Religion
Related: About this forum5 Silliest Religious Exemptions Cases in 2014
http://religiondispatches.org/5-silliest-religious-exemptions-cases-in-2014/BY KARA LOEWENTHEIL DECEMBER 25, 2014
2014 was the year that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) made a comeback, and now religious exemptions are the talk of the (policy wonk) town. As Hobby Lobby emboldened those seeking religious exemptions, we saw more and more outlandish claims being advanced disguised as religious rights. Here are the top five bizarre religious exemption claims of the past yearalthough Im sure 2015 will find a way top them.
1. The nurse who told a family planning clinic she wouldnt prescribe birth control and then sued the clinic for not hiring her. Yes, you read that right. Enough said.
2. The woman arrested for crystal meth who claimed she needed it for her Wiccan religious practices. Thats how far weve come from the Native Americans who were penalized for using peyote in the landmark Smith case that brought us RFRA to begin with.
3. The Satanic Temples print-and-sign web form for claiming a religious exemption to get out of having to listen to state-required biased counseling laws before obtaining an abortion. If only it were that easy.
more at link
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)If she is saying she was discriminated against for her religious beliefs.
sometimes the intention behind our civil rights laws can be a 2 edged sword.
Sweeney
(505 posts)I never applied for a job in my life I didn't think I could do.
Maybe I had it all wrong. I should have told them I want the job; but I don't want the work.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)The law says you cannot discriminate because of religion.
She is testing the law.
I am not saying she is right.
I am not saying she should be hired.
I AM saying, from a legal perspective, that blanket laws often appear to make sense, until they are tested in cases like this and re-defined.
It is up to the courts then to see if the broad definition of the law applies in this situation.
Better hope any court that does hear the case is not a Bush appointee.
If the law supposes that, said Mr. Bumble,
the law is a assa idiot."
from Oliver Twist
cbayer
(146,218 posts)can refuse to hire is someone is unable to do the job.
Whether that refusal is religiously based or not is not at issue, imo.
If she could do the job, but wanted to wear a cross or a headscarf or get home before dark on Fridays or have specific prayer breaks during the day, then she might have a case, as long as her religion did not interfere with her ability to do the job.
IIRC, a woman recently won a case against Abercrombie and Fitch because they did not hire her because she wears a hijab. She is perfectly capable of doing the job and her dress doesn't interfere with anything in the job description. She had a case, imo.
Nice to see you, dixiegrrrrl.
cbayer
(146,218 posts)She was applying for a job in a place whose purpose is to provide birth control and she says up front that she won't do it.
It's like someone with an peanut allergy applying for a job at a planters factory then saying they can't be exposed to peanuts.
That's fine, you don't get the job. But suing the employer is ludicrous, imo.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Sweeney
(505 posts)and the religious should have the protection of law is a bit of a contradiction.