Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site