Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: Religious Advocates Want Further Exemption after Religous Right Ruling

  1. #11
    User
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Last Seen
    04-17-16 @ 10:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    62

    Re: Religious Advocates Want Further Exemption after Religous Right Ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Wow, so people want the federal government to discriminate against homosexuals.

    Well, I want the federal government to discriminate against short people.
    That is not relevant

  2. #12
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,853

    Re: Religious Advocates Want Further Exemption after Religous Right Ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    I'm curious about something. In this day and age of online applications, and very impersonal processes for hiring people, I'd really be interested in knowing just how someone determines that a potential employee is gay or not. It's not like it's something that would normally be asked during the interview process.
    So you want the private workforce to be a civilian DADT?

    It's not an easy issue, actually. This would affect religious orgs with government contracts. Accepting government money comes with it obligations that are avoided by not contracting with the Feds, in this case. Should a Catholic charity be allowed to accept government money and exempt themselves from rules that apply to all other employers who accept that money? And certainly if a Catholic charity can do so, so can any other employer who'd rather not hire the homos because of "religious convictions." And now you've got protections that mean little to nothing in practice.

    I'm conflicted, but I don't think as a general rule non-discrimination in hiring over LGBT is a very high hurdle, outside official positions within a church. For example, I see no reason for an exemption for a Catholic hospital - if they want to accept Federal dollars, they shouldn't discriminate against LGBT in hiring.

  3. #13
    Sage
    lizzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    between two worlds
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,581

    Re: Religious Advocates Want Further Exemption after Religous Right Ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    So you want the private workforce to be a civilian DADT?

    .
    I didn't say that I wanted anything. I posed a question out of curiosity.
    "God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
    -C G Jung

  4. #14
    Guru
    Samhain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 12:34 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,888

    Re: Religious Advocates Want Further Exemption after Religous Right Ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by Zinthaniel View Post
    it is sad. And if the ruling has in fact set a dangerous precedent the contraceptive issues is the least of female concerns. The bible is very clear on the women's role - Does a male employer have a right to circumvent gender prejudice laws based on his religious right. The bible is very clear on many prohibitions. Where do religious rights start and where do they end?
    the law is clear: the government can burden the exercise of that (religious) belief if it has a compelling state interest that cannot easily be achieved in any other way.

  5. #15
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,849

    Re: Religious Advocates Want Further Exemption after Religous Right Ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by Poiuy View Post
    That is not relevant
    If you get to object to taxpayer funding of abortions, I get to object to taxpayer funding of short people.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

  6. #16
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,853

    Re: Religious Advocates Want Further Exemption after Religous Right Ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    I didn't say that I wanted anything. I posed a question out of curiosity.
    Fair enough, but not knowing when they hire isn't the issue. It's what happens when someone is found out to be gay. There have been several cases in the news where religious orgs summarily fired very long time employees as soon as their homosexuality was discovered. So in practice those orgs operated a DADT system. That was the only point.

    And if it's OK to not hire or fire a person for being gay, that is the kind of environment gays can expect. Keep their life hidden, because if the truth of their life is discovered, they risk job loss for no other reason.

  7. #17
    Sayonara!
    Maenad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    By the water.
    Last Seen
    07-09-14 @ 10:18 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,259

    Re: Religious Advocates Want Further Exemption after Religous Right Ruling



    This was to be expected. And IFIRC I, myself, posted that there would be more tests in the coming days and years.
    Redneck, hillbilly, fundie, Bible thumper, cracker, split tails, geezer, loon, xenophobe, islamaphobe, and homophobe are not words of tolerance.

  8. #18
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,584

    Re: Religious Advocates Want Further Exemption after Religous Right Ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Wow, so people want the federal government to discriminate against homosexuals.

    Well, I want the federal government to discriminate against short people.
    They already do, as well as tall people, fat people etc.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  9. #19
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    Re: Religious Advocates Want Further Exemption after Religous Right Ruling

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    How would they prove that it was discrimination based on someone assuming they were gay, rather than a matter of not hiring due to qualifications or other business-related issues?

    IIRC there are already about 21 states that include sexual orientation under employment non-discrimination laws. You might ask them.


    In the other states you can flat out ask them. If they answer "yes" then you don't have to hire them. If they answer "no" and you find out later, you can terminate them for falsifying and application.

    Another would be a company hires John, while completing John's hiring paperwork he applies for his spouse for inclusion in the company health insurance. The company let's him go.



    >>>>

  10. #20
    Sage

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Texas, Vegas, Colombia
    Last Seen
    11-28-16 @ 06:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,295

    Re: Religious Advocates Want Further Exemption after Religous Right Ruling

    I highly doubt such exemptions will be made..... the HL ruling does not allow for discriminating against people.. their behavior, their sexuality, or who they associate with.
    the religious exemptions in the HL case was based on paying for products they believed were used for abortion ( don't argue the point, it doesn't matter if they factually are or not)

    Obama would be in a good position to say " nope, no exemptions " and I believe SCOTUS would back him up on that.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •