So, we can arrest Kim Davis now, right?

"...Under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act, both public and private employers have a duty to exempt religious employees from generally applicable work rules, so long as this won’t create an “undue hardship,” meaning more than a modest cost, on the employer. If the employees can be accommodated in a way that would let the job still get done without much burden on the employer, coworkers, and customers — for instance by switching the employee’s assignments with another employee or by otherwise slightly changing the job duties — then the employer must accommodate them. (The Muslim flight attendant I mentioned above, for instance, claims that she has always been able to work out arrangements under which the other flight attendant serves the alcohol instead of her.)

Thus, for instance, in all the cases I mentioned in the numbered list above, the religious objectors got an accommodation, whether in court or as a result of the employer’s settling a lawsuit brought by the EEOC. Likewise, the EEOC is currently litigating a case in which it claims that a trucking company must accommodate a Muslim employee’s religious objections to transporting alcohol, and the court has indeed concluded that the employer had a duty to accommodate such objections. But if the accommodation would have been quite difficult or expensive (beyond the inevitable cost that always come when rearranging tasks), then the employer wouldn’t have had to provide it...."
 
BedellBrave said:
Yes, those are two options. I'm in favor of additional ones. You aren't. I'm for more choice. You aren't. I'm for reasonable accommodation. You aren't. I'm for giving latitude in keeping with the way we've done things in the past. You aren't. I'm for tolerating such. You aren't.
Click to expand...

correct

i am for people being treated equal, you aren't

you would rather support bigots that use religion as an excuse, i am not

i don't tolerate racist views of people in power, you do

if the old way is dumb i say change it, you like the dumb way

i never think Sharia law had a chance to come here but it seems like you could be on the side to argue for it if Muslims want it since that court should be higher than ours
 
goldfly said:
correct

i am for people being treated equal, you aren't
you would rather support bigots that use religion as an excuse, i am not
i don't tolerate racist views of people in power, you do
if the old way is dumb i say change it, you like the dumb way

i never think Sharia law had a chance to come here but it seems like you could be on the side to argue for it if Muslims want it since that court should be higher than ours
Click to expand...

I'm for Article VII of the federal Civil Rights Acts and applicable RFRAs. You are only for the application of them for those you agree with. I'm for them even for those I disagree with. I am also for not mischaracterizing them or calling them cunts, bimbos, sluts, bigots, or what have you - generally, though I admit in my weaker moments I slip.
 
"...The government is barred by the Free Exercise Clause from discriminating based on religion, but the government has no constitutional duty to give religious objectors special exemptions from generally applicable rules. Maybe it (and private employers) shouldn’t have such a statutory duty, either. But my point so far has been simply to describe the American legal rule as it actually is, and as it has been for over 40 years (since the religious accommodation provisions were enacted in the 1972 amendments to Title VII).

Once we see this rule, we can also make some practical observations about it:

1. The rule requires judgments of degree. Some accommodations are relatively cheap (again, always realizing that any accommodation involves some burden on employers), while other are more expensive. The courts have to end up drawing some fuzzy line between them. Maybe that’s a bad idea, but that’s what Congress set up with the “reasonable accommodation” requirement. So if you want to argue that one religious objector shouldn’t get the relatively easy accommodation she wants, you can’t do that by analogy to another claim where the accommodation would be very expensive.

2. The rule turns on the specific facts present in a particular workplace. An accommodation can be very expensive when the objecting employee is the only one at the job site who can do a task, but relatively cheap when there are lots of other employees. It can be very expensive when all the other employees also raise the same objection, but relatively cheap when the other employees are just fine with doing the task.

Again, maybe that’s a bad rule, but it’s the rule Congress created. And if you want to argue that one religious objector shouldn’t get an accommodation that’s easy at the objector’s job site, you can’t do that by pointing out that the accommodation would be expensive at other job sites.

3. The rule accepts the risk of insincere objections. Of course, when sincere religious objectors can get an exemption, others can ask for the same exemption even just for convenience rather than from religious belief. That’s not much of a problem for many exemption requests, since most people have no personal, self-interested reasons not to transport alcohol on their trucks, or raising an American flag on a flagpole. But for some accommodations, there is a risk of insincere claims, for instance when someone just wants Saturdays off so he can do fun weekend things. The law assumes that employers will be able to judge employees’ sincerity relatively accurately, and to the extent some insincere objections are granted, this won’t be too much of a problem. Again, the law might be wrong on this, but it’s the law.

4. The rule accepts the risk of slippery slopes, and counts on courts to stop the slippage. Once some people get a religious exemption, others are likely to claim other religious exemptions; indeed, some people who before managed to find a way to live with their religious objections without raising an accommodation request might now conclude that they need to be more militant about their beliefs. Here too, the law accepts this risk, and counts on courts to cut off the more expensive accommodations.

5. The rule rejects the “you don’t like the job requirements, so quit the job” argument. Again, that argument is a perfectly sensible policy argument against having a Title VII duty of religious accommodation. It’s just an argument that religious accommodation law has, rightly or wrongly, rejected.

6. The rule focused on what specific accommodations are practical. If someone demands as an accommodation that a company completely stop shipping alcohol, that would be an undue hardship for an employer. But if it’s possible to accommodate the person by just not giving him the relatively rare alcohol-shipping orders, then that might well not be an undue hardship..."
 
BedellBrave said:
I'm for Article VII of the federal Civil Rights Acts and applicable RFRAs. You are only for the application of them for those you agree with. I'm for them even for those I disagree with. I am also for not mischaracterizing them or calling them cunts, bimbos, sluts, bigots, or what have you - generally, though I admit in my weaker moments I slip.
Click to expand...

cool

i like using the word **** though more than any of those words but cunt is a good curse word to use in certain times ftr

now:

i never think Sharia law had a chance to come here but it seems like you could be on the side to argue for it if Muslims want it since that court should be higher than ours
 
goldfly said:
cool

i like using the word **** though more than any of those words but cunt is a good curse word to use in certain times ftr

now:

i never think Sharia law had a chance to come here but it seems like you could be on the side to argue for it if Muslims want it since that court should be higher than ours
Click to expand...

Depends on when, where and what of Sharia. If it is in the interactions within a mosque community - no big deal. I mean I'm for the application of my own denomination's Book of Discipline in dealing with matters of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. I am not for applying my Book of Discipline to you, because you aren't under my ecclesiastical jurisdiction.
 
If there's a Muslim chef for the White House or say the Congress' dining hall, I would have no problem at all for that Muslim to be spared of serving pork. I think that he should be accommodated.

Or more to the point, if a Muslim clerk asked for the same sort of reasonable accommodation that Davis did, I'd support him as well.
 
Hey guys that are still worked up about this - may I suggest something? It's okay to support the same legal safeguards for someone you disagree with, or may even hate. It's also okay to disagree with the masses. It's okay to disagree with talking heads on your own team. You know, it can at times feel liberating when you do (I've grown to like disagreeing about immigration and what not with my team). You don't always have to toe the company line.

Yes, Davis isn't pretty. Yes, she's got a hick accent. Yes, she a religious "nutcase." Yes, she played into the hands of the Huckster. I get it. I really do.

I know your meme generators are smoking right now and blogs and your favorite comedians and pundits are piling on and you think this woman is the vilest scum of the earth because she has the audacity to think something you see as just love and good as being sinful. I get it. I really do.

But you know it's okay to say, I don't have to go with the crowd - I can actually defend something I'd normally defend if it wasn't about this issue or if it wasn't this sort of low-life.

You can do that you know and you won't lose any of your cred with me. It won't mean that you've got to go to her church or even mine. And I won't tell anybody. I promise. :-)
 
I don't care what religion it is

I don't want any of them being forced upon others. Those laws have no place in our laws or govt

It's that simple. I'm for equal treatment of people.

91E6DB8E-A340-42F0-8857-8179F373502E_zps3evxhdkj.png


A holocaust reference and a rebel flag :smh:
 
I watched the videos of the bakery from the weird ass religion site

Didn't watch the Ireland one that it heavily leans on cause We don't live in Ireland

Go try to sue those bakerys but I love the "you aren't tolerant cause you aren't tolerant of my intolerance". I love that ****.

You do know the laws of those places say they can get a business liscense and then discriminate those people in those states, right?
 
rallying against equality for all. sound familiar?
this is christianity. this is the republican party.
 
goldfly said:
I watched the videos of the bakery from the weird ass religion site

Didn't watch the Ireland one that it heavily leans on cause We don't live in Ireland

Go try to sue those bakerys but I love the "you aren't tolerant cause you aren't tolerant of my intolerance". I love that ****.

You do know the laws of those places say they can get a business liscense and then discriminate those people in those states, right?
Click to expand...

Have no idea what you are yammering about.

This is really simple.
 
BedellBrave said:
You guys are a hoot.
Click to expand...

And you just notice that.

I could give a rats ass about Davis, but the Left pussies keep trying to tell you what to do. If I don't want to do something, I will not, so quit telling me how I feel and what to do. Sue me, throw me in jail, take my business down so I can follow your "world" view.

I will find someone else to be your slave to your thinking. Being a oppressor for blacks, I can see why they have this my way or you get punished mentality.

Still trying find out where Right threatens to sue, jail or take your business down for their ideology. Refusing service is not even on that magnitude, just expressing their right and you have a recourse of going elsewhere. Certain resturants in this town refuse to serve me or give me the crappiest service to me and my white wife. She wanted to bitch about it, I didn't, I just say, hey don't want my business, I go elsewhere, I don't want to stoop to a Liberal's level of ignorance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top