Faith-Based Employment Law
Reader Gary Gunnels sends word of the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, a Rick Santorum/John Kerry co-production. According to the Religion News Service, the bill would "force employers to 'reasonably accommodate' employees who want to wear religious articles or take off time for worship services." (Reminds me of the old Woody Allen routine where "a real dyed-in-the-wool advertising agency on Madison Avenue" hired him "to sit in their office and look Jewish," then fired him because he took off too many Jewish holidays.)
Meanwhile, a new policy in the U.K. would give firms more room for discrimination -- not against the religious, but by them. The Independent reports: "The 2003 Employment Equality Regulations were…meant for the first time to give protection to Muslims and to gays. An employer found to discriminate when hiring, promoting, demoting or training staff would be in breach of the law. [But] an exemption applies when an employer acts 'so as to comply with the doctrines of the religion -- or so as to avoid conflicting with the strongly held religious convictions of a significant number of the religion's followers.'"
Freedom of association: It's a principle that cuts both ways. Small wonder hardly anyone will defend it.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
it's very odd. then again, it's probably one of those "don't forget about us religious folk" the religious majority likes seeing so much.
the fun part is that i could see a bill like this being the most help for groups santorum would probably compare to incest and bestiality - various neo-pagan of the month club type religions.
Hal: The RNS reports that "Current law mandates that employers allow such expression as long as it does not impose an "undue hardship" on the company. Supporters, however, say a 1977 Supreme Court ruling gutted the law and has not protected employees' rights."
How exactly does an employee get any rights under the 1st Amendment? It says "Congress shall make no law..." after all. Now, accepting the 14th Amendment incorporation and all (which forces them to abide by the 1st Amendment, etc.), I still don't see how or where the Congress has any business, well, under the 1st Amendment mandating what private employers may do. Of course the standard response is the commerce clause; but the reasonable question is, how do the beliefs of employees effect IC? Does the mre fact that someone can get canned count as an effect on IC? Note that I think the aggregate theory created in the 1930s (the one concerning the guy who grew corn for sustenance) is absolute non-sense. š
Employment isn't free association, any more than prostitution is free love. I don't get to associate with my friends in Fenway Park if I don't have a ticket. If I associate with them too much at work, I'm going to get fired.
Yet another example of liberts trying to apply human rights to corporations.
"Ia! Ia! R'lyeh ? Cthulhu ftagn! Ia! Ia! Mglui naflftagn Dagon e Y'ha-nthlei! Ia! Ia! Y'ha-nthlei!!"
How do you work out the pronunciation ? Is there a dictionary ? I'm tempted to convert.
SM,
I could tell you, but then I'd have to use you as a sacrifice you to Cthulhu. š
I think this deseverses the level of vomit exhibited in the film "The Exorcist." š
Can't wait for this legislation to pass, so that I can finally put religious things in my cubicle. My office mates won't mind a small diorama of R'lyeh, picturing dread Cthulhu tentacle-raping a young maiden, would they? And I will be legally allowed to chant, "Ia! Ia! R'lyeh - Cthulhu ftagn! Ia! Ia! Mglui naflftagn Dagon e Y'ha-nthlei! Ia! Ia! Y'ha-nthlei!!" every hour on the hour, won't I?
Croesus: My gaming buddy/co-worker has a statute of Cthulhu at his desk, though not as graphic as you picture. He's also an agnostic minister. (Don't ask, it's a long yet funny story.)
The Church of Agnosticism? š
"The Church of Agnosticism?"
Maybe there really is one. You can't know for sure, now can you?
I don't understand this proposed law at all. There's already a law that does this -- it's called the First Amendment, and numerous Supreme Court rulings have interpreted the amendment to require "reasonable accomodation" for religious beliefs. The difficulty, of course, is determining what's reasonable and what's not, but it doesn't sound like this bill will add any more clarity to the debate, and might even muddle it further. What's next? The Workplace Freedom of Speech Act? The Workplace Act Against Unlawful Search and Seizure?
I am a minion of Chuthulu
Part of the main horde
Searching up and down for my evil overlord
And I need him more than want him
But I'll be his for all time
As the victims of Ri'lah
Are drowned in the slime....
sung to the tune of "Witchata Lineman"
I wish John Kerry would take his goddamned chin and haircut to some other planet.
joe,
Rather than explore the myriad of fallacies in your psuedo argument, let's just look at your premise. I.e., "free association" is not the same thing as "freedom of association." Not even close.
Girl bat ball high low snigger juice fresh hot steaming clams shells game girl...
Now *there's* a bit free association for you! š
All seriousness aside, sure you have to meet certain contractual obligations setup by those on whose property you tread or whose services or moolah you desire, but so what? The question raised here is why is an employer not allowed to exercise FREEDOM OF association? And once you trash that freedom, how far will it go? To absuridities, it is clear, for once you substitute collectivist judgment for the judgment of the individual, the fine-tuning that can be thought up and then legislated is infinite....
"Ia! Ia! R'lyeh ? Cthulhu ftagn! Ia! Ia! Mglui naflftagn Dagon e Y'ha-nthlei! Ia! Ia! Y'ha-nthlei!!"
is supposed to be unpronouncable, like all things Locecraftian. Just don't tell that to the people at Chaosium.
Arggghhh!!!! Cthulhu!!!! All is lost! The old ones have arisen!!!!!
Considering the age of the post, I've got to wonder whether or not I should bother, but it's too tasty to pass up.
You have to think, 'Man! The people in charge really don't get it.' That part about 'Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment... etc.' means that you don't have, can't have, and for the love of GOD really should not have a state religion. They don't get the really simple idea that if you open the door to one of them, you open the door to all of them.
I can't help but call up that dim recollection of the monkey in chief mumbling something about witchcraft's, Wicca's, 'not being a religion,' obviously not grasping that if a big number of people believe in it for whatever reason, it actually is.