Gay, Christian, Cake Baking, Muslim, Mormon, Motorcycle Cops... Oh My!

[KevinG]

Compare and contrast:

 

1) The LDS Officer wanting a non-ceremonial assignment for the SLC Gay Parade being put on probation.

 

2) A bakery being sued because they refused to bake a cake for a "gay wedding".

 

3) A Hobby shop suing for the right to deny funding for medical procedures/products they feel are not moral.

 

4) A Muslim man refusing to handle pork at his cash register suing Costco because he was reassigned to gather shopping carts.

 

http://7online.com/religion/former-employee-suing-costco-for-religious-discrimination-/532866/

 

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

NEW YORK (WABC) -- A man is suing Costco for religious discrimination.

He tells Eyewitness News exclusively that when he refused to work with pork, the major retailer sent him outside to gather carts...

 

Is it even possible to be consistent in the application of civil liberties, freedom of association, and religious rights across this diverse yet similar set of issues?

[JLHPROF]

Compare and contrast:

 

1) The LDS Officer wanting a non-ceremonial assignment for the SLC Gay Parade being put on probation.

 

2) A bakery being sued because they refused to bake a cake for a "gay wedding".

 

3) A Hobby shop suing for the right to deny funding for medical procedures/products they feel are not moral.

 

4) A Muslim man refusing to handle pork at his cash register suing Costco because he was reassigned to gather shopping carts.

 

http://7online.com/religion/former-employee-suing-costco-for-religious-discrimination-/532866/

 

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

NEW YORK (WABC) -- A man is suing Costco for religious discrimination.

He tells Eyewitness News exclusively that when he refused to work with pork, the major retailer sent him outside to gather carts...

 

Is it even possible to be consistent in the application of civil liberties, freedom of association, and religious rights across this diverse yet similar set of issues?

 

That idiot in #4 doesn't have a leg to stand on.  If he wins his case I will officially lose all faith in society.

 

And to your question - it is absolutely possible to be consistent in applying civil liberties etc, but it is not possible to do it in a way that will make everyone happy or that everyone can agree on.  Because as #4 proves, people aren't sensible, reasonable, realistic etc...

[KevinG]

To be more blunt - for those who support the Police Officer in SLC being excused from duty...

 

How do you feel about COSCO putting this man on cart duty and taking him off the register?

 

Are there similarities or differences in your mind that make a difference?

[The Nehor]

I think all 4 were dumb. Especially the Hobby Lobby one. Corporations do not have freedom of religion and even if they did giving them a line-item veto of all applicable laws is insane.

[thesometimesaint]

To be more blunt - for those who support the Police Officer in SLC being excused from duty...

 

How do you feel about COSCO putting this man on cart duty and taking him off the register?

 

Are there similarities or differences in your mind that make a difference?

 

ALL of them presuppose that their religion precludes them from following the law and/or the demands of their boss.

[rockpond]

Compare and contrast:

 

1) The LDS Officer wanting a non-ceremonial assignment for the SLC Gay Parade being put on probation.

 

2) A bakery being sued because they refused to bake a cake for a "gay wedding".

 

3) A Hobby shop suing for the right to deny funding for medical procedures/products they feel are not moral.

 

4) A Muslim man refusing to handle pork at his cash register suing Costco because he was reassigned to gather shopping carts.

 

http://7online.com/religion/former-employee-suing-costco-for-religious-discrimination-/532866/

 

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

NEW YORK (WABC) -- A man is suing Costco for religious discrimination.

He tells Eyewitness News exclusively that when he refused to work with pork, the major retailer sent him outside to gather carts...

 

Is it even possible to be consistent in the application of civil liberties, freedom of association, and religious rights across this diverse yet similar set of issues?

 

There must be some limitations somewhere or else the whole thing falls apart.  For example, if the protection of an employee's religious freedom means that they cannot be fired for their religious beliefs/expression AND if the protection of an employer's religious freedom means that s/he doesn't have to employ someone who's religious beliefs/expression contradict with the employer's religious beliefs/expression... you've got a conflict.

 

Somehow, we've got to find a way to be reasonable with each other.

[JLHPROF]

I think all 4 were dumb. Especially the Hobby Lobby one. Corporations do not have freedom of religion and even if they did giving them a line-item veto of all applicable laws is insane.

 

I agree, but I can understand this better than some of the other.

If you owned a business and your business was required by law to fund abortions would you really be happy about that?

I would be heartbroken if I knew my funds were being used to accomplish that.

 

Legally they have no leg to stand on, but still...

[The Nehor]

I agree, but I can understand this better than some of the other.

If you owned a business and your business was required by law to fund abortions would you really be happy about that?

I would be heartbroken if I knew my funds were being used to accomplish that.

 

Legally they have no leg to stand on, but still...

I can understand it but you lobby to change the law. Also heartbroken seems a little extreme. You provide a service to your employees and then their conscience decides how to use it. They would not be "your funds" anymore. It is part of their wages and belongs to them not to the company. If God operated the way Hobby Lobby wanted to Lucifer might have carried the day.

If that went through how many businesses would become faith healers and insist that providing any kind of health insurance would violate the company's religion.

[strappinglad]

I guess that is why some suggest that employers NOT be required to provide health benefits. There should be sufficient salary for the employee to purchase his/her own health care plan.  Of course, that would mean no universal health care mandate. There could be a list of non-funded procedures but it might get unwieldy.

[sethpayne]

To be more blunt - for those who support the Police Officer in SLC being excused from duty...

 

How do you feel about COSCO putting this man on cart duty and taking him off the register?

 

Are there similarities or differences in your mind that make a difference?

 

Do you mean COSCO or Costco?  I'm assuming Costco.

 

I suppose these things are related.  Both actions are completely justified.  If you object to handling pork then you can't work as a cashier at a place that sells pork.  Unless there are some details that show Costco to have been hostile to this man's religion in other ways then okay.  Maybe that is something.  But if it a simple reassignment because a person chooses not to fulfill all of the necessary duties of a cashier, then I don't see any problem.  

 

It's like getting a job as an NFL ticket handler and then suing because they are making you work on Sunday.  That's just silly.

 

If you object to performing certain responsibilities requested of you by your supervisor and then you quit without exhausting any of your appeal options, then ok.

Edited March 4, 2015 by sethpayne

[The Nehor]

I guess that is why some suggest that employers NOT be required to provide health benefits. There should be sufficient salary for the employee to purchase his/her own health care plan.  Of course, that would mean no universal health care mandate. There could be a list of non-funded procedures but it might get unwieldy.

If we got rid of health insurance in general that might work but the way health care is structured right now those with health insurance from their company are in the equivalent of union that haggled prices down while the guy going in on his own has to pay much more.

Since health insurance does not actually produce anything getting rid of them is no real loss.

[Scott Lloyd]

That idiot in #4 doesn't have a leg to stand on.  If he wins his case I will officially lose all faith in society.

 

Over such a little thing?

 

It took the gay "marriage" avalanche of this decade to shake mine. And I still haven't totally lost it -- although occurrences like #1 in the OP haven't helped.

Edited March 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

That idiot in #4 doesn't have a leg to stand on.  If he wins his case I will officially lose all faith in society.

 

And to your question - it is absolutely possible to be consistent in applying civil liberties etc, but it is not possible to do it in a way that will make everyone happy or that everyone can agree on.  Because as #4 proves, people aren't sensible, reasonable, realistic etc...

I recommend just never developing faith in humanity. It makes living in society much easier.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If we got rid of health insurance in general that might work but the way health care is structured right now those with health insurance from their company are in the equivalent of union that haggled prices down while the guy going in on his own has to pay much more.

Since health insurance does not actually produce anything getting rid of them is no real loss.

If we treated going to the doctor like going to a hotel, in terms of how we pay for it, I think things would balance out. But I guess this is not really a discussion about health care.

 

To the OP, I wont be shocked if the Muslim won his case.

[carbon dioxide]

I think all 4 were dumb. Especially the Hobby Lobby one. Corporations do not have freedom of religion and even if they did giving them a line-item veto of all applicable laws is insane.

Hobby lobby just did not want to pay for something they were against.  Birth control and abortions are all elective health care issues.   They are not more necessary than breast implants.  They did not say the employees could not use them.  They just did not want to pay money for it. Let the employee pay for it out of their own check.  Sounds good to me.

[The Nehor]

Hobby lobby just did not want to pay for something they were against.  Birth control and abortions are all elective health care issues.   They are not more necessary than breast implants.  They did not say the employees could not use them.  They just did not want to pay money for it. Let the employee pay for it out of their own check.  Sounds good to me.

Elected legislators passed laws saying you had to cover those issues.

Employers do not get to decide to ignore the law. In addition they need to stop seeing healthcare as something they should be in control of. They select the program for the employees within the law and that is the extent of their involvement. They are no more responsible for paying for employee abortions through healthcare plan then they are if the employee uses their paycheck to buy it. this is not as much about morality as skirting the law to cut costs. Should never happen.

[williamsmith]

Compare and contrast:

 

1) The LDS Officer wanting a non-ceremonial assignment for the SLC Gay Parade being put on probation.

 

2) A bakery being sued because they refused to bake a cake for a "gay wedding".

 

3) A Hobby shop suing for the right to deny funding for medical procedures/products they feel are not moral.

 

4) A Muslim man refusing to handle pork at his cash register suing Costco because he was reassigned to gather shopping carts.

 

http://7online.com/religion/former-employee-suing-costco-for-religious-discrimination-/532866/

 

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

NEW YORK (WABC) -- A man is suing Costco for religious discrimination.

He tells Eyewitness News exclusively that when he refused to work with pork, the major retailer sent him outside to gather carts...

 

Is it even possible to be consistent in the application of civil liberties, freedom of association, and religious rights across this diverse yet similar set of issues?

 

Every issue has a different standard.

 

1. Officer was within his rights to not engage in a ceremonial action that is a form of support, but still willing to do security which was his actual job.

 

2. A Bakery has a right to make what they want for who they want, it's their Art, and it's their food service which has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

 

3. No one is obliged to be "forced" to support things that are completely "Elective" and can be gotten otherwise.  They weren't being denied surgery, basic medical care, etc., especially when elective things often make insurance much more expensive for everyone else, like plastic surgery, sex changes, etc., all of which liberals actually think are "rights" that others must pay for rather than entirely elective, something they should pay for.

 

4. The Muslim man is at fault, if he didn't want to handle pork, he shouldn't have taken a job that handled pork, Costco did right in trying to accomodate him with what other job was available, he however is just an entitled slimeball causing problems engaging in a frivalous lawsuit.

 

To answer you, of course it's possible.  The problem is, you can't legislate everything.  People are still going to be stupid, they are going to do wrong to others, and people are going to falsely cause problems for others, just like liberals and anti-mormons do.

[california boy]

I fully expect Scott Lloyd to go on for pages stating how the Muslin checker has been maligned in the liberal press for only following his moral conscious.  The policeman and the Muslin checker are the exact same issue, not wanting to do something their employer asked that they feel is against their religious belief.

 

This whole new entitlement to decide whether performing a service against a person's religious beliefs is only headed in one direction.  It hasn't surfaced since the passing of the civil rights acts of 1964.  And now you are seeing it.  People now seem to think they have the right to break the laws because of religious beliefs.  

[JLHPROF]

I fully expect Scott Lloyd to go on for pages stating how the Muslin checker has been maligned in the liberal press for only following his moral conscious.  The policeman and the Muslin checker are the exact same issue, not wanting to do something their employer asked that they feel is against their religious belief.

 

Oh they were both completely wrong....but there are times when religious beliefs do conflict with a job.  And then it's time for a new job.

 

Seriously - people like these two would take a job as a bartender and then complain about having to serve alcohol.

Edited March 5, 2015 by JLHPROF

[strappinglad]

Apples and tomatoes, maybe. Any person hired as a cashier would have to be blatantly obtuse to think that he would never be asked to handle pork at some time as pork is offered for sale in almost every market in the US. Perhaps he just came off the boat and had only been in the States for 3 days and had been a cashier only in Saudi Arabia previously. Right, that definitely was the situation.

   The policeman was in a somewhat different situation. Was the motorcycle troop a required part of the job or was it a voluntary signup? If the Westboro Baptist bunch organized a parade with their usual theme and the Police Chief approved a motorcycle escort ( why, one can't imagine) which was expected to do fancy maneuvers at the front of the parade, I wonder if there would be any officers objecting / refusing to do it. Who in the community would castigate any officer who so objected? Would the gay activists complain that such objectors  are not fulfilling their civic duty? Methinks not.

[The Nehor]

Apples and tomatoes, maybe. Any person hired as a cashier would have to be blatantly obtuse to think that he would never be asked to handle pork at some time as pork is offered for sale in almost every market in the US. Perhaps he just came off the boat and had only been in the States for 3 days and had been a cashier only in Saudi Arabia previously. Right, that definitely was the situation.

   The policeman was in a somewhat different situation. Was the motorcycle troop a required part of the job or was it a voluntary signup? If the Westboro Baptist bunch organized a parade with their usual theme and the Police Chief approved a motorcycle escort ( why, one can't imagine) which was expected to do fancy maneuvers at the front of the parade, I wonder if there would be any officers objecting / refusing to do it. Who in the community would castigate any officer who so objected? Would the gay activists complain that such objectors  are not fulfilling their civic duty? Methinks not.

People just need to be more creative. If I was a cop ordered to ride in front of Westboro parade I would wear as much rainbow colored gear as possible and put a flag on the back of my bike with an arrow pointing backwards on it saying "I'm with stupid"

I do my job and it is clear I do not support the parade.

[Daniel2]

Apples and tomatoes, maybe. Any person hired as a cashier would have to be blatantly obtuse to think that he would never be asked to handle pork at some time as pork is offered for sale in almost every market in the US. Perhaps he just came off the boat and had only been in the States for 3 days and had been a cashier only in Saudi Arabia previously. Right, that definitely was the situation.

The policeman was in a somewhat different situation. Was the motorcycle troop a required part of the job or was it a voluntary signup? If the Westboro Baptist bunch organized a parade with their usual theme and the Police Chief approved a motorcycle escort ( why, one can't imagine) which was expected to do fancy maneuvers at the front of the parade, I wonder if there would be any officers objecting / refusing to do it. Who in the community would castigate any officer who so objected? Would the gay activists complain that such objectors are not fulfilling their civic duty? Methinks not.

You are wrong.

Even for Westboro, or the KKK, I would expect the police to act as the public servants they are.

And anyone who refuses to do the job for which they were hired ought to lose their job. Period.

Edited March 5, 2015 by Daniel2

[tonie]

How do you feel about COSCO putting this man on cart duty and taking him off the register?

 

have not read the article, but my instinct says it is ok.

 

 

Are there similarities or differences in your mind that make a difference?

 

Only differences between the two.

[tonie]

 

4. The Muslim man is at fault, ... he however is just an entitled slimeball causing problems engaging in a frivalous lawsuit.

 

WOW!

[VideoGameJunkie]

I've already lost faith in humanity. Bring on the 2nd coming.