The burden is entirely upon the person who believes in made up shit. If your belief makes or prevents you from doing stuff. then it is up to you to accomodate those beliefs by seeking appropriate employment. The employer should never be burdened with another's belief system. Don't apply for a job where alcohol is served if that is against your belief.

Why should anyone be forced to accommodate religion? Prove the existence of your God first, then we can talk.

Take the time to read the article.

BTW, the existence or nonexistence of god(s) is irrelevant to the analysis.

I have a fear of heights. I would never apply for a job climbing trees, which I love. I would never be a fireman as I fear ladders. Laws based on religious arguments are made by fools. There's your analysis.

Here's a cartoon.

Interesting.

Don't you get tired of your DU jury games? Have you given up on content?

Oh, don't try to put words in my mouth again. I'm very capable of using words precisely.

It's pretty obvious why you post here.

Either way...

Either way...

And about that whole using words correctly...

But about so much more than just using words correctly.

But bitterness is a dolts best friend.

That's understandable.

...about the subject, as AN ASIDE to what current legal analysis says about accommodating religion? The essay, no matter how wonderful, isn't where the poster is going to find how he/she feels about it.

It's hard to have a useful discussion when people are just blowing opinions over the internet.

...if you don't agree with current law. Given the poster's basis for having little tolerance for religious accommodation ("The burden is entirely upon the person who believes in made up shit.&quot what on earth would be gained by going over the finer details of how our legal system, with a far more generous view of religious belief, handles such issues?

I suppose we could instead just spout about privilege, post cartoons, and ridicule religion. But that would be stupid. Besides, there's already a place that does that.

Something that has such an impact should first be understood, then checked where necessary, and critiqued accurately. Then, you can turn it over to the buffoons for adolescent mockery. If you let the buffoons lead, it will slaughter you.

...but you simply acted as if (feigned to be annoying?) the poster was commenting on current law ("That's not the law.", you said) when it's blatantly obvious that he/she wasn't attempting to state what current law says.

By all means, ask the poster to defend their own opinion in light of how current law differs, but what you did instead simply comes across as needlessly coy or deliberately obtuse.

I'm not here to indulge anyone.

BTW, have you read the article yet? Do you have an opinion on it?

OTOH, your opinion on what you think I was doing is as irrelevant as it is inaccurate, as well as an ad hominem distraction. Feel free to discuss those opinions elsewhere, in another place which revels in those threads.

You do not want to hear my opinions on particular posters here, nor will I post them, as they are equally irrelevant.

Last edited Tue Sep 8, 2015, 12:10 AM - Edit history (2)

...it's pretty clear that the poster was instead answering the question, "When should your religion legally excuse you from doing part of your job?".

If you don't want to deal with someone answering such a variation on the question, you don't have to "indulge" that. But simply recognizing what was going on, that someone was making a very typical sort of conversational aside, is not an indulgence, it's common sense.

Did you really, honestly not get what was going on? Or did you understand, but somehow think it was necessary to express your impatience with what was going on by pretending not to understand?

As for the what the article itself says, as far as my lack of legal expertise allows me to judge, I'd guess it's a competent analysis of the current state of the law in matters of religious accommodations, and the article fills in some things I hadn't heard about before when it comes to government employees.

Beyond that, the only comments I'd care to make would also go into the terrible category of personal opinions about what should be the case. I won't put you through the apparently terribly strain of having to "indulge" such comments.

That you dismiss it as not important reveals a lot about your motivations.

But do go on about my "motivations". That's why you're here, right?

He says, while posting a smiley.

Also look up religious and social privilege, two things you and her both benefit greatly from.

Are you stupid enough to compare me to Kim Davis?

Listen, "Lord Quinton", step out from your persona and we'll see exactly how much privilege you enjoy in your life, starting with your gender.

But we're in Religion, that's the privilege at hand, and you're sitting at the very top, while I have to keep my views quiet IRL.

Do you deny that you share that same privilege that she does?

Your last line again reveals your lack of knowledge in regards to social privilege. Why are you so afraid to see religious privilege pointed out? Afraid that might get taken away?

And what the hell are you talking about, you have to heep yor views quiet IRL? Are you feeling persecuted?

Let me try out what you consider logic: Ted Cruz is male. So are you. "Do you deny that you share that same privilege that he does?"
"
BTW, work on your alert messages. "Over the line, borderline threat, starting to come unhinged. This is an anonymous board for a reason. This post being one of them." The jury rejected it 5-2.

As are you, we all three share that, but you and teddy are both christians, so you share that with davis. It's really simple.


You're telling me you have never heard of an atheist who keeps their views quiet because it would cause trouble in their life? You really do have no concept of your own privilege.

Also i that alert isn't mine, i can tell because mine get the job done (well, mainly because i haven't alerted in a while, and don't when I'm engaged with someone, that's just rude)

I do know some people who keep their views, religious and otherwise, secret, usually for opportunism. Consequently, I don't think much of their views.

Straight Christian males who defend the RCC's homophobic, misogynistic policies don't like to be reminded of their privilege.

whodathunk that sort of nonsense would occur here on DU?

Must defend Kim because atheists are irrational!

That, or you revel in blatant dishonesty.

It's much more satisfying to attack nonexistent oppressors.

gay marriage became legal after she already picked a job which (she would argue) had been consistent with her religion at the time.

also, as has been noted, belief in god has little to do with it. there are plenty of jewish atheists who nevertheless keep kosher, refuse to work on saturdays, etc.

If she can no longer do that, for whatever reason, then she should resign and let someone fit for it take over. Note she also files divorce papers, so there's that.

and there are great arguments for why she lost, and should have lost, her legal case. but the argument that people shouldn't sign up for a job that their religion prevents them from doing (which is a valid argument, up to a point) is not a very good one in this case.

It is a miracle.

God is real.

As opposed to petty, smarmy ad hominems. Really, I find your fascination with my keyboard intriguing.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]And given that the Windsor Case happened prior to her last election (she took office Jan 5th of this year) she should have been able to foresee that it was only a matter of time before the law changed.

And she was a deputy clerk before getting elected. She knew how the system works. I don't think that excuse works.[/font]

For instance, can a prospective employer ask an applicant if she would have any problem with transporting and delivering alcohol? That might prevent hiring someone into a job that she is not willing to do and problems would only arise when the job requirements changed.

But a lot of employers fail to do it, because it's difficult to do it correctly.

The *correct* way to do this, is to lay out the activities and times for performing them that are bona fide requirements- that is, you really can't perform the job effectively without being able to do them. (Right there, you run into problems in some places, because employers don't always understand that 'bona fide' implies 'what it would take to perform this job based on objective and reasonable criteria' rather than 'what it would take to perform it the way I believe it should be performed.')

Then you ask the job applicant, in pretty much *exactly* this language: "Would you be able to carry out this/these tasks, on the necessary schedule?"

The prospective employee is then free to say (for example) "all except the third Thursday and Friday in September every year, when I would need to have an exception to the regular work schedule."

The employer is then free to either a) negotiate that exception as part of the employment agreement, in which case they are responsible for making that accomodation now and and forever and may NOT use it as an excuse for discipline or termination; or b) say "We cannot accommodate that, and thus cannot offer you this job."

If done correctly, this negotiation process results in a win/win for the employer and employee.

How NOT to do it: You never, EVER ask anything about what might prevent someone from carrying out the bona fide requirements of the job, and you never IMPLY anything about why you think someone might/might not be able to do so. Not verbally, CERTAINLY not in writing on the interview notes, not in queries to a reference, etcetera.

It doesn't matter if you can see that the applicant is hugely pregnant- probably within four weeks of delivery- and the first major bona fide tasks they'll need to undertake involve travel and many hours of training and/or rigidly scheduled activity within the first 90 days, you are NOT allowed to even refer to that pregnancy.

You explain the requirements, ask the applicant, and take their word for it, EVEN IF they don't choose to tell you "My c-section is scheduled next week and my mother and brother live with me and will be providing full-time care for the infant and I plan to be up and around and working my ass off almost immediately." Even if they just nod, and say, "Yep, I can do that." You must then take their word for it, and if your doubts are such that you really believe they CAN'T do it, you'd better find some other reason for not hiring them (such as the perennial 'we preferred this other applicant,') and never even mention the huge pregnancy and the doubts about it.

The applicant is not obliged to explain ANY reasons why they want to negotiate an accommodation.

The employer is required to take the applicant's word for it that they won't need an accommodation, without question.

But far and away too many employers try to elicit information, make implications, etcetera, referring to things like the graduation date on someone's resume, the religious nature of a school listed, the ethnic derivation of a last name, their marital status, how many kids they might have, etc., and wander into the minefield, so they leave out the "requirements/ capability/ accommodation" part of the discussion altogether in the interests of safety.

And then have to deal with unpleasant surprises down the road.

informatively,
Bright

Into discrimination territory. I get what you are saying, better to get it out of the way and out in the open but it's a slippery slope.

But it's not easy to figure out where the line should be drawn. The bus driver shouldn't be able to refuse because he's a vegetarian. . The IRS guy either, it doesn't fit into religious beliefs etc.. Although none of those examlles would cause undue hardship and an accommodation could be made to make them happy there has to be a line. Can't have everyone just not wanting to do their jobs over some trivial belief or lifestyle choice.

Religious belief and practice is so widespread, there are likely dozens of scenarios that haven't even reached the surface yet.

Sikhs are far more likely to require an accommodation.

And it's only a matter of time before they do. Allow one and you have to allow the others to be fair and unbiased. So the possibilities are endless.

According to the article her objection is to having her name on the licenses. If this is true then it seems like this whole thing could be settled by what the article suggests: