states "Religious Freedom" Bills

Kind of a twist on this, The Supreme Court recently had to process a case of an individual "supposedly descriminated against" for a job, due to her religious lifestyle:

My thinking on it when I heard the story was that she must not of needed the job that bad. If I really needed a job, I'm not gonna let something such as a head scarf keeep me from getting a good paycheck. The decision review basically came down to does an employer have the right "not to select" an employment candidate because they don't fit the image needed for the business?


The Case
In 2008, 17-year-old Samantha Elauf applied for a job at an Abercrombie Kids store at the Woodland Hills Mall in Tulsa, Oklahoma. She interviewed for a position — what Abercrombie & Fitch calls a “model” — on the sales floor. Elauf, a Muslim woman, wore a hijab to her interview. At the time, wearing a hijab in that position would have violated Abercrombie’s “Look Policy.” The policy was meant to showcase Abercrombie’s brand, which “exemplifies a classic East Coast collegiate style of clothing,” according to court documents. As a result, Elauf was given a poor score — 1 out of 3 — on the “appearance” section of her interview assessment and was not hired. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a federal agency charged with enforcing employment discrimination laws, sued on Elauf’s behalf. The EEOC argued that Abercrombie had violated discrimination laws by failing to provide Elauf with religious accommodation.
In October, the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled for the company. Judge Jerome Holmes wrote in his opinion that even though she wore it to her interview, “Ms. Elauf never informed Abercrombie prior to its hiring decision that she wore her headscarf or ‘hijab’ for religious reasons and that she needed an accommodation for that practice.”
So the question now before the Supreme Court is one of information and explication: Is an employer liable only if it received an explicit notice from an applicant or employee about a required religious accommodation? Or is explicit notice unnecessary?
 
You can sue for anything. Claim whatever. And whoever is on the bench will rule it one way and somebody else will rule it another way. Nothing cut and dry about law.
 
This is all BS. If I am a gay couple getting married, why in the hell would I want to support, or spend my money with a business that does NOT want my business. I know if I was a caterer, florist or whatever, the gay couples money spends just like the others. So I am taking their money just like others. BUT, as a business owner, if your Christian beliefs are that strong, you should be able to say, thank you, but no thank you.......I would prefer to not take that job.

I know some gay couples, and they DO NOT force their sexuality on anyone! They live their private lives as they wish, but they are NEVER over the top with "look at me, I am gay". They go out, and have a good time with everyone else.....no big deal. I believe many of these cases are just to draw attention.

Over 80% of the people in the United States are Christians. The issue I have, is the Majority in this country is ALWAYS being forced to change our beliefs, our way of life, etc for a small minority. It is religious freedom in this country, unless of course your a Christian. Then of course, well you have to change to accommodate me and my religion.

I am starting the religion of MOTO.........The government is going to be forced to allow me to practice my MOTO religion on every piece of government owned land in the country! Because I have my religious freedoms too!! Anyone want to be in my congregation?
 
Sturd, This got me thinking........What if this were the case?
kkk.jpg
 
WOW... That's a powerful example of how messed up this all is.

I regret to say it but we have a LOT of immature unappreciative ungrateful idiots in this country that as John250 stated are attention seekers with twisted brains that are hell bent on changing whatever doesn't suit their fancy and don't give a damn about anybody but themselves.
 
Should the Amish or Quakers have been forced to serve in combat in WWII?

Should Catholic hospital be forced to offer abortions?

Should a gay caterer be forced to cater a Westboro Baptist church lunchean.

Should a Jewish baker be forced to make a cake honoring the birthday of Hitler for a Skinhead party.

Should a black banquet hall owner be forced to rent his hall for a Klan rally?

Should a Muslim printer be forced to print flyers depicting Mohammed raping a pig?

Should a veteran operated flag manufacturing company be forced to provide flags for a anti-American flag burning demonstration?

Should a Chritian rancher who donates his pavilion for church picnics be required to give it up for a gay wedding?

Should a gay baker be forced to make a cake that says "Gay marriage is wrong"?

Should a CEO saying "I believe in tradional marriage" in an interview be run out of business, and all employees let go for "anti-gay hate speech"?

Should a Christian owned pizza shop be run out of business for refusing to cater a gay wedding?

Should a gay interior decorator be forced to to select Sharia approved wallpaper for a wealthy sheik?

Should a Christian mechanic and father be forced to repair the NAMBLA bus?

Should a National Organization for Women photographer be forced to shoot a bikini photoshoot of attractive women?


To say that a law that protects people from being forced to violate their own conscience, morals and faith discriminates against gays, is to say that gays have no conscience morals or faith, and that sounds pretty anti-gay to me.
 
Ok, so we already know how big business will operate around this (fully excepting and inviting), predictions anybody on what the politicians are going to do with this going into the 2016 primaries? You know where the Liberals stand is, but the Social Conservatives are very upset about it, and upset towards big business over it. Are there conservative votes out there to get you elected if you take a stand against the issue? How bout campain donations?
 
Too soon fort Kasich, and he's still on the fence.

Georgie, unfortunately you've likely narrowed it down

A skeptic I've become.
Based on the results of the current and last two Presidents we've had, along with their revolving door administration picks, I have no reason to believe that the stupidity has run it's full course yet. As a country we have yet completely defile ourselves as a nation in front of the rest of the world, but it's on our "To Do" list.

Helliary will be your Commander in Chief with Bill as First Husband. The Clintons Ride Again!
Oh, and almost forgot...(you got me side tracked)... And there will be LGBT events planned and conducted at the White House.
 
Social issues are helping to destroy America. What happened to privacy and being private. Why the hell do the LGBT have to run around and shove it down my throat ?

Good god ask a baker to bake you a wedding cake. And tell the baker it's for "a wedding" and that's it. Would of saved a lot of headaches on both sides.
 
Takes me back to my Maintenance Engineer days at the Bakery when I would have to go through the periodic Legallities of Hiring and Firing training. The written laws have evolved to the point that the caucasion male under age 50, who was typically the most qualified, but has the least written legal job application rights of any minority group in existance. That is where the descrimination laws have taken us. And it's never an issue, until someones contests why you didn't hire them for the job.

Reading the below definition, I guess the Social Conservatives are under attack.


From Wikipedia:

Social conservatism is a group of political ideologies centred around preserving traditional beliefs, attitudes and philosophy, in the face of social progressivism. The aims of social conservatism vary from organisation to organisation, and from country to country. Thus, there are really no policies or positions that could be considered universal among social conservatives. There are, however, a number of general principles to which at least a majority of social conservatives adhere.

Overview
See also: Christian right
In the United States, since the mid to late 20th century, social conservatism has referred to a movement that arose as a response to federal action on social issues, which members perceived as a threat to conservative values. This form of social conservatism is generally skeptical of social change, and believes in maintaining the status quo concerning social issues such as LGBT issues and abortion.
In Nordic countries and continental Europe, the term social conservatism connotes social democracy rather than the preservation of traditional values. European social conservatives are essentially liberal conservatives aiming to preserve modern European welfare states. Social conservatism is distinct from cultural conservatism which focuses on cultural aspects of the issues, such as protecting one's culture, although there are some overlaps.

Social conservatism and other ideological views
There is no necessary link between social and fiscal conservatism; some social conservatives such as George W. Bush,[1] and Michael Gerson[2] are otherwise apolitical, centrist or liberal on economic and fiscal issues. Social conservatives may sometimes support economic intervention where the intervention serves moral or cultural aims. Many social conservatives support a balance between fair trade and a free market . This concern for material welfare, like advocacy of traditional mores, will often have a basis in religion. Examples include the Christian Social Union of Bavaria, the Family First Party and Katter's Australian Party, and the communitarian movement in the United States.
There is more overlap between social conservatism and paleoconservatism, in that they both have respect for traditional social forms.
Karen Stenner has argued that social conservatism is seen as a form of authoritarianism, in contrast with traditionalist conservatism.[3] This position was echoed in John Dean's Conservatives Without Conscience.[4] Social conservatism is often associated with the position that the government should have a greater role in the social affairs of its citizens, generally supporting whatever it sees as morally correct choices and discouraging or outright forbidding those it considers morally wrong ones.[5]
 
Last edited:
Millenials are the least loyal generation; however, so are the companies to this generation.

There's no incentive for me to stay at my job for 30 years as they have no defined pension benefit. With some type of benefit like this, it would make more sense to be loyal to a company.

In my job...Unfotunately, the days of Nurses staying in the same unit for 20+ years is gone. When I'm 50-70 and need to be laid up in a hospital bed, the only people to take care of me are going to be fresh newbies with 2-4 years experience looking for the next place to go. As opposed to the veterans in the field who work towards the light at the end of the tunnel by that pension benefit. Veteran nurses I talk to tell me I'm crazy for even thinking about staying at the same place for many years with no pension.

But you can keep your doctor, you can keep your insurance plan, and it will be cheaper. To stay competitive pensions are gone.

People are being forced to work for themselves, or live off the government, and nobody wants to work for themselves in my generation. Gimme Gimme gimme gimme gimme. It would be nice if we could get some hardened moralistic to run our country and cut the gimme's domestically AND INTERNATIONALLY. Who will that be though? Gotta feed the voters and the voters want hand outs.
 
The difference that becomes important is that you shouldn't, and the supremos have mostly
supported this, be discriminated against because of who you are but you can be discriminated
against because of what you do or chose. Had the Equal Rights Amendment been passed back
in '79 this might be a little easier to understand though I'm not sure.
 
Back
Top