Religious Freedom in the US

[riskllama]

I know i go to Hooters looking for that hairy chest and bulge of a manly man.

-TG

my girlfriend works @ Hooters.








in the kitchen...

[TA1LGUNN3R]

So, basically you'll find your girlfriend in a kitchen for about 14 hours on any given day? Lucky!

-TG

[mrswdk]

Your freedom to work does not translate into a responsibility for anyone to hire you.

How are you free to do something if people won't let you do it?

[Dukasaur]

Your freedom to work does not translate into a responsibility for anyone to hire you.

How are you free to do something if people won't let you do it?

Why don't you just try that argument someplace? Next time you see a job opening, just walk in and say, "I have a right to work. You are obligated to hire me." Sit down and start working. Let them explain the finer details of the philosophy?

[mrswdk]

Yes that is exactly the point I was trying to make well done.

[DirtyDishSoap]

About sums up this thread.

[thegreekdog]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/07/politics/ ... index.html

The king of conservative media (or whatever) is drudging up old 19th century anti-Catholic stuff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing

if you would like to spend your free time caring about 1,000 US Nazis doing completely irrelevant-to-policy things, go ahead dude. Just don't act like it's a big deal.

I am more concerned with Breitbart, its editor who had a voice with the president and it's millions of loyal sheep than I am with 1,000 Nazis. But, hey, if you want to equate the two go right ahead.

[thegreekdog]

(1) Catholic judge - The woman has consistently maintained both through the questioning and prior that religious preferences should not enter into decisions. As Duk notes, the issue is that she may be anti-abortion. If she is anti-abortion, she should be questioned on that basis, not on her religion.

She should be questioned if she's making her decisions based off of her religious beliefs. It's a conflict of interest between state vs the individual.
Take this for example.

Religious Judge and Same Sex marriage.

Would you not agree that in this case, that the basic right to marry who you choose, regardless of orientation, should be trumped by someone's religious belief? Wouldn't you agree that the judge should be impartial to his or hers religious beliefs in a matter of law?
It's off topic, but it should give you a picture that a religious judge has made decisions in the past based off their religion.

If there is a trend or a patter in the judge that has her religion influence in her decision making, then it should be questioned (but not persecuted).

On the other hand, a win for small business's and their right to refuse service.
https://www.usnews.com/news/national-ne ... -coupletbd

I'll read the Wikipedia article later when I have time.

That's the point DDS. The person testifying before Congress is NOT making decisions based on religious preferences. She indicated that multiple times. Further, the questions asked of her were pontifications of members of Congress on the validity of a judge based on her religious preferences. As someone indicated somewhere, imagine if the person testifying were Muslim or Jewish or an atheist. Further, it is against the law to ask questions indicating a religious test for holding office. Perhaps we're saying that law needs to be removed.

[mrswdk]

Well actually, that link DDS posted says that the judge has explicitly stated her religion as the reason she wants to refuse to marry gay couples and up to this day is still trying to win the right to refuse to marry gay couples. She's a public servant asking for permission to refuse to provide her public service to gay people.

It's funny that in your OP about the death of religious freedom in the US, 2 out of the 3 stories concern the right to be a homophobe. Aren't there any better crusades for you to fight?

[mrswdk]

And also, LOL

Why are Democrats and liberals (and libertarians) focusing on Christians/Catholics and not other religions?

Coming from a guy in a country where the elected head of state declared that all Muslims should be banned from entering the country on the grounds that they are Muslims.

But no it's Catholicism that gets picked on.

[tzor]

Freedom, the right to work, the right to wear earrings, nose rings, tattoos, etc., without being discriminated against. This is a tenant of a free society. You can take the boy out of Bulgaria, but you can't take Bulgaria out of the boy.

No it's not.
Absolutely no it's not.
There is no "right to work" ... you have to earn it.

If you have metallic piercings, for example, you will never get a job working next to a magnetic particle accelerator.

In a true "free market" society (which, I, realize has never existed on the face of this planet like ever) a person is hired for one thing and for one thing only, the value added his labor provides. If you can do the work, you provide the value add. In some cases, things like tattoos etc can reduce the value added of the labor but in many cases it doesn't. If someone is foolish to lower their bottom line by not hiring the best they can get at the best price then that person will loose out to the other guy who did hire that person. (Unless on the average that person doesn't make the same mistake over and over again.)

[Bernie Sanders]

Freedom, the right to work, the right to wear earrings, nose rings, tattoos, etc., without being discriminated against. This is a tenant of a free society. You can take the boy out of Bulgaria, but you can't take Bulgaria out of the boy.

No it's not.
Absolutely no it's not.
There is no "right to work" ... you have to earn it.

If you have metallic piercings, for example, you will never get a job working next to a magnetic particle accelerator.

In a true "free market" society (which, I, realize has never existed on the face of this planet like ever) a person is hired for one thing and for one thing only, the value added his labor provides. If you can do the work, you provide the value add. In some cases, things like tattoos etc can reduce the value added of the labor but in many cases it doesn't. If someone is foolish to lower their bottom line by not hiring the best they can get at the best price then that person will loose out to the other guy who did hire that person. (Unless on the average that person doesn't make the same mistake over and over again.)

Many States especially the RED REPUBLICAN States are "Right to Work"

[tzor]

Many States especially the RED REPUBLICAN States are "Right to Work"

The expression "Right to Work" actually means the ability to be employed without having to join a union.

It does not mean the person has a "right" to actually "work" which would imply that he cannot be refused a job for whatever reason including his ability to do the job.

It's as stupid as the "Right to healthcare." Seriously, if a person has a "right" does that mean that he can ring the doorbell of a doctor at 2AM in the morning? It's his "right" after all. Does it mean that CVS needs to be open 24/7?

[mrswdk]

Update!!

So far in this thread a bakery refusing to serve a customer because they are gay has been compared to:

- A business having a dress code for customers
- A religious school teaching religion
- A Yankee fan taunting a Red Sox fan
- A black person refusing to work for the KKK
- A magnet factory refusing to hire someone with lots of piercings

[2dimes]

What Duk said. To summarrize: They have no obligation to hire anyone because of x reason. Any application/interview doesn't guarantee a job. Its up to the owners discretion of who he hires and who he wants to do business with.

In the US it's illegal to factor someone's ethnicity, sex, age, sexuality etc. into your decision about whether or not to hire them, so actually yes employers do have an obligation to not discriminate against potential employees for those reasons.

You're confusing a legal obligation with a moral obligation. Laws are written to be politically popular. They rarely pass a deep Aristotelian test of being ethically sound.

To summarize my question. In Dukasaur's perfect world, If a gay person has the best qualifications and you are hiring an employee, you must hire them to bake cakes with you all day, yet you can refuse to sell them one?

Your "question" makes no sense.

In a perfect world, people wouldn't have hatreds and prejudices.

Alas, a perfect world eludes us. So ask yourself, "Given that Jack and Jill hate each other, and there's nothing I can do about it, is the lesser of two evils to:

1. Let them hang out at different places where they're at least doing no harm to each other; or
2. Force Jill against her will to bake a cake for Jack, seething with rage all the while, and pretend that I'm doing something to reduce hatred.

Well, I was suggesting the "perfect world" was flawed. As You sort of partly imply, if things were perfect everyone would be clones or celebrate our differences.

I do not want to single you out. I was merely suggesting I agree with the right to avoid people you can't get along with. I agree people should be less prejudice and get to know others, before deciding, they don't like them because someone that looks like them or talks in a similar accent was horrible.

I firmly believe the being with the best skills and qualifications should be doing most jobs.

Unfourtunately the real world is full of flaws and often the people in charge are bad people.

I am convinced, baking a cake for someone you hate and telling them.

...please, f*ck off and go live in Wisconsin or something while you enjoy them.

Would be much better than hiring them in a case where.

If someone has to fight their gag reflex just to survive an interview with you, they're not likely to want to see you on a daily basis.

[thegreekdog]

Well actually, that link DDS posted says that the judge has explicitly stated her religion as the reason she wants to refuse to marry gay couples and up to this day is still trying to win the right to refuse to marry gay couples. She's a public servant asking for permission to refuse to provide her public service to gay people.

It's funny that in your OP about the death of religious freedom in the US, 2 out of the 3 stories concern the right to be a homophobe. Aren't there any better crusades for you to fight?

The judge has not explicitly stated that. Another judge explicitly stated that. There are two different judges. There is a woman who was in front of Congress being quizzed on religion because the quizzers had to prove their bona fides to their supporters. This particular woman would not use religious preferences to make decisions and has stated that in front of Congress and in other sports. Then there is a person (Wyoming judge) who is using his/her religion to decide judicial matters. I think the first judge would find that offensive.

I'm not fighting a crusade. I'm pointing out a potential slippery slope.

(1) A judge is being attacked (by Congress) because of her religion (a protected characteristic, I might add) vis-a-vis abortion and people seem okay with that (even though the judge has stated on many occasions that religion should not enter into judicial decisions). People seem okay with that because... meh, who cares? Religious people are weirdos.

(2) A religion (Catholicism) is being attacked by a conservative editor of a popular news website and a guy who happened to be a former advisor to the president and people seem okay with that because... meh, Catholics aren't conservative enough for me anyway.

(3) A religious person is being attacked for not providing a wedding cake to a gay couple (because of religious reasons) who could purchase a wedding cake from pretty much anyone else. Not really equal to Jim Crow. I'm pretty sure someone mentioned that previously. If you equate this to Jim Crow, you're a despicable human being.

I see a degeneration of religious freedoms in the guise of (a) policy preferences, (b) policy preferences, and (c) absurdly irrational social justice in the guise of equal protection.

To put it another way, I'm not gay but I support the right of gay people to be judges without being questioned as to whether their gayness affects their decision making; I support the right of gay people to not be mocked or ridiculed for supporting illegal immigration; and I support the right of gay people to not buy a cake from a religious person. You can be not religious and have a problem with the eroding of religious freedoms. You just choose not to. If I chose not to in the context of gays, I would be labelled a homophobe. What should I label you?

[thegreekdog]

And also, LOL

Why are Democrats and liberals (and libertarians) focusing on Christians/Catholics and not other religions?

Coming from a guy in a country where the elected head of state declared that all Muslims should be banned from entering the country on the grounds that they are Muslims.

But no it's Catholicism that gets picked on.

Well first, only people from certain countries and not because of their religion (according to the actual policy).

And second, I'm fairly certain all liberals, all Democrats, and most everyone else (including me and most Libertarians) were not supportive of that decision.

If, on the other hand, the president started to quiz Muslim judicial candidates on religious preferences affecting judicial decisions in a formal hearing or came out and said that the only reason Muslims were supporting illegal immigrants was to get more converts and mosque-goers or the president started lambasting Muslim bakers for not baking a cake for a gay wedding... I would probably point those things out. That's not happening because Democrat Congresspeople won't attack Muslims at a hearing simply for being Muslim and because the liberals who brought the suit against the Christian baker would never bring a suit against a Muslim baker.

[notyou2]

If you work for the government in a hiring capacity, you have absolutely no right to discriminate based on appearance. What about people with a wandering eye? Do you discriminate against them as well? Or perhaps a facial deformity of a large lump on their neck (gout or some word like that)? Do you discriminate against them?

You sir are a hypocrite and confirmed by your own admission.

I don't work for the government. I work for a private company that has government contracts. There's a big difference.

Ah, the truth comes out. Why didn't you say that earlier?

[Dukasaur]

If you work for the government in a hiring capacity, you have absolutely no right to discriminate based on appearance. What about people with a wandering eye? Do you discriminate against them as well? Or perhaps a facial deformity of a large lump on their neck (gout or some word like that)? Do you discriminate against them?

You sir are a hypocrite and confirmed by your own admission.

I don't work for the government. I work for a private company that has government contracts. There's a big difference.

Ah, the truth comes out. Why didn't you say that earlier?

Until you said the line at the top of that quote, I had no idea what you were driving at, so it didn't seem relevant. It wasn't until you clarified where your line of questioning was going that it became (slightly) relevant. It's still only slightly relevant, because while government and private organizations have somewhat different responsibilities, I think both have a right to evaluate job applicants based on moral criteria. Someone who engages in self-mutilation is either mentally ill or simply enjoys freaking out other people, which is not an attribute you would want in the workplace.

[DoomYoshi]

There is a bakery around the corner from my house that I once had flies in the big of bread so I don't go there. I go to the other bakery. I truly am a terrible person for discrimination.

Riskllama's ideal mate:

[riskllama]

i don't completely agree with that, duk - i have no problems w/ear & nose piercings on either sex, if they are tastefully done.
*shrugs*

[Thorthoth]

WOTAN!!!NOW

[riskllama]

Riskllama's ideal mate:

she'd have to lose the rope first...

[Thorthoth]

Riskllama's ideal mate:

she'd have to lose the rope first...

Good news for you, J. Edgar. It's not a 'she'... and he want's you to lose the dress (wink, wink).

[Dukasaur]