"The Religious Freedom Act"--would allow workplace harassment

Well there you go. As long as it is couched in religion Fred Phelps clones would be legally able to harass people on the job. Of course John Kerry and the gang are going along with this :mad:

Now I can practice the religion of my parents. We worship by hopping from one foot to the other making whooping screeching noises at the top of our lungs.

See, we are a part of a little known sect of fire walkers. We're just not very good at it . . .

"Everyone's entitled to their beliefs, Lister. I never agreed with my parent's religion, but I wouldn't dream of knocking it.

They were Seventh Day Advent Hoppists. They believed that every Sunday should be spent hopping. They would hop to church, hop through the service, then hop back home again.

You see, they took the Bible literally. Adam and Eve, the snake and the apple--took it word for word. Unfortunately their version had a misprint.

It was all based on 1 Corinthians 13, where it says, "Faith, Hop, and Charity, and the greatest of these is Hop." So that's what they did, every seventh day.

I tell you, Sunday lunchtimes were a nightmare. Hopping around the table serving soup...we all had to wear sou'esters and asbestos underpants."

--Arnold J. Rimmer
Red Dwarf Series III, The Last Day

My religion involves eating 2 large cans of beans just before going to work.
(What..you don't like the stench in here??..Tough..)

Does that mean I can practive the Karma Sutra in public to releave tensions and stress?

Does that mean I can smoke marijuana as the representation of the holy ghost when I feel the need for the flame of the holy spirit to touch me through it's conduit?

Does this mean I can go skyclad on the appropriate holidays to work?

Really, this is insane if it doesn't include EVERY religion.

"Our nation was founded on the principle of "Freedom of Religion" not freedom from religion,"

That's horseshit. The framers did their best to keep religion out of government and the Constitution reflects that. This is revisionist history these nut-jobs are espousing. Nevetheless, in a limited form, this really is not a bad idea. Naturally, harassment ought not be encouraged or tolerated, but people should not have to choose between their religion and work. People should not have to work on holidays or sabbath days, and it should not be left to the tender mercies of the so-called free market to decide.

Sorry, boss, my religous beliefs of pro-active violence and turning the other fist required me to beat the shit ought of that loud-mouth, fundy bigot.

I agree with you, and I think that's their point. The Constitution bans government establishment of a state religion. The establishment clause says nothing about what individual businesses and people can do.

This gets back to that old argument: however true the "separation of church and state" motto is, that phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution.

...overt displays of religious zealotry make me nervous. Two business I've dealt with as a business (b2b) and one as a primary vendor have shafted or otherwise "done me wrong", our of dozens, and all three had CEOs/Owners/Presidents that were overtly in-your-face fundamentalist. Seems people who toil so at appearing religious are also those most lacking in common human decency. I kind of understand what some of those supporting this are getting at (Muslim daily prayers, vegetarian diets, etc.), but this just screams "I'm a law waiting to be abused"...

but there is something like this where school districts MUST PROVE (not just allow) that they are they are giving the staff the freedom to pursue religious activities on their breaks, like Bible reading, prayers, etc. Oh, this was a few years ago too. I remember the Principal at school came into the teacher's lounge and passed out copies of it. Then, said something to the effect, "Anybody want to read a Bible now?" BIG SMILE on his face. Then said to everyone, "Ok, I thought so (laughing). I am just required by law to ask. Have a nice lunch." Nope, no takers on that.

There are a LOT of things going under the radar it seems.

state.

I just started in Oct., and at the office Thanksgiving party, everyone joined hands around the table and prayed. I (an atheist) had only been there for a little less than 4 weeks and was totally taken aback by it, so when my hands were snatched up by the two people on either side of me, I just kind of stood their in shock as they prayed. (Needless to say, at the Christmas party I stood in the doorway until I was certain they were done with their prayers)

So, I'd say the Christians have nothing to worry about and can pretty much shove their Christianity in my face at work whenever they want to. And I work for the state, the one place where they SHOULD never be allowed to pray like that. (IMO)

They are religious symbols, too.

:evilfrown:

employer for not providing these benefits on the grounds of religious persecution? Hmmm, they should be careful what Pandora's box they open. Oh wait, they never talked about Pandora in sunday school, so they know not whence they speak.

we sometimes have to recognize that everybody's rights have to respected.

The issue here includes forcing Sikhs or Muslims or Orthodox Jews to remove their faith-mandated head coverings, or stopping Muslims from participating in daily prayers, or prohibiting Hindus (or Witnesses) from storing their vegetarian lunch at the work site - where the employer provides only meat lunches. (As a religious minority I am very sensitive to those issues).

As a dues paying, card carrying ACLUer, I have followed "Freedom of religion" ("establishment" and "free exercise") issues for many years. I am not sure where the observation that workplace "free exercise" and religious tolerance would be "at the expense of other employees' civil rights."

I note

"The concern here is that employers would have serious difficulty resolving instances where an employee posts a sign reading 'God hates fags' in his office or cubicle; where workers proselytize on the 'sins of the homosexual lifestyle' over lunch and on breaks; where a social worker proffers a religious objection to being the case manager or counselor for a youth who is gay or transgender; or where a truck driver on 24 hour driving shift who gives a religious reason for refusing to drive with an co-driver who is gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender," wrote HRC's Smith and Christopher Labonte, legislative director."

As to "The concern here is that employers would have serious difficulty resolving instances where an employee posts a sign reading 'God hates fags' in his office or cubicle." - that's life in a diverse democracy. I had an anal sphincter in the cubicle next to me who had pictures of aborted fetuses on his wall.

As to "where workers proselytize on the 'sins of the homosexual lifestyle' over lunch and on breaks" -- I had a MANAGER who was a Stake President of the LDS (Mormon Church) who pushed the envelope of the "non-proselytization" rule -- but after we sat down and discussed the matter he backed off, and I did get my merit increases and promotions. With "Rapture Evangelicals" - they just don't get the message - but when proselytization creates an unpleasant work environment for the target - proselytizee, that is a violation of law and would remain so. And it isn't just gays - I am a heathen who has never accepted Jesus Christ and is condemed to eternal damnation - I am quite happy with Moshe Rabbainu (that is how Orthodox Jews refer to Moses) and the Rambam (that is how Orthodox Jews refer to Moses Maimonides) thank you.

As to "a social worker (who) proffers a religious objection to being the case manager or counselor for a youth who is gay or transgender" I would say it is analogous to an obstetrician or obstetrical nurse who refuses to participate in abortions.

Finally, as to " a truck driver on 24 hour driving shift who gives a religious reason for refusing to drive with an co-driver who is gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender," that is a grounds for dismissal . Period. As to that point - I guess because I am a Progressive Liberal and an ACLUer - I am always photographed with Muslim (including Palestinian) co-workers to show how harmoniously Jews and Arabs work together at XYZ Corp. And I am always the straight guy who mentors young gay engineers, and the first line manager who gets gay techies good promotions and pay raises.

"we sometimes have to recognize that everybody's rights have to respected."

Harassing people, regardless of whether it's couched in religious terms, isn't a right.

"The issue here includes forcing Sikhs or Muslims or Orthodox Jews to remove their faith-mandated head coverings, or stopping Muslims from participating in daily prayers, or prohibiting Hindus (or Witnesses) from storing their vegetarian lunch at the work site - where the employer provides only meat lunches. (As a religious minority I am very sensitive to those issues)."

That may be the intent, but in reality it will be used by Christian fundamentalists as a way to proselytize at work. It will be destructive to the work environment and will keep everyone at each other's throats.

"I am not sure where the observation that workplace "free exercise" and religious tolerance would be "at the expense of other employees' civil rights."

Because many larger companies have policies which prohibit workplace harassment. The employees who are targets of that harassment will now (if this passes) have their right to be free from harassment threatened.

"As to "The concern here is that employers would have serious difficulty resolving instances where an employee posts a sign reading 'God hates fags' in his office or cubicle." - that's life in a diverse democracy. I had an anal sphincter in the cubicle next to me who had pictures of aborted fetuses on his wall."

No, it's not just life in a diverse democracy so too bad. No! Diversity doesn't include tolerating bigotry!

First of all, abortion isn't apt to the example of Phelps. Abortion is an action. Religion is a belief. Sexual orientation is who you are. It isn't about a belief or an action.

A more apt comparison would be to a racist harassing racial minorities at work.

"but when proselytization creates an unpleasant work environment for the target - proselytizee, that is a violation of law and would remain so."

No, it's not. Not against gays at least it isn't.

"And it isn't just gays - I am a heathen who has never accepted Jesus Christ and is condemed to eternal damnation"

Sorry, but that isn't correct. There are workplace anti-discrimination laws under federal law which pertain to religion. There aren't any for gays so you can't be fired when you complain to your employer. Gays can and often are.

"As to "a social worker (who) proffers a religious objection to being the case manager or counselor for a youth who is gay or transgender" I would say it is analogous to an obstetrician or obstetrical nurse who refuses to participate in abortions."

Well, you might say that, but you'd be wrong. Again, sexual orientation is not a belief (such as religion) or a procedure (such as abortion). It is who a person is, such as race. But unlike race there aren't any federal laws which prohibit workplace discrimination and this law is designed to strip GLBTQ people rights under employment policies put in place under many private employers.

"Finally, as to " a truck driver on 24 hour driving shift who gives a religious reason for refusing to drive with an co-driver who is gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender," that is a grounds for dismissal . Period"

How do you claim that would be grounds for dismissal? Where in this proposed legislation does it prohibit such harassment? answer: nowhere.

and if a fundie refused to work with gays or blacks or Muslims -- or a Muslim refused to work with Jews (or a Jew refused to work with Muslims) or there was any kind of religious, racial, or gender harassment - I would have my lawyer draft a suitable "dismissal letter" -- and after "counseling" - I would fire the mf. PERIOD

I've been in all positions, from grunt employee to manager.

I've had employees who cried harassment at the drop of a hat. Had customers who come in to complain about an employee who has never seemed to be anything but genuine and never had a complaint. I've had employees who seemed to unintentionally harass by how socially awkward they were too.

The worst was being accused of discrimination by a fellow employee for supposedly dicriminating against something that I choose to keep in the closet. It was laughable, said employee was quite shocked when I closed the door and explained that I hadn't discriminated against them because we shared that choice in our lives to different levels. Ironically that was a mistake as that employee then began to harass me to come out of the closet, 'for my own good'. It got to the point where I had to ask them to leave because they were making my work environment feel hostile, specifically from them.

While I personally dislike being the realist, there are positions where there are some things that are not considered to be socially acceptable, such is a pitty, but, I have seen far too many times discrimination hidden inside of falsified 'legitimate' complaints abused and used as a form of promotion in far too many of these companies.

It is truly pitiful that one has to hide even legal fetishes in a society that was supposedly free. I've seen far too many people in my life harass people who chose to breavely step from the closet in whatever form they feel is right.

I have seen it in highschool with councelors who try to make people fit in and conform. I've seen it in College where students would literally go to the GLSU just to harass those members or claim to know of a camp they could go to for a cure. I've seen it on the professional level with psychiatrists, psychologists and religious zealots saying they can cure people of not falling into the social norm.

In the past 4 years things went from becomming accepting to where I have seen intolerance rise to the point where I have seen other friends in the G-L-B-Tr-Tv community slip into the closet to avoid undue notice. I hope and pray that this is not a lasting issue.

Homosexual!? Phew if only I were so lucky! - Troy McClure - Simpsons.

Not all discrimination is unlawful. Only that which affects legally recognized suspect classifications is. Presently, the Feds and most states do not recognize homosexuals as a suspect classification. Any Federal statute on this, moreover, would supercede any state or city laws to the contrary.

In an "Employment At Will" state (most are) - I would recommend that an employer fire an employee who harasses gays (just to protect himself from liability exposure). And if the harassing employee says "well it's my religion" I would advise the employer to say "A hole - sue me" - even in the presence of this Bill.

Just remember, there is a common law requirement of a "safe place to work" (separate and apart from workers comp or civil rights laws) -- and a good lawyer, an aggressive civil rights lawyer, could make a case that the employer has failed to provide a "safe place to work."

I have to take exception to your statements that

-"Because many larger companies have policies which prohibit workplace harassment. The employees who are targets of that harassment will now (if this passes) have their right to be free from harassment threatened." and

-"this law is designed to strip GLBTQ people rights under employment policies put in place under many private employers."

That is just not a correct of the law - even with this bill. I have been lawyers for 40 plus years, been to SCOTUS twice (both times non-fee, pro-bono, for civil rights organizations) -- and that is just not a correct statement of the law.

as to

"Finally, as to " a truck driver on 24 hour driving shift who gives a religious reason for refusing to drive with an co-driver who is gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender," that is a grounds for dismissal . Period"

How do you claim that would be grounds for dismissal? Where in this proposed legislation does it prohibit such harassment? answer: nowhere.


That is always "failure to perform" and "insubordination" -- always grounds for dismissal, with or without a "collective bargaining agreement" and with or without anti-harassment laws.

My obsession is the "establishment" and "free exercise" clauses of the First Amendment. But a person's "free exercise" rights stop when their acts of "free exercise" give rise to the tort of "intentional infliction of emotional distress."


- That is "Black Letter Bar Exam Law" - and the law of the Supreme Court of California and the Court of Appeals of New York and the First, Second, Third, and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals.

Regular Bar Exam question in California and New York.

... living in the stone age under the ossified 6th Cir.?

Demand that they either oppose it or add provisions that safeguard other nondiscrimination provisions.




http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.19272593

I've just searched Thomas and I can't find it. Thanks

Let's look at the future of charity in the U.S. under the faith-based initiative: "Sorry, you're Muslim, no food for you. Nope, we can't work with a bunch of do-gooder Mary worshippers."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3313971

errr...

says I can harass right back 'em...

.
.

Here's what the ACLU says about the Workplace Religious Freedom Act as of June 2, 2004:

"ACLU Letter on the Harmful Effect of S. 893 (the Workplace Religious Freedom Act) on Critical Personal and Civil Rights

June 2, 2004


Dear Senator:

The American Civil Liberties Union strongly urges you to oppose S. 893, the Workplace Religious Freedom Act (“WRFA”) -- unless it is amended to ensure that the legislation will not have the presumably unintended consequence of harming critical personal and civil rights of coworkers, customers, or patients. Unless amended, the bill would threaten important rights of religious minorities, racial minorities, women, gay men and lesbians, and persons seeking reproductive health care and mental health services.

WRFA would revise and strengthen the existing requirements imposed on employers to accommodate the religious practices of their employees. This letter explains: the current religious accommodation requirements under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the changes made to Title VII by the legislation, WRFA’s potential harm to important personal and civil rights, and the availability of a more targeted alternative to WRFA. . . .

If WRFA had been law, the following rejected religious accommodation claims could have been decided differently:

police officer’s request to refuse to protect an abortion clinic,

another police officer’s request to abstain from arresting protestors blocking a clinic entrance,

social worker’s decision to use Bible readings, prayer, and the “casting out of demons” with inmates in a county prison, instead of providing the county’s required secular mental health counseling,

state-employed visiting nurse’s decision to tell an AIDS patient and his partner that God “doesn’t like the homosexual lifestyle” and that they needed to pray for salvation,

delivery room nurse’s refusal to scrub for an emergency inducement of labor and an emergency caesarian section delivery on women who were in danger of bleeding to death,

two different male truck drivers and a male emergency medical technician request to avoid overnight work shifts with women because they could not sleep in the same quarters with women,

employee assistance counselor’s request to refuse to counsel unmarried or gay or lesbian employees on relationship issues,

hotel worker’s decision to spray a swastika on a mirror as a religious “good luck” symbol,

private sector employee’s request to uncover and display a KKK tattoo of a hooded figure standing in front of a burning cross,

state-employed sign language interpreter’s request to proselytize and pray aloud for her assigned deaf mental health patients, and

retail employee’s request to begin most statements on the job with “In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth.”

These examples were all actual cases brought into federal court by employees claiming that their employers refused to provide a reasonable accommodation of their religious beliefs. Applying the existing Title VII reasonable accommodation standard, the courts rejected all of these claims. But Congress has no assurance that courts would continue to reject all of these types of claims if WRFA becomes law."

. . . read the entire ACLU letter to Senators at http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/ReligiousLiberty.cfm?ID=15886&c=142


_______________________________________________________________

ACLU on Religious Freedom http://www.aclu.org/ReligiousLiberty/
_______________________________________________________________

.

I knew this law was bad news, but I couldn't find any information except for the press release quoted above.