Religious freedom vs. freedom of conscience

[Willamena]

Where is the line between "someone being protected from picking up plastic wrapped meatbecause it will condemn them", "someone baking a cake for a couple they don't want to picture having sex" and say, sometime refusing to work in a room painted royal purple, because they believe that specific color, when viewed long enough, causes negativity to build?

In youropinion, where do we fit the line of "protected" vs "not protected"

I have no idea what this has to do with what I said, so I'm just going to bow out.

 

[idav]

In youropinion, where do we fit the line of "protected" vs "not protected"

I think non-religious should be protected as freedom of religion. It isnt just a right to practice what we want but also the right to not practice anything.

Then with liberal religions like UU a person has a right to beliefs of univeralism, where a person has a right to be who they are, they also would be protected due to religious beliefs.

 

[idea]

...some people here may think that my moral issues SHOULD have been my employer's problem.

Moral issues should not be an employer's problem. We choose where to work, we choose what products to buy. If you want to make it impossible for any company to do any work, then open up the floodgates of every special interest group imaginable to press lawsuits about how that company isn't meeting their needs.

 

[Awkward Fingers]

I have no idea what this has to do with what I said, so I'm just going to bow out.

Probably doesn't..
I think my caffeine is just kicking in..
>.>

 

[Awkward Fingers]

Just curious.
Tried to google this, but my phone is acting up.

What are the requirements for something to be a "protected religion"
Is there a set process for a religion to become certified as real?

Can anyone make up a religion, and as long as they have firmly held beliefs, be protected?

 

[idav]

The goal of the ACLU’s work on freedom of religion and belief is to guarantee that all are free to follow and practice their faith – or no faith at all – without governmental influence or interference.*Through litigation, public education, and advocacy, the ACLU promotes religious freedom and works to ensure that government neither prefers religion over non-religion nor favors particular faiths over others. At the same time, we act to protect the equally important and related constitutional right to exercise and express religious beliefs and individual conscience

https://www.aclu.org/religion-belief

 

[Quintessence]

That fragment in red goes back to what we were saying in the other threads. They ARE NOT giving up anything sacred, or holy, or holy law, etc, when they serve gay people, in their normal jobs. Jesus was out among so-called "sinners." The Bible doesn't say - don't bake big fancy cakes for Gay people. They literally believe gay people are not married in the eyes of God, - SO, - that wedding dress is just a white dress. That wedding cake is just a big cake they baked for a customer. How is that forcing them to break any religious law? They just want to be able to discriminate against a whole group that they don't like. That is all it is, discrimination.
*

Sure. I was talking there in general terms, not about specific cases. I'm viewing this issue from a much broader standpoint than this ridiculous debacle over serving homosexuals, because that seems to be what the OP intended. Obviously this case is discrimination. There are many other hypothetical (and not so hypothetical) cases I can think of where the point I raised stands: cases where it is patently unfair discriminatory to not accommodate an employee. One example I was thinking of in particular is that of religious holidays. Religious minorities often get shafted on this, as their holy days may not be recognized as "legitimate" and on top of that, there's a lack of understanding about minority religions that can lead to deliberate discrimination or subconscious bias against these people.

 

[Tristengarde]

Is it? Can hatred never be a matter of conscience? Beliefs based on hatred can certainly be deeply held, which is my main criterion. Why do you exclude them?

Perhaps we are not using "hatred" in the same way...
I hate "hypocrisy", for example - so that would be a deeply held belief.

I meant "hatred against other people" who are not causing harm to oneself. (Bigotry - maybe a better word: "bigotry" vs "conscience")?

Such as religious pacifism vs. pacifism for non-religious reasons, or religious prohibitions on certain foods vs. non-religiously motivated veganism, for example.

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.
Let's go with pacifism. I hate war. Yes. HATE it. Not for religious reasons, for humanitarian reasons. Do I hate all servicemen and women? No. Not at all. Would I refuse to serve servicemen in my restaurant because I hate war?
Would it somehow serve a positive intent to do so?

Seems to me the AZ and KS bills were more about hatred of a private behavior matter - not a person's livelihood (I'm not keen on certain aspects of capitalism/business, so I don't do business with them - or at least I minimize it).

Those principles are not the same as "refusal to serve gay people" because I don't see being "gay" as a chosen behavior; I see it as an inborn trait. For example, are we to see signage that says "no gays" can drink from this water fountain? Ride this bus? Attend this theater? It harkens back to the days of segregation of white and black people.

Doesn't it? It seems to me that consumers are the ones who have power to refuse to give their business to "haters" - perhaps these restaurateurs should make their establishments "private clubs" if they don't want to serve the general public.

Anyway - how would one "tell" if a pair were gay, or were siblings, cousins, coworkers, friends, etc? It's not likely the customers are going to engage in PDA/sex on the table or anything...

Maybe I'm misunderstanding the point.
Thanks for your reply, though.

 

[mystic64]

Depending where you are, it's not so new. In Canada, "freedom of conscience and religion" has been in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms since it was enacted in 1982.


Doesn't that depend where you are? IIRC, employers in some states can dismiss employees without giving any reason at all.


Again, this depends where you are. For instance, some states have laws that allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense "Plan B" pills, contraceptives, and abortifacients on religious grounds, and protect their jobs while doing so.

Canada is ahead of the US in a lot of ways . Yes, private employers can dismiss an employee without giving a reason. Government and union employees not so much. They pass laws giving people rights, and then they pass laws creating loopholes to the first laws . I love it. US laws are in constant transition, and that transition depends on who has the power at any given point in time. About pharmacists, in the US there are so many pharmacists that one can just walk down the street a little and go to another one. If this religious choice situation started to be a problem that affected access to the pills, then laws would be passed and religious choice would become the choice of being a pharmacist or not. At this point the few that abject on religious reasons are not actually causing a problem.

Basically what we are discussing here has to do with private business owners versus their employees and how they, the private business owners, choose to do business. Government and union employees are under a different system. Under those systems it mostly has to do with who you know and who they know. And how good one is at politicing or brown nosing. There are a lot of laws that protect government and union employees, but the truth is that those laws do not mean squat if someone in upper management has an agenda that does not include you.

 

[mystic64]

Dignity is formalized as freedom of thought, and in turn informs freedom of religion.

In other words, self-worth lends itself to valuing thoughts, and some of those thoughts are religious.

Some of those thoughts are religious, sure.
And some are opinion, or culinary preference, or superstitious, or aesthetic.

(to anyone, not calling you pout on this Willamena)
Where is the line between "someone being protected from picking up plastic wrapped meatbecause it will condemn them", "someone baking a cake for a couple they don't want to picture having sex" and say, sometime refusing to work in a room painted royal purple, because they believe that specific color, when viewed long enough, causes negativity to build?

In youropinion, where do we fit the line of "protected" vs "not protected"

Sir, the line depends on who has the majority or the power, majority or otherwise. And at this point in time if working in a room painted purple is against your religion in a written scriptural sense, then you can not be made to work in a purple room.

Freedom of religion as applied to the work place is dependent on what your religion's written scripture says. If your religion does not have an established written scripture to support your claims, then you are just, "sorry out of luck". The fit of the line of "protedcted" vs "not protected" is the what is written in a religion's scripture, if that religion is considered an established religion. sir, there really is no "we" to it, except whether or not "we" allow religious freedom or not.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Perhaps we are not using "hatred" in the same way...
I hate "hypocrisy", for example - so that would be a deeply held belief.

I meant "hatred against other people" who are not causing harm to oneself. (Bigotry - maybe a better word: "bigotry" vs "conscience")?

Bigotry can't be a deeply held belief?

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at.

I'm continuing with the theme of refusal to perform parts of one's job.

In many militaries, a person who is opposed to war or violence for religious reasons can be recognized as a "conscientious objector" and not be forced to fight. This can even be the case when a person voluntarily enlists but converts to a pacifistic religion before their term of service is up.

The US only started recognizing non-religiously motivated pacifism as grounds for conscientious objector status in 1971. In other countries, it still isn't recognized.

That's what I was getting at when I brought up pacifism: in some places, religiously motivated pacifists in the armed forces are protected by law but non-religiously motivated pacifists aren't.

 

[Tristengarde]

Bigotry can't be a deeply held belief?

Well, of course it can.

I'm continuing with the theme of refusal to perform parts of one's job.

Okay....and I said that I have left jobs that required/wanted to force me to abide by "policy" that I found repugnant.

In many militaries, a person who is opposed to war or violence for religious reasons can be recognized as a "conscientious objector" and not be forced to fight.

Yes. A good thing.

This can even be the case when a person voluntarily enlists but converts to a pacifistic religion before their term of service is up.

And....is that a problem?

The US only started recognizing non-religiously motivated pacifism as grounds for conscientious objector status in 1971. In other countries, it still isn't recognized.

That's a pity, in my opinion. A hindrance to global peace.

That's what I was getting at when I brought up pacifism: in some places, religiously motivated pacifists in the armed forces are protected by law but non-religiously motivated pacifists aren't.

Hm. Well, it doesn't seem that hard to me to say, "It's against my religion", even if it's simply one's deepest held irreligious belief.

I was called for jury duty some few years ago; a capital murder trial. In the interview process, a young man stood up and said he could not serve with neutrality due to his religion. I understood what he meant.

So - if a person with religion is called to jury duty, and so is another irreligious person who simply wonders, "Why do we kill people who kill people in order to show that killing people is wrong?", is one forgiven and the other in contempt?

 

[fantome profane]

Bigotry can't be a deeply held belief?


I'm continuing with the theme of refusal to perform parts of one's job.

In many militaries, a person who is opposed to war or violence for religious reasons can be recognized as a "conscientious objector" and not be forced to fight. This can even be the case when a person voluntarily enlists but converts to a pacifistic religion before their term of service is up.

The US only started recognizing non-religiously motivated pacifism as grounds for conscientious objector status in 1971. In other countries, it still isn't recognized.

That's what I was getting at when I brought up pacifism: in some places, religiously motivated pacifists in the armed forces are protected by law but non-religiously motivated pacifists aren't.

Conscientious objectors have the freedom to leave the military, or not join (be drafted) in the first place. If we were to draw a parallel from this to other non-military jobs that would mean that the "objector" would have the right to leave their job, not the right to keep their job.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Conscientious objectors have the freedom to leave the military, or not join (be drafted) in the first place. If we were to draw a parallel from this to other non-military jobs that would mean that the "objector" would have the right to leave their job, not the right to keep their job.

Right. I wasn't trying to focus on the specifics of conscientious objector status specifically; I was trying to point out where it's one case where (historically, anyhow) different protections were granted to religious and non-religious beliefs.

 

[Pegg]

Several years ago, I was working for a Canadian engineering firm that was bought by a large US company. When looking into who my new employer would be, I discovered that the company had a division that was a contractor to the US armed forces, doing warplane refueling and rearming in Kuwait to support the Iraq War (which was going on at the time). I had major ethical objections to the Iraq War and didn't want to work for a company that was directly involved, so I found another job and quit.

At the time, it didn't even occur to me that I should have any recourse against my employer. They weren't doing anything illegal, so my moral objections were my problem, not theirs. However, the rhetoric surrounding these recent "religious freedom" bills suggests that some people here may think that my moral issues SHOULD have been my employer's problem.

Thoughts?

what if you were the person who owned the company...it was your own business and you were the boss.

If you were asked to provide a quote for a contract to supply some ongoing services to the Armed forces, would you feel the same way?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

what if you were the person who owned the company...it was your own business and you were the boss.

If you were asked to provide a quote for a contract to supply some ongoing services to the Armed forces, would you feel the same way?

I'm not opposed to the military in general; only that particular war. At another company, I did military-related work (we'd bid on jobs for air conditioning work at military bases, for instance) and I didn't have a problem with that.

I doubt I'd ever be ASKED by the Armed Forces to bid on some contract. In the lines of work I've been involved with, any bid opportunities typically get advertised and companies can choose to bid or not as they see fit.

But for argument's sake, if I owned a company and was asked by a client to bid on some job that I had a moral objection to, I'd probably turn down the opportunity. If I needed to provide a quote for some reason (to not reject a long-standing client, for instance), I might bid but at a "go away" price... high enough that I'd never get the contract.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

If I owned a business and I had to do dealings as a business that were against my morals I guess I would have to follow the "give unto Caesar..." Mindset. But given how being rich makes it hard to get into heaven...why would I want to be a business owner in the first place?

 

[Pegg]

But for argument's sake, if I owned a company and was asked by a client to bid on some job that I had a moral objection to, I'd probably turn down the opportunity. If I needed to provide a quote for some reason (to not reject a long-standing client, for instance), I might bid but at a "go away" price... high enough that I'd never get the contract.

right, and thats what conscientious objection is... its freedom to live by your conscience

And thats why i think its important to support laws allowing people to live by their conscience.

Unfortunately though, people will misuse the law as they do many other laws and i think refusing to serve gay people is a misuse of the law.