• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Religious Advocates Want Further Exemption after Religous Right Ruling

Zinthaniel

Zinthaniel

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
2,705
Reaction score
1,112
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Religious leaders want exemption from hiring LGBT people after Hobby Lobby ruling - Washington Times
Following the recent Hobby Lobby ruling, a group of religious leaders wrote a letter to President Obama on Tuesday asking to be exempt from a pending executive order that would prohibit federal contractors from discriminating against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people in hiring practices, reported The Atlantic.

“We are asking that an extension of protection for one group not come at the expense of faith communities whose religious identity and beliefs motivate them to serve those in need,” the letter says, according to The Atlantic.

The letter comes after Monday’s Supreme Court ruling, known as Hobby Lobby, that closely held corporations are permitted a religious exemption from providing birth control as stipulated in the Affordable Care Act.

The letters of the author are no strangers to the Obama administration, and some are even open supporters of the president. One of the letters signatories was Michael Wear, reported The Atlantic, who directed faith outreach for the White House in 2012, and two signers were members of Catholics for Obama and three are former members of the President’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.

Mr. Obama announced in June that his staff had drafted an executive order that would bar federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT people, though he has not signed such an order.

“Without a robust religious exemption,” they letter stated, according to Talking Points Memo, “this expansion of hiring rights will come at an unreasonable cost to the common good, national unity and religious freedom.”

The Hobby Lobby ruling was not specifically mentioned in the letter, according to reports.
Click to expand...




Actual letter in this source: Hobby Lobby Is Already Creating New Religious Demands on Obama - Molly Ball - The Atlantic
 
And so it begins. :(
 
Liberty, like life, will always find a way to thrive.
 
DiAnna said:
And so it begins. :(
Click to expand...

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?
 
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.
 
lizzie said:
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.
Click to expand...

The judgment is primarily based on mannerisms. Homosexuals who do not fit the "Hollywood stereotype" would must likely fly under the radar, however homosexuals who are flamboyant - or otherwise feminine would suffer the most discrimination.
 
Zinthaniel said:
The judgment is primarily based on mannerisms. Homosexuals who do not fit the "Hollywood stereotype" would must likely fly under the radar, however homosexuals who are flamboyant - or otherwise feminine would suffer the most discrimination.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Wow, so people want the federal government to discriminate against homosexuals.

Well, I want the federal government to discriminate against short people.
 
lizzie said:
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?
Click to expand...

I have no idea, it depends. I was answering you question on how a Employer could identify, in the most superficial way, a homosexual and then fire them or not hire them. At will employment allows the Employer to claim any other reason other than the actual reason for terminating an employment. So as usual making a claim of discrimination requires extraordinary proof in this instance. If the Employer is constantly making homophobic slurs and otherwise characterizing himself as someone who vehemently despises homosexuals then that would be one way to establish a prejudice in the decision to terminate employment.
 
Deuce said:
Wow, so people want the federal government to discriminate against homosexuals.

Well, I want the federal government to discriminate against short people.
Click to expand...

That is not relevant
 
lizzie said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Zinthaniel said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Poiuy said:
That is not relevant
Click to expand...

If you get to object to taxpayer funding of abortions, I get to object to taxpayer funding of short people.
 
lizzie said:
I didn't say that I wanted anything. I posed a question out of curiosity.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Deuce said:
Wow, so people want the federal government to discriminate against homosexuals.

Well, I want the federal government to discriminate against short people.
Click to expand...

They already do, as well as tall people, fat people etc.
 
lizzie said:
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?
Click to expand...


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.



>>>>
 
Zinthaniel said:
Religious leaders want exemption from hiring LGBT people after Hobby Lobby ruling - Washington Times





Actual letter in this source: Hobby Lobby Is Already Creating New Religious Demands on Obama - Molly Ball - The Atlantic
Click to expand...

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.
 
Zinthaniel said:
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?
Click to expand...

A male employer wants to run his business based on his Beliefs?

GOD THE EBEL, WUT WILL WE DO

I mean seriously.

He should be able to hire whoever the **** he damn well pleases, based on race or religion. It's his damned Business, Literally.
 
DiAnna said:
And so it begins. :(
Click to expand...

Nothing has "begun" because it seems clear the call is just for the same religious organizations that had exemptions under current discrimination laws to be exempt from any rules issued by executive order. The executive order does not contain general rules but applies specifically to work the federal government does with private contractors. For instance, religious charities that do not have to hire people who are gay under current law would not be cut out of federal contract work if the authors of the letter get what they want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom