Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

SecularMotion

(7,981 posts)
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 10:16 AM Aug 2014

How the battle for religious freedom became a nonsensical free-for-all

Journalists are generally expected to adhere to some sort of code. For traditional news reporters, this may mean avoiding the appearance of being biased. For those at ideologically minded publications, it may mean staying on a certain side of the idea divide. At minimum, most outlets want their staff to avoid wildly unhinged, reputation-damaging rants.

But this is not how Robert Dale Eschliman sees it. The former editor-in-chief of Connecticut's Newton Daily News argues that anti-gay proselytizing on his personal blog is a vital part of his religious expression and therefore an invalid reason for termination. Eschliman says that in firing him, the newspaper illegally discriminated against him based on his religious beliefs.

One might think: Hello, at-will employment. At-will employment — the norm in all U.S. states but Montana — means that an employer isn't required to have or give cause for firing an employee. But that doesn't mean an employer can fire someone for any reason — there are some protected statuses, like race, religion, sex, age, or disability, on which companies can't legally discriminate. (In most states, sexual orientation and gender identity are not protected statuses.)

However, these laws only shield folks from employment actions made directly because of race/religion/etc. "An employer may fire Jane because she failed to perform the required functions of her job, but not because she is in a wheelchair," the National Conference of State Legislatures offers as an example. Similarly, an employer can't discriminate because of religion and is expected to allow for "reasonable accommodations" of religious expression (say, allowing time off for Catholic holy days or breaks for Muslim prayer rituals). Yet the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (EEOC) also stipulates that accommodating religious practices isn't necessary if "doing so would cause more than a minimal burden on the operations of the employer's business."

http://theweek.com/article/index/265445/how-the-battle-for-religious-freedom-became-a-nonsensical-free-for-all
1 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
How the battle for religious freedom became a nonsensical free-for-all (Original Post) SecularMotion Aug 2014 OP
Nice synopsis and analysis of this. cbayer Aug 2014 #1

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
1. Nice synopsis and analysis of this.
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 10:27 AM
Aug 2014

The author is a libertarian, so she is looking at it from that perspective. This could be a very divisive issue for the libertarians.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»How the battle for religi...