Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

santorum and Kerry reportedly joined to co-sponsor a bill to insure

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread		 This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
bearfartinthewoods Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-07-03 07:17 AM
Original message
santorum and Kerry reportedly joined to co-sponsor a bill to insure
the protection of religious freedom on the job. is this true?
i know there is a website that gives the text of bills before congress but i can't find it in my "favorites". anyone have details on this bill?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
danielftl Donating Member (5 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-07-03 07:35 AM
Response to Original message
1. http://thomas.loc.gov/
http://thomas.loc.gov/
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newyawker99 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-07-03 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #1
21. Hi danielftl!!
Welcome to DU!! :toast:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Democat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-07-03 07:53 AM
Response to Original message
2. Why not free speech instead of religion, if they want a new law?
How many people got fired or punished in some way for speaking out against the war or against Bush in the last two years?

I would be interested to know what this law says you can do while on the job.

Will Satanists be allowed to sacrifice goats in their cubicles? :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flyingfish Donating Member (260 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-07-03 08:24 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. I know, at least I think you are, joking about....
...Satanism.
Actually, Satanism does not mean the definition of a true religion, so the practice is not protected.
There are certain objective criteria to define a religion, and Satanism does not meet those criteria.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Devils Advocate NZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-07-03 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #4
9. Such as?
Exactly what criteria are you talking about, and why does Satanism not meet them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Brian Sweat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-07-03 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #9
18. A religion must require you to take Jesus as your personal savior
Edited on Thu Aug-07-03 09:17 AM by Brian Sweat
</sarcasm>

P.S. I think we were the victim of a drive by freeping.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bicentennial_baby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-07-03 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #4
16. Oh really?
"Satanism does not mean the definition of a true religion, so the practice is not protected.
There are certain objective criteria to define a religion, and Satanism does not meet those criteria."

Explain please...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bearfartinthewoods Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-07-03 08:15 AM
Response to Original message
3. thank you n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
searchingforlight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-07-03 08:30 AM
Response to Original message
5. Kerry should not join Santorum on anything!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewYorkerfromMass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-07-03 08:35 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. It shows a willingness to work with others
Edited on Thu Aug-07-03 08:38 AM by NewYorkerfromMass
and I would worry not about any "laws" like this. They are usually done more for political brownie points than anything. The utterly ridiculous "Pledge of Allegiance" vote last year is a good example.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bearfartinthewoods Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-07-03 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #6
10. i think it will have a practical application. for instance the crucifix
in the classroom debate in which a teacher was dismissed because she insisted on wearing her cross on the outside of her clothing. or the wearing of a yamaka or other headwear. i 'think' that will be effected by this bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-07-03 08:52 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. Right. There was a female Muslim police officer
who was suspended for wearing her headgear on the job. I believe that was sorted out, but this kind of thing should be protected within reason. Let's make sure there aren't any stone replicas of the 10 commandments hanging around our federal courts, but let's also allow our culture to except the religious practices of others in the workplace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewYorkerfromMass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-07-03 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. Sure, and my response is: BFD!
there are bigger fish to fry.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
searchingforlight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-07-03 08:53 AM
Response to Reply #6
12. And that is my point. Work with others, yes.
But why this bill? Why now? Why him? It gives Santorum credibility that I don't think he deserves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewYorkerfromMass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-07-03 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #12
15. There are stupid idiots and there are idiotic actions
the 2 can be exclusive. Santorum can occasionally be correct about something, like that broken clock.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eloriel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-07-03 11:24 AM
Response to Reply #6
19. And that kind of political brownie points -- that kind of pandering
is xactly what I and millions of other Americans are SICK OF. Kerry seems to have elevated it to a fine art.

If he thinks this nonsense is going to help him, he's also delusional.

Eloriel
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NewYorkerfromMass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-07-03 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. No Dean doesn't pander or waffle
raise the Social Security retirement age????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-07-03 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Don't forget
about how the Consitution is filled with "technicalities"

Or how Dean "forgot" to give proper credit for the line about "the Dem wing of the Dem party"

Or how "made a mistake" about Kerry and Edwards at a Dem event.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kwolf68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-07-03 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #19
24. Pandering


How the f*** do you know Kerry is pandering?

Maybe he...ahhh...try this on now...Actually BELIEVE in what he is doing.

OF course, we can't all be as principled as Ho-Ho Dean who let us see:

1) Is against the death penalty, except in some exceptions

2) Is against gun control, except he won't do anything about those gun control laws he would have presumably NOT signed into law

3) Had to get a black person in his campaign, because black people are diametrically opposed to #1, and #2.

Dean? Yea, he's a true princpled man. LMAO...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-07-03 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. That will make the Democrats look like obstructionists
You can't be against everything. You have to be for something. Sometimes the things that you are for are also favored by your opponents. Should you oppose good thing just to spite them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wonder Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-07-03 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #5
17. DITTO
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bearfartinthewoods Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-07-03 08:36 AM
Response to Original message
7. goat slaughteriing in the cubicle allowed?
as with all legislation, the devil is in the details and in this case, the details would be in the specification of "practices.

btw...Hillery is also a co=sponser with Lieberman and others.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:1:./temp/~c108S9IOSl::

any one that speaks legaleeze care to translate?

`(2) For purposes of determining whether an employer has committed an unlawful employment practice under this title by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation to the religious observance or practice of an employee, for an accommodation to be considered to be reasonable, the accommodation shall remove the conflict between employment requirements and the religious observance or practice of the employee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sangha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-07-03 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #7
23. Basically
they're saying that business policies which interfere with a religious persons expressing/practicing their faith must have a genuine business justification.

If the employer has a "no hat" policy which excludes Jews who were yarmulkes, then there better be a good reason for it that applies to the business, and not just "I think they work harder when they don't have a hat weighing their thoughts down"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sinistrous Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-07-03 08:57 AM
Response to Original message
13. My read on this bill:
Edited on Thu Aug-07-03 09:26 AM by Sinistrous
is that it is innocuous, actually it is a good extension of the Civil Rights law.

(Again, my reading) All this bill says is that, if an employer allows and employee to take leave for other purposes, the employer cannot deny the employee to take leave for religious purposes.

It also specifies that employers cannot restrict the wearing of clothing, stc. that does not unduly interfere with the performance of the employee's job functions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Aug-07-03 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #13
25. That's about the size of it...
Edited on Thu Aug-07-03 02:54 PM by blm
I'm an atheist, but, I think there should be no discrimination towards anyone who is religious.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 03:52 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC