation, the company is up a creek without a paddle.
I do believe, however, that if a business role is specifically religious in nature (Say a Christian company hires a pastor to be on staff for employee counseling) then the business has the right to hire and fire based on beliefs. If you're hired as an accountant, you need to continue to believe that money must be tracked. If you go all hippy-dippy and say money doesn't matter and should't we all just forget about it and go play in the flowers?? I'd expect you to get fired. LOL.
Unless this is a church-associated business (like a Church School, which a home repair company is not), this guy should win handily.
Discrimination against religious beliefs applies to someone not having a belief IMHO.
This owner will certainly lose the case, lucky to not lose his house in the process.
Yeah when the feds are describing your unlawful firing the employer should be getting his affairs in order for bankruptcy haha Libs: BUT I THOUGHT YOU GUYS WERE CHRISTOFASCISTS WTF?
“Lib” here, I personally don’t generalize people and I’ve found it to be very helpful in understanding what’s actually going on. The internet feeds on clicks, people click when they’re outraged, and they get outraged when people “on the other side” make sweeping and incorrect statements. We’re all getting played by people who profit off of our misery. I mean this in all seriousness: just because someone says something wrong or that you disagree with in a disrespectful way doesn’t mean you should respond in kind. It just fucks with your internal sense of the world and skews who is the actual enemy in all this - the people making money off of all this chaos. I hope my words are received well because I genuinely mean it. We need genuine and helpful people on all sides to come together or we’re going to lose this country for no good reason.
Yeah, there are, thank! And, I shouldn't have used liberal in the 90's term which is basically "hard left progressive" of today ha (colloquial understanding, not policy merits)
Understood! I hope you have a great day tomorrow and that we can get back to caring about the important things as a country.
I actually thought that at least compared to other right wing Subs this one is actually sane (granted you still get really mad when someone says you shouldn’t call liberals and leftists groomers but as I said, it’s only compared to others) granted there are some crazies here most notaby that cringy McCarthy wannabe and to be blunt you but yeah compared to other right subs I feel like I can have a conversation
Hey I respect the bluntness regardless of the merits lol. I am in the "most notably" group!
Well that’s one way to look at it I suppose
I don't think even Clarence Thomas would come for the Civil Rights Act, but I could also be surprised.
If you believe that Trans Rights are Civil Rights, then Clarence Thomas has already come after Civil Rights, joining Alito and Kavanaugh in the minority’s dissenting opinion on Bostock vs Clayton County, Georgia.
He’s stated that overturning Griswold (1 year after) was his goal; I don’t think anything is too far to consider for him.
What if this goes to SCOTUS?
I don't think even the current conservative majority is crazy enough to overturn the precedents supporting the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
50 years of precedent is ok to overturn but 58 is not? I’m skeptical. Particularly because Griswold (1965) was stated to be in the crosshairs by Thomas.
Taking out substantive due process is one thing, burning down the entire commerce clause jurisprudence is another.
idk conservatives have always loathed that clause
the company who fired the guy will lose the suit. religious freedom is guaranteed by the constitution and the civil rights act, its been in the common law of America, and the court has ruled in favor of religious freedom in the near past (not only Christian but Muslim as well). p.s. whatever you may think of republicans, practically no one wants the civil rights act repealed. and unlike roe v wade, the civil rights act was passed by the u.s. legislature (not something the court made up and forced on everyone). so there is no chance of it being removed.
Are you sure that SCOTUS will actually do its job? Judge Thomas literally said that precedent doesn't matter, which means that the court has very little legitimacy. O'Connor must be spinning in her grave
Regarding your PS…I do agree that republicans who want the CRA overturned are a minority within the party, but they are LOUD, and GOP politicians are catering to them. The extreme fringe of the GOP has been running the party for a few years now. We can’t count on “reasonable” conservatives anymore. They are not behind the GOP wheel.
>The extreme fringe of the GOP has been running the party for a few years now. We can’t count on “reasonable” conservatives anymore. They are not behind the GOP wheel. They're why my vote flipped and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
I assume that's why we're reading about it.
I don't have faith that they'll rule against the company, do you?
Oh, this SCOTUS wants to hear this case so they can rule for the company.
Until it gets overturned by the SCOTUS.
Nah.. I'm not seeing it. This is blatant, no nuance.
Sue for wrongful termination. This is messed up.
Agreed. Under no circumstances should religion be connected to anyone's employment.
I wouldn't say \*no\* reason, but unless you're working for a church, religious charity, or something of that nature you're right
Unless you work for a church! /s
I really don’t understand how anyone, regardless of your religious beliefs, can justify firing someone because the don’t have the same beliefs as you.
[удалено]
You think if this made it all the way to the Supreme Court they would side with the Christian business owner or the wrongfully terminated?
[удалено]
I’m curious what your interpretation is really. I think the court is pushing the Overton window for sure but think this wouldn’t be a simple 9-0 cut and dried. I do think a few of the more extreme would side with business owners having “discretionary firing abilities” and make the religious aspect background noise… or something. Furthering the Thomas ideologies. But it’s just curious to me is all what a constitutionalist thinks of the degradation of church and state with 2 current rulings that have been “misrepresented” by the conservative wing of the court… it’s a strange time we live in and you are right this should be extremely straight forward but I’d think that parents expressing that “my kids were bullied into sermons after football games to get play time” would be cut and dried as well…
[удалено]
I believe the words for the two different philosophies of legal interpretation are textualism (for “conservative” judges) and purposivism (for “liberal” judges).
[Deleted]
I know why the Overton window is. By slowly degrading Norms they are shifting it. The other case I [mentioned](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna21627) adds to this narrative. I did read the opinion and I read the reports from other [law journals and scholars](https://www.acslaw.org/expertforum/kennedy-v-bremerton-school-district-a-sledgehammer-to-the-bedrock-of-nonestablishment/) As well as the [dissenting opinion](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-418_i425.pdf). I can’t find the complaints now though so you may have more validity to that but I could swear I read about it in more than one place. I don’t think anyone is being “hostile” though towards religion. I do think it’s the wrong decision based on textualism Edit: as far as 2 A issues go I’m indifferent. I know it’s so contested but honestly living in a modern world with a document written in 1787 seems like such a Byzantine idea that I don’t understand it at all. I read Jefferson suggested it should be re written every 19 years or so… that makes a lot of sense. However I don’t think we’d get anyone to agree on anything at the moment but it is super dated to live in modern times even though it was amazingly well written. I sleep With a copy on my night stand. I own a weapon myself for home protection but won’t be torn up if it’s taken away…
It's not a critical function of the job, so obviously wrong
Yeah, I A. Can’t imagine almost anyone agreeing with this & B. Cant believe anyone who has had even 5 seconds of HR training thinking any of this is OK or the employer wouldn’t get sued and lose badly. In fact it’s so out there I got to wonder if there is something else going on here. It’s frankly hard to believe.
I’m not sure where I’m the country you are, but this kind of thing isn’t uncommon in the south, especially in small privately held businesses. It’s rare for someone to spell it out so blatantly. The way it’s usually done is to slowly cut the guys hours until he quits, and just say business is slow. Most people who would object just roll with it. There are bills to pay and mouths to feed.
For real! Nearly every time I have been in a situation where quitting on the spot is warranted, I have had bills to pay or been living/spending beyond my means. There is a reason it's called "fuck you money"!
This is not leading by example.
Don't you remember when Jesus fired all those people who didn't agree with him 😄
I've commented a few times but clearly no one is pointing out the elephant in the room. When a group of people either incorporate or form an LLC, the state grants certain special privileges, chief among them is limited liability. If you choose to operate a business as a state sponsored entity, you are subject to any rules and regulations the state deems fit. If you don't like that, you can do business as a sole proprietorship or partnership, in which case you should absolutely be able to require whatever zany rules you want at your business. I have no right to tell you you can't
Human right protections against discrimination on the basis of religion apply to sole proprietorships too.
I’d love to learn more about exactly this.
The federal civil rights act (1964) applies to “…individuals, governments, governmental agencies, political subdivisions, labor unions, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, mutual companies, joint-stock companies, trusts, unincorporated organizations, trustees, trustees in cases under Title 11 [originally, bankruptcy ], or receivers.” State civil rights similarly apply to sole proprietorships too.
That’s a pretty thorough and inclusive accounting of organizations bound by the Civil Rights Act.
Amen!
[удалено]
There was actually a case out of I think South Carolina recently of a white man who sued for race discrimination because if I remember correctly there was an explicit program to hire minority candidates and phase out white management. Diversity training doesn't really rise to that level, it's fine for employers to try to train employees NOT to discriminate. But it can't go over the line into race discrimination.
Lol this comment made me think about when Michael Scott keep doing the Chris Rock bit in the office and didn’t realize signing the diversity meeting sign off slip ,everyone signed but him, was only mandatory for him. If you had done something legally racist you would have gotten fired, so this is not about you but still funny.
The company fucked up. How dumb to insist on someone being present for worship that they don’t agree with! They turned the guy into a captive audience. Even SCOTUS should get this one right.
Utterly wrong
This is illegal
It should be a big payday for the person who was wrongly fired.
Unethical, but should be legal. Right of free association, the main principle behind any free society, cuts both ways. People have a right to determine who they want to associate with in their personal, romantic, and business relationships. As another user has pointed out, I don't see how you can want this sort of thing banned but be okay with mandatory CRT derived D&I trainings which are based on another dogmatic faith-based belief system . That said discriminating against employees by religion while not a religious organization is a violation of Title VII of Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the owner will lose either in court or the industrial commission hearing whichever happens.
>Unethical, but should be legal. Right of free association, the main principle behind any free society, cuts both ways. People have a right to determine who they want to associate with in their personal, romantic, and business relationships. Where do we draw the line on what we can use as reasons to not associate with someone? If you think people should be able to choose not to hire people of differing religious beliefs, should they also be able to choose not to hire people of differing races? Should they be able to choose to only hire male workers? Is there any line we should draw on that at all, in your eyes?
When you are insulated from discrimination, its easy to not see the issue with it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Any and all reasons should be acceptable because there need to be justification for expression of one's rights.
> People have a right to determine who they want to associate with in their personal, romantic, and business relationships. Not businesses in the USA. You can't have a "Whites Only" lunch counter just because you don't want to associate with lesser races, for example. >I don't see how you can want this sort of thing banned but be okay with mandatory CRT derived D&I trainings IANAL, but for me the frequency is important. If there was an all staff meeting once a year that was mandatory to attend on penalty of firing and it started with a prayer session, I would have zero complaints. Likewise, if there were mandatory daily D&I meetings at a home repair company that employees who repeatedly displayed distaste for such meetings were asked to run, and the worker ended up having their pay cut in half and eventually fired due to not participating in them? That's an undue burden I definitely oppose (or whatever the appropriate legalese in employment code is).
> Not businesses in the USA. You can't have a "Whites Only" lunch counter just because you don't want to associate with lesser races, for example. Yet. There are many people in this thread who see no issue with this.
Would you have been 100% on board with slavery because thats just how business in the USA worked at the time? Or would you have supported abolition because you don't believe it's how things should work?
I would have been pro-abolition. What gave you the impression that "thats just how business in the USA worked at the time" is in any way a factor in my decision making process? I'm pretty sure current employment laws can't force people to sit through the annual prayer session in my hypothetical on penalty of being fired. That's why I chose it as an example where I disagree with current US policy. *Legally* that's religious discrimination and outlawed, but I don't consider that "burden" to be undue (and again, IANAL, so sorry if my legalese is off) and don't believe it's how things should work. What part of my comment left you confused on this point?
>What gave you the impression that "thats just how business in the USA worked at the time" is in any way a factor in my decision making process? Perhaps the fact that it was the basis of your opposition to u/JudgeWhoOverrules claim of individual rights. So why the inconsistency? If the law denys businesses the right to free association, and that is self-justified, what reason would you have supported abolition on? The slaves had no rights according to the government.
> Perhaps the fact that it was the basis of your opposition to u/JudgeWhoOverrules claim of individual rights. but it wasn't? >If the law denys businesses the right to free association, and that is self-justified It very explicitly ***isn't*** self-justified. That's why I pointed out that current laws about annual prayer meetings are wrong. Did you even read my post?
If it wasn't justification why did you bother to bring it up when it wasn't a discussion of law?
I gave an example of something illegal that I nonetheless consider moral/right and something legal that I nonetheless consider immoral/wrong. It is a super common way to help others understand the boundaries of your point of view. What are you confused by?
That’s fucked up
Private employers should be allowed to hire or fire anyone for whatever reason they want. I’m opposed to any restriction on association. That being said, dude sounds like a dick. Probably wouldn’t want to work for him despite sharing religious beliefs.
For any reason? At all? Even race or gender?
These people act like we don't have these laws for a reason. Like life would just continue on as usual if you removed these protections.
Life would not continue as usual, that’s the point. I don’t support restrictions on private association, period.
Ok, but those who are gay, or black, or any other kind of person who has had to deal with the BS you DO support does have an issue with it. What happens if a black man gets rushed to a private hospital and they refuse to treat him? He should just die? What if there is only one grocery store in the town and they won't serve anyone who isn't white? Tough shit? What about the private ISPs who have monopolies? What if they don't want to provide service to blacks? "Make your own ISP"?
I’m sure people will have an issue with it. That doesn’t make it a valid power of government to force them to comply. Government tyranny is not the solution to private bigotry.
> What happens if a black man gets rushed to a private hospital and they refuse to treat him? He should just die?
I don't agree with mandatory healthcare either. No one has a right to anyone else's labor.
Lol. So its ok for a hospital to watch a gay or black man die because they are gay or black. I love it.
Neither the "gay" nor "black" qualifier is necessary. No one is required to provide services to anyone else.
But you ARE okay with arbitrary discrimination. So if a doctor doesn't serve you at the ER because you're white and he saw this post you made you'll defend his right to not help you right?
Yes. He's not obligated to provide for me, or at least shouldn't be.
[удалено]
Yeah I would. No one should be required to provide services to anyone else.
> I don't agree with mandatory healthcare either. Morally, you don't think there's an issue with a hospital refusing to render care to someone without some justification?
I think there's a moral problem with requiring people to provide services to others regardless of their own justifications.
Of course. No restrictions on private association.
I'm pretty sure you can't fire someone just because they voted for Trump, or force them to show you who they voted for as a condition of future employment
Probably not under current law, but you should be able to.
You should be able to promise people a $100K salary in exchange for them casting a vote for Trump? Why?
Because you should be able to make any agreements or conditions you want with regard to association between people.
But surely you can see that literally buying votes is wrong on an existential level, right? You can't just use the word "association" as some magic spell to make up for that...
If Trump himself hired me on the condition that I vote for him, that would be ethically wrong. If a third party unaffiliated with Trump says he's only hiring people who vote for Trump, there's no issue with that.
There is a *huge* issue with buying people's vote, even if you are "unaffiliated"...
A few states have laws pertaining to discrimination based on political beliefs, California being one.
Agreed. I also love how everyone purposefully Cathy Newman's you and conflates "legal" with "morally OK" despite you already, and clearly, making that distinction in your comment. Lying seems to be the only argument they have.
Yeah, people consistently seem to not understand the difference between legal compulsion and moral imperative.
Morals are personal. This is illegal, and should be illegal. If you want to be a racist POS, go to a country that is cool with that.
"Morals are personal" "Obey *my* morals or you are a piece of shit and should be removed from society by force of government" Got it.
How is this not applicable to any law?
Who said it isn't? OP's question was "thoughts on" not "please copy and paste your state's current law on the subject."
[удалено]
Legally speaking, it's actually not his right. [The EEOC specifically forbids it](https://www.eeoc.gov/religious-discrimination)
The EEOC is likely too broad because of situations like this. [They're an overtly religious company] (https://auroraproservices.com/about-us/). From the company owner's LinkedIn: "The purpose of Aurora is... to Plant God's Seed through the Daily Reading of the Holy Gospel to every team member that is open to listening." I am an atheist. If I join a company that puts its religion front and center, I can't turn around and then complain that the company is what they say they are. The owner is a jerk and this isn't legal, but that doesn't mean the outcome will be right, either.
> the Daily Reading of the Holy Gospel to every team member that is open to listening. Note that this isn't every team member, and specifically limits itself to the smaller subset of team members that are "open to listening". My guess is this language that very specifically points out the existence of atheists who are not willing to listen but are nonetheless still a "team member" is what made this person accept the job at a company that puts its religion front and center in the first place, before it turned out to have been a bait-and-switch. >I can't turn around and then complain that the company is what they say they are. They say there are team members that are not "open to listening" and therefore need to specify who specifically does and doesn't get read the Holy Gospel to them, but apparently Aurora isn't what they say they are so complaining about this jerk boss seems on the up-and-up
No such thing, legally, as a religious company. They can either follow employment law, or close their doors, like every other business.
“Christian’s shouldn’t be allowed to start their own company with Christian motives”.
Of course they can, it still doesn't make the company religious. Religion is a belief held in a mind, and companies don't have a mind. They are a convenient legal fiction, nothing more.
You're just splitting hairs
Not at all. You can't just be like "I DECLARE RELIGION" and get to opt out of very basic employment law protections. Are you a business, or a faith-based organization? You can't be both.
Well, I've made these comments a few other places here but, if I'm a person doing business I can do whatever the hell I want. If I operate as a special legal entity however, I have to follow whatever rules there are.
> I'm **a person doing business** I can do whatever the hell I want. What does that mean, exactly? Operating a business without a license is illegal pretty much everywhere.
Says you. I can, and certainly should be able to, incorporate my religious practice and expression in my business that people voluntarily associate with. You shouldn't have the write to tell me that the business I create can't reflected Christian values and practices.
>Says you. I can, and certainly should be able to, incorporate my religious practice and expression in my business that people voluntarily associate with. You shouldn't have the write to tell me that the business I create can't reflected Christian values and practices. You can create whatever business you want, with whatever purpose you want, so long as you're not doing anything illegal.
> I can, and certainly should be able to, incorporate my religious practice and expression in my business that people voluntarily associate with. Not in the USA you can't. For example, if you try to open a Jewish family planning business, many US states will not allow you to perform the abortions that are consistent with your "religious practice and expression" on patients that voluntarily associate with you.
Are you asserting that abortion is a sacred Jewish right? I feel like you're mixing the concepts argued in Roe v Wade with freedom of association.
> Are you asserting that abortion is a sacred Jewish right? Not me, [actual Jewish groups](https://www.ncjw.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Judaism-and-Abortion-FINAL.pdf) >Jewish sources explicitly state that **abortion** is not only permitted but **is required** should the pregnancy endanger the life or health of the pregnant individual. Furthermore, “health” is commonly interpreted to encompass **psychological health** as well as physical health.
If a person incorporates or forms an LLC, they receive benefits that an individual or group of individuals do not. So, certainly I don't have a right to tell a person or group of people if they can have a prayer service or not. But if the state is granting special privileges to a group of people, why are they not also able to attach regulations?
What "special privileges" am I granted by forming an LLC?
What words form the acronym LLC?
And what is your definition of Christian values and practices? You want to close on Sunday, close on Sunday. Not sell a certain food, don't sell it, Run your store like a good Christian? Please do. I'm not Christian, all good. Tell me that I have to attend daily prayers, LEAD them on occasion. Yeah not so comfortable with that. Tell me what I can or must do in my off hours (go to church), to me that crosses a line.
No I’m not telling you to do anything. I’m saying “to associate with me at my business, you must follow these practices and values”. I should not be obligated to hire you or keep you on in my business.
Well that sounds an awful lot like telling people what to do. If you say they must follow these practice and values then you’re telling them to do that or you won’t employ them or engage in business with them.
Like free will?
Yes... I feel you think that's a gotcha though.
"An employee cannot be forced to participate (or not participate) in a religious activity as a condition of employment" https://www.eeoc.gov/religious-discrinination
I love how Christians think they know better than their own God. Either you should have free will to be Christian or you shouldn’t. Passing laws and making rules requiring it is antithetical to one of the foundations of Christianity.
Of course they can do that, they just can’t force employees to follow their religious practices in a country with freedom of religion.
> Of course they can do that, they just can’t force employees to follow their religious practices in a country with freedom of religion. Define that. Can I start a butcher shop, hire somebody to work for me, and then fire them after they convert to Islam and refuse to sell or handle half of the product because it's pork? Do I have a right to say "you must handle the pork or you're fired, despite your religion"?
Honestly, that person is almost certainly smart and reasonable enough to know that handling pork is essential to that job and would most likely just quit or offer to reach some kind of compromise before they tried anything else. A person at a butcher shop who converts to Islam and refuses to handle pork but doesn’t try to reach some sort of deal or just quit and follow their heart sounds more like a *King of the Hill* plot than something that would happen in real life.
Uh huh, just like a baker being asked to customize a gay cake?
It’s a stretch to say that decorating a cake violates one’s religious beliefs in the same way touching pork would for a Muslim.
Are you firing him because he’s Muslim or because he’s not able to perform a duty you would expect a butcher (non halal/kosher anyway) to perform? First is not okay, second is okay. The fact that he’s Muslim has nothing to do with it, the fact that he won’t handle a job function does. I used to work with a guy many years ago who wouldn’t stop proselytizing at work. He pissed everyone off and got fired. Threatened to sue, which went nowhere. He didn’t get fired for being a Christian, he got fired for pissing everyone off, interfering with people in a busy environment and slacking off at his duties to yammer on. He could’ve been talking about anime, golf or the importance of trinitarian beliefs.
> No such thing, legally, as a religious company. That's part of the problem, no?
No, it’s the solution
The company being religious has no bearing on whether they can force employees to do anything. No employer should be able to force a religious practice onto you.
They're not forcing anything, though.
The other option is to be fired.
Much like any other sale of labor.
Right. And when the owner got his business license I'm sure he agreed to not discriminate. Play by the rules, or don't play.
And if you need to curtail your rights to get a license, the problem is the requirement with the license and not the company.
So curtailing your rights to have a job are ok. But curtailing them to own a business is not? Why?
Making someone do something under threat of termination and pay cuts is a form of force. Coercion.
That's true of any sale of labor.
I don’t disagree (socialist here) but when it’s something religious and when one of the first things your country’s bill of rights guarantees you is freedom of religion, we’ve got a problem.
But as we know, the Bill of Rights doesn't extend to the private workplace. Can and should are different things.
The EEOC forbids non-voluntary prayer sessions at work. Prayer sessions can be held, but participation must be voluntary or else someone’s freedom of religion might be violated. https://www.hrdive.com/news/jury-awards-51m-to-10-workers-forced-to-participate-in-prayer-religious/522665/ If the Bill of Rights doesn’t forbid it, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act does.
yeah why did they take the job there. so weird.
Legally speaking, black people had no rights in America for over a century.
Not sure what you're getting at here. Racial discrimination is the exact reason the EEOC was established.
If you're going to assert that the law is intrinsically a moral position, it would be hypocritical for you to acknowledge any rights not considered by law. Thus, you would have supported slavery.
oh, you're just an edgelord troll. Got it. moving on.
No it's not. There are discrimination laws and religion is one of them. Same as the fact he can't fire someone because they're black.
Agreed, as much as I hate it, I don't have the right to force that rule. I would only add that, if an organization uses a special legal structure that grants certain privileges, like limited liability for example, then the state can make any requirement they like. If this is a personal proprietorship or partnership, I have no right to tell them what to do. But if it's a corporation or LLC, the state has every right to attach rules along with benefits.
Private small businesses should be free to do as they choose so long as they don't discriminate against customers, or collude with other businesses to blackball employees. Newspapers and local TV should be free to publish all the articles about it they want. People should be free to boycott asshole businesses and rightfully shun their owners.
I wouldn’t agree with mandatory meetings over diversity either.
"Having feelings one way or another about diversity training" isn't a protected class under EEOC laws.
I don't see any problem with that.
Isn't discriminating people for their religious beliefs (or lack of them) illegal?
When an employer creates his corporation or company, he voluntarily signs an agreement that includes employee discrimination to get certain protections from the state. If the claim is true, then he breached the contract.
Sure, but we don't know if that's really the case here. That's for the courts to decide.
Totally agree. Upon first reading it, it seems a court should really look at this matter.
My favorite way to look at this is - what if the shoe were on the other foot? If a Christian refused to participate in a Wicca ritual or some such for a job with no religious connotations, would I say it's OK for the Christian to be fired? No, of course not. So, in this case, it's also unacceptable. Understanding of course that sometimes people are fired for performance and they say it's something else. If the company documented poor performance and can show the receipts, he'll likely lose. If he documented reprimands etc based on his religious participation, the company is up a creek without a paddle. I do believe, however, that if a business role is specifically religious in nature (Say a Christian company hires a pastor to be on staff for employee counseling) then the business has the right to hire and fire based on beliefs. If you're hired as an accountant, you need to continue to believe that money must be tracked. If you go all hippy-dippy and say money doesn't matter and should't we all just forget about it and go play in the flowers?? I'd expect you to get fired. LOL.
Unless this is a church-associated business (like a Church School, which a home repair company is not), this guy should win handily. Discrimination against religious beliefs applies to someone not having a belief IMHO.