Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Aqua Buddhist; DoodleDawg
"It's worse that that. An employee could make up a cockamamie "relgious" excuse for goofing off all day and nobody would be able to do anything about it."

This is incorrect and pretty ignorant coming from someone on these forums.

Here is an article that has a really good overview of the bill and why it came about. It does not allow for any person, to deny any service, for any religious reason. It does not allow for cockamamie religious excuses to goof off all day. It simply protects individuals from participating in events that violate their conscience and this protection must pass certain legal hurdles in order to be upheld:

1) They must be a sincerely held religious belief (annihilates the cockamamie religious excuse talking point)

2) There is no compelling government interest, which pretty much annihilates denying anyone for any reason argument.

Here is the actual text of the bill, so that you may look for yourself.

JM
33 posted on 02/25/2014 8:29:43 AM PST by JohnnyM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies ]


To: JohnnyM

But you will agree that the bill applies to individual employees as well as businesses, and could be used by just about anyone claiming religious reasons for their actions? If I truly, honestly believe that those who divorce and remarry are committing adultery, and feel that as a Christian I cannot in good conscience aid and abet such sin by issuing them a marriage license then where does the law say I can’t do it? If a Muslim feels that a person or activity is unclean, and God knows just about everything seems to be unclean to them, then under the law couldn’t they refuse service to any woman not wearing a headscarf?


36 posted on 02/25/2014 8:57:30 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

To: JohnnyM
The law theoretically prevents made-up-on-the-spot "religious" rules (though given that it boils down to a judgment call, it opens the door to clogging the courts with frivolous claims).

That still leaves problems about acts which are clearly contrary to public policy and can be defended as established religious practice (e.g. the Minnesota cases mentioned earlier in the thread where Muslim cab drivers refused to carry blind passengers with guide dogs or passengers with alcohol in their possession).

40 posted on 02/25/2014 10:38:03 AM PST by Aqua Buddhist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson