Skip to main content

View Diary: Bipartisan legislation would ban employers from firing workers because they are gay (43 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So sick of this religious exemption. (9+ / 0-)

    Once again, it's placing the government's stamp of approval on discrimination against LGBTs.  The Supreme Court has made clear that religion is no excuse for racial discrimination, and it shouldn't be an excuse for sexual orientation or gender identity discrimination, either.  

    Permitting religious organizations to continue to discriminate places Congress's imprimatur on the idea that we LGBTs are so different from everyone else and so repugnant to "moral values" that the law doesn't have to protect us from discrimination.  In other words, the religious exemption essentially concedes the validity of these so-called "moral" objections to LGBT rights (and indeed LGBT people in general).

    I really wish the folks in DC would stop cowering in fear before a bunch of old men in purple dresses and clerical collars and start thinking about LGBT constituents who need some minimal job security, not to mention women who need access to reproductive health care.

    "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

    by FogCityJohn on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 10:37:09 AM PDT

    •  Flamer (0+ / 0-)

      This crying "persecution" at every turn equates to nothing less than keeping the flames of cultural wars amongst politicains's constituents alive whilst ripping them off financially right in front of their faces. In return for standing up for jesus, the flock showers them with donations and a vote.

      Meanwhile, these poor, persecuted souls will run to their multi million $ media outlets and ask for donations to fund against evildoers.

      Still, this is my life and the life of many people I know who continue to be used as scape goats for their made up morality. It's wrong.

      Strange but not a stranger.

      by jnww on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 03:56:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Religious exemptions are constitutionally mandated (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SpamNunn, Gygaxian

      I think. And I'm ok with that, if they are limited to religious institutions that are based on the values of that particular religion.    

      The First Amendment's "free exercise" clause gives religions the constitutional right to religious beliefs that you or I may find abhorrent. In an institution with a specific religious identity, a religion should not be forced to hire someone who openly violates their fundamental religious beliefs.  

      We don't have a right to go into another religion and demand that they allow violations of their religion.  

      Frankly, I don't know why a person would want to work in a place where they fundamentally disagree with everything that institution stands for.

      •  Bob Jones University? (0+ / 0-)

        Maybe you missed that case.  

        "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

        by FogCityJohn on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 04:22:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Maybe you missed Hosanna-Tabor (0+ / 0-)

          it's more recent than Bob Jones.

          And Bob Jones was a denial of tax exempt status case addressing an IRS revenue ruling from the case:

          The revised policy on discrimination was formalized in Revenue Ruling 71-447, 1971-2 Cum.Bull. 230:

          Both the courts and the Internal Revenue Service have long recognized that the statutory requirement of being "organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, . . . or educational purposes" was intended to express the basic common law concept [of "charity"]. . . . All charitable trusts, educational or otherwise, are subject to the requirement that the purpose of the trust may not be illegal or contrary to public policy.

          Based on the "national policy to discourage racial discrimination in education," the IRS ruled that

          a [private] school not having a racially nondiscriminatory policy as to students is not 'charitable' within the common law concepts reflected in sections 170 and 501(c)(3) of the Code.

          and in Bob Jones, it was about this compelling government interest:  
          The governmental interest at stake here is compelling. As discussed in Part II-B, supra, the Government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education [n29] -- discrimination that prevailed, with official approval, for the first 165 years of this Nation's constitutional history. That governmental interest substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on petitioners' exercise of their religious beliefs. The interests asserted by petitioners cannot be accommodated with that compelling governmental interest, see United States v. Lee, supra, at 259-260; and no "less restrictive means," see Thomas v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Div., supra, at 718, are available to achieve the governmental interest
          That was enough to justify an IRS rule excluding schools that discriminate from the definition of "charitable institution" under 501(c)(3).  
          •  Wait. We've had this discussion before. (0+ / 0-)

            Now I remember.  You defended racism, so long as the racist claimed his or her bigotry was based in religion.  So I guess I really shouldn't be surprised that you'd defend homophobia, when that homophobia also claims a basis in religion.

            So that's where we part company.  I can't and won't defend bigotry, even if those practicing it claim divine inspiration.  

            "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

            by FogCityJohn on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 05:48:09 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  But what about Hobby Lobby and other buisnesses (0+ / 0-)

        that clame to be "religious based"?  If you allow an exemption for say, Catholic Charities then how can you not allow one for Hobby Lobby as well?  Remember, Hobby Lobby has already won in appellate court on that matter.

        You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

        by Throw The Bums Out on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 04:55:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think that it depends on (0+ / 0-)

          what kind of law you are talking about.  For example, the Bob Jones case revolved around whether a school qualified as tax exempt for purposes of 501(c)(3), and an IRS rule excluding schools that discriminate from the exemption in that IRS section.  I think that the government has more leeway there.  On the other hand, if, for example, a Catholic school hires teachers to be Catholic role models for children, and that's part of their job contracts, then I think a school can fire a teacher, for example, who openly lives with a heterosexual partner outside of marriage, because it so clearly violates that teaching and because having that teacher there undermines the religious mission of that institution.  I also think there's a difference between an institution that is OWNED by a church, and an institution that is owned by individuals who adhere to certain religious beliefs.  

          And, frankly, the Hobby Lobby thing really does present a unique issue -- can the government require person 1 to pay for person 2 to do something that violates person 1's religious beliefs?  It will be interesting to see what the SCOTUS does with that.

          •  However, such an anti-discriminaton law is pretty (0+ / 0-)

            much the same thing.  Can person 1 (Hobby Lobby) be required to pay for person 2 (by hiring and playing the gay employee's salary)  to do something that violates person 1's religious beliefs (live a "gay lifestyle").  Oh, and if hobby lobby wins then the same argument would apply to existing anti-discrimination laws based on race as well.

            You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

            by Throw The Bums Out on Fri Apr 26, 2013 at 06:15:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  you're making a mistake (0+ / 0-)

            The law doesn't "require person 1 to pay for person 2 to do something that violates person 1's religious beliefs." The law requires person 1 to pay person 2 to do her/his job. What that person does outside of the job is irrelevant to the contract.

            The bosses of Hobby Lobby can refuse to hire someone who is unable to sell toys. They shouldn't be allowed to fire (or not hire) someone because the bosses don't like the kind of marriage that person has, or the color house that person lives in, or whatever.

    •  Same with women (3+ / 0-)

      the religious exemptions for providing reproductive health care access and contraceptions  is just disgusting. Jeeze the religious nuts should not have power in a secular democracy. They also need to lose their exemptions for taxes. They wield way too much power in our government and society.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site