LOL It's discrimination to disallow discrimination? Funny stuff.
Anti-LGBT Executive Order Looks to be Next
- Thread starter bqknight
- Start date
Under the implementation of the ACLU and the Democratic political machine, yes. That's precisely what occurs.
Under the liberal legion, advocacy and accommodation for protected classes only extends so far as classes representing minority groups. It's quite obvious that you both declined to answer the question about Muslims praying on the job. By definition within the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (your "Civil Rights LAW"), Christianity is a protected class (Religion). However, you'd never defend the rights of a Christian to live and freely exercise his/her religion in the same manner that you'd advocate for the rights of a gay or a woman or a Muslim. The ACLU would never go to bat for Christians... because it's all about grabbing for money and power. Not equality
The freedom only exists to the point that it infringes on the rights of another.
To answer your question, I would allow Muslims (or anyone else) to pray on the job, as long as it was during break periods, the same way people are allowed to take smoke breaks.
As for the ACLU "never going to bat for Christians," that's fake news.
https://bjconline.org/aclu-suit-religious-freedom-laws-protect-christians-too-083116/
http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/
And be careful what you wish for in your defense/advocacy of "Religious Freedom" laws. You might end up with some rather unintended consequences.
I love how republicans were fear mongers for 8 years, but now that the role is reversed, they cant own it.
Wow, you found an article where the ACLU defends Christians. Woo!
Meanwhile, they're still busy trying to have life long beloved educators and coaches fired any/every time they make the sign of the cross or dare to allow their teams to join in prayer.
They're still trying to force the removal of crucifixes from military memorials established by the men who fought together.
No. No, they're not. http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/cemetery.asp
Yea, that's not at all what I'm talking about.
This is:
http://christianexaminer.com/articl...egal-battle-with-aclu-atheists-ends/49290.htm
Well, we agree on this point. In my scenario, the rights of say a gay to marry would not be infringed upon as long as the facility designed to provide the service provides such service, regardless of the individual person performing the service.
So then you would need to allow Christians to take prayer breaks the same way the Muslims are allowed to take prayer breaks. Just to be clear.
They're going to need to roll that position out on a massive scale.
Elaborate. I'm curious where you're going
Maybe. You're assuming that multiple people are able to man a post and substitute a non-discriminatory employee for an discriminatory employee. Or make people wait until the next non-discriminatory employee is available. Or go back to a "coloreds only" scenario of separate facilities. Such actions have been ruled illegal under Civil Rights Laws before. No need to resurrect them.
Yup. Go ahead and pray to God, Allah, Satan, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or whomever you so choose on your breaks. Come back to work on time.
ACLU is not an anti-Christian organization, but they do tend to file more lawsuits against Christian issues, mostly because it's the predominant religion in this country (aggregated among all faiths) and quite possibly the most evangelical.
What's to stop Muslims from implementing Sharia Law? What's to stop people from claiming other groups discrimination (race, ethnicity, etc.) from being protected religious beliefs? It's a slippery slope that could open up a host of unintended actions. It's really best to keep any religion out of government actions - even by employees.
Well, last year they bullied a tiny Indiana town because they had a cross atop a Christmas tree, at Christmas time, which had been displayed for years without anyone caring.
The town had to remove it since they couldn't afford to fight the massively funded ACLU.
Thank God we have the ACLU to assure that small towns can't do things like this!*
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...s-christmas-tree-after-aclu-lawsuit/95384080/
Tragic, but not a military memorial, as you claimed. Which active case has the ACLU still fighting to remove crosses from military memorials?
Jesus, you're being pedantic. I meant they would still fight cases like they did in San Diego.
Well if you're going to make a strawman, at least make it a real one.
It's the government's duty to provide sufficient personnel in order to enable continued functioning of the post in the case that the "discriminatory employee" cannot perform certain functions based on religious belief. Making people wait an inordinate amount of time (for the courts to decide) until the next non-discriminatory employee is available would indeed constitute discrimination, which I would support specific legislation against. "Coloreds only" lines or separate facilities, or any distinction between classes should also continue to be illegal as it is today.
Nope, no praying to the flying spaghetti monster. Disingenuous use of provisions for free exercise of religion should be prevented based on common sense and general reasonableness.
The ACLU is a liberal organization that refuses to take up Christianity as a protected class in general. They are a partisan organization by design
To what element(s) and action(s) of Sharia Law are you referring? I'm not sure what the second question means.
So in other words, it's best to suppress Christians and Muslims from holding government positions and giving them the freedom to live in uninhibited practice of their faiths in so doing, even if the government agency is fully equipped to provide the service in accordance with its purpose.
It's best to discriminate. Got it.
No. Not at all. You're exaggerating. It's best to not have your religious beliefs infringe on the rights of others. If your beliefs dictate that performance of certain duties of your job should not be performed, you're in the wrong job. Unless you work for a church, your job should not be a platform for your evangelism, and most certainly shouldn't be if you work for the government. Permitting government employees to discriminate based on personal beliefs is tantamount to discrimination by the government itself.
Our government was established such that their is freedom of religion. Allowing government employees to evangelize or discriminate based on religious beliefs is a tacit endorsement of that religion by the government.
That's discrimination
When the government establishes provisions such that the service can still be carried out by another member of personnel, no it's not.
There is no way to twist verbiage to get around this fact.
And toss out the evangelism word - No one's proposing that a government employee ought to be able to preach to people from their government position. No liberal sensationalism words, please.
Last edited:
It is for the court to decide. There are plenty of examples of common sense in law. Look it up
That is not the point. There's no need to establish those provisions. Either a person does a job, or they are in dereliction of their duties via discrimination of others.
When you allow your religious beliefs to dictate your discrimination of others, you are in essence preaching your religion. No sensationalism. Castigation of others is evangelism.
That's discrimination
Your use of castigation as an active verb is additional sensationalism, when merely refraining from an activity is not an active form of evangelism.
No one is proposing active castigation. They're merely proposing that an individual ought to have the freedom to politely go get a coworker to complete the task at hand. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with "Stay there and let me go get my coworker to do this for you". If the person's made to wait 5 hours, by all means call in the ACLU. That should never happen, and would constitute the government facility denying service to the individual.
I'd also argue that a Muslim working in a federal facility ought to have the individual freedom to refrain from issuing a marriage certificate to a Christian, if their religion dictates that such marriage is not sanctified. However someone at that court house ought to be on hand to issue that marriage certificate without delay. And the Muslim should not be discriminated against in hiring for that position.
The government does not have time for this nonsense. If your religion prevents you from doing the job, go get another job.
Yes there is something fundamentally wrong with that. And the fact that you even acknowledge that 5 hours would be an issue, is only arguing over the amount of delay the discriminatory act takes up. It's still a discriminatory act.
No it's not. Everyone is treated the same in that scenario. Anyone not willing to do the job is fired.
Not if another person is on hand at the government facility to perform the action without delay
You can keep saying the same thing over and over again. It isn't going to become more valid
Christians are indeed a protected group under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Religion)
I think you need to go back and read the thread, MAC
There will always be a delay - just the "polite" excusal would be a delay. You think there's room in government budgets for folks to just hang around waiting to be called in from the bullpen? No.
You can keep saying it's discrimination over and over, but that doesn't make it more valid either.
It's not discriminating against christians. The Christian would be the one discriminating in that case.
We've addressed this before. That is the price of accommodating minority groups. You cannot take shortcuts and trample on the rights of majority groups in order to achieve the former. You have to make full provisions for equal protection under the law
It always was logically valid, and you've yet to disprove it
It's not logically possible for you to disprove it
I'm done talking in circles here...
I'm sorry, but there is nothing you can say that will convince me that allowing someone's discriminatory actions against another is an acceptable situation. Refusal of service is discrimination. Period.
I've done nothing but disprove it. I'm done talking in circles.
I tend to agree, but the constitution says just the opposite. Keep the Gov't out of any religious actions.
Well the 1st Amendment really says both, and it truly is in conflict with itself.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/free_exercise_clause
Hence the debate ITT
It should be included in the interview process: will you provide service to everybody that by law is allowed to do X (example: get married in this state). If the answer is yes = ok, if the answer is no = discarded
