Posted on 12/19/2013 5:49:34 PM PST by Battle Hymn of the Republic
I'm tired of people getting in trouble for expressing their opinions, popular or not. A person should say what they believe, and we should support their right to say it, whether we disagree or not. This is America. Then again, I don't own a company that depends on revenue generated by quirky Louisiana duck hunters, who look like ZZ Top and believe homosexuality is wrong and Southern blacks were a lot happier back in the good old days.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
In days past, was there a legal reason that an unmarried couple who went to a hotel together would wear fake wedding rings? Was that just because they didn’t want the stigma/disapproval, or could those couples have lawfully been denied a room because the act that they were presumably going to do in that room was considered morally offensive by the owner or attendant? If they bought two different rooms would it change anything legally?
Hotel owners could, and did, legally discriminate against unmarried people sharing a room. In fact, as late as the 1950s (1960s in some places), fornication and adultery were crimes.
David Petraeus and a bunch of other people were dumped from the military for adultery and/or fornication. If the feds can require marital faithfulness or moral purity in their contracts, how can a bakery be kept from also doing so?
This has also been an issue for teachers. If a teacher breaks the moral code of the community, can the contract be terminated?
I guess what it comes down to is whether it is lawful to discriminate on the basis of BEHAVIOR, or whether government (federal, state, or local) can require someone to enter into a contract that cannot discriminate on the basis of behavior.
I compare this to the baker who was COMPELLED to make gay cakes.
Different case altogether. In the case of the baker, it is the government who is COMPELLING him to do something that is against his religion.
And that IS contrary to the 1st Amendment.
An employer, however, may impose such strictures on their employees.
Apples and oranges. Adultery by a military officer is a crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Homosexuality isn't a crime under Colorado law.
This has also been an issue for teachers. If a teacher breaks the moral code of the community, can the contract be terminated?
"Moral code of the community" covers a lot of ground. In some communities, it would violate the "moral code" to be a Scientologist or a Mormon, but the school board couldn't discriminate on that basis. Cases where teachers have been fired for sexual misconduct generally involve either (1) acts which are criminal, or (2) acts which directly interfere with the teacher's job and are clearly specified in the teacher's contract.
I guess what it comes down to is whether it is lawful to discriminate on the basis of BEHAVIOR, or whether government (federal, state, or local) can require someone to enter into a contract that cannot discriminate on the basis of behavior.
The word "behavior" covers a lot of ground, so the answer to your question is, "it depends." Generally, the determination by the lawmakers (Congress or state legislatures) of what is or is not immoral trump individuals' beliefs. For example, Bob Jones University used to teach that interracial dating was immoral and unbiblical, but the U.S. Supreme Court held that they could be denied federal financial aid, and even be denied a tax exemption, for holding that view. A hotel owner who graduated from Bob Jones and believed that interracial marriage was immoral couldn't refuse to rent a room to an interracial couple.
To be clear, I'm saying (in this post and my last few to you) what the law now is, which is not necessarily what I personally think the law should be.
This is not a freedom of speech issue. This is discrimination due to sexual orientation and religion. He is not receiving equal treatment under the law. Employers are not permitted to discriminate based on sexual orientation, religion, race, etc.
Under federal law, an employer may not discriminate based upon race, religion, national origin or sex, but can discriminate based on sexual orientation. Some states (a minority for now) prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Cool! So, here's the deal. We are a Satanist company, and you are not allowed to be a Christian. If we find you have gone to a Christian church, we will fire you. We have ways of finding out, of course. So renounce Jesus or BE FIRED.
They’re punishing him for expressing a common religious view as inoffensively as possible when asked for it. That’s illegal.
The Supreme Court has sided against discrimination based on sexual orientation for some time now.
Kennedy said that not protecting homosexuals against prejudice is based on animosity,
I appreciate what you’re saying. It’s complicated, and I’m still trying to sort it out in my mind because I’m somewhere between a libertarian and a social conservative and these issues cut right to the center of that divide. It’s further complicated by the government using money and/or withholding of money to punish things even if it can’t (or won’t at this point anyway) outlaw it.
It is interesting that adultery is a crime according to the federal military code, and yet Congress is rife with it and it’s not a crime. We need our fighters to be more honorable than our law-makers I guess.
Sure, it's unfair. But life is unfair.
Same thing as if the company is a bootlegger, engaged in criminality.
Go work somewhere else. You'll be happier.
conservatives are not allowed on TV. Period
I think there are websites that will make you such a sticker. Feel free to use it. I don’t feel right trying to copyright truth.
Part of the problem might have been a case that was pretty weakly made. There are all kinds of Alice in Wonderland type rules that apply to what the USSC actually comes up with.
>> This is not a freedom of speech issue
It is effectively a freedom of speech issue regardless of the legal mechanisms originally intended to thwart govt sponsored repression.
Agree, A&E isn’t exactly supressing PR, more like killing its best cash cow.
The Ditsy Bitches weren’t expressing a religious belief nor was the backlash due to their employers prejudice against a religious belief.
[An employer, however, may impose such strictures on their employees]
Oh, like, say, Jews need not apply?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.