SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS LITTLE CAESAR’S RIGHT TO FEED CHRISTIAN EMPLOYEES TO LIONS

Except, as we asked before, where do you draw the line.

http://m.thenation.com/blog/180509-supreme-court-has-already-expanded-its-narrow-hobby-lobby-ruling

Edan wrote:

Wescli Wardest wrote: And if the ECHR would have come to the same conclusion then Muslim women would have the freedom to wear the face veil, or niqab. And quite possibly be less repressive on people and their religious practices. :pinch:

I'm confused by the ECHR response, because if it is solely about face concealment (for security reasons) and not about religious beliefs, then how comes that pretty much the only head wear covered by the ban are religious veils? The only other item I could think of is a balaclava, but they're not exactly common everyday head wear.

the ruling concerns french law and their legality according the the EC(onvention)HR, specifically article 9:

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

The law is there to protect public order, safety, and social interaction (necessary in a democratic society).

It should not be confused with the law that bans veils in public schools: this is actually a ban on religious signs. France is defined as "laïque" in its constitution before being defined as a democracy. "laïque" sits in-between secular and anti-clerical.

Anyway, to go back to my initial point and the ECHR ruling, what that means is that you have a right to have beliefs, but those beliefs do not grant you rights (such as feeding employees to lions, or walk into federation territory fully cloaked).

And now, the next one....


Part of the message is hidden for the guests. Please log in or register to see it.

Do gay rights organizations often get sued for not hiring homophobes?

Would a homophobe apply to a gay rights organization?

Seems unlikely, but I wouldn't blame them for not hiring a homophobe.

The whole thing seems like it would be a bad experience really...

In that case, why would a homosexual work for a homophobic organization?

Jestor wrote: And now, the next one....


Part of the message is hidden for the guests. Please log in or register to see it.

They will lose, based on the fact that they are a federal contractor. The Hobby Lobby decision was based on the fact that they were a privately held company, doing business in the public sector. They can force their religious beliefs on their employees because their employees are not forced to work there. If you don't like the policy, you can take a different job somewhere else and also take your business somewhere else. The market will dictate whether your religious decisions are profitable or not. As for a company that does business with the federal government, the government has the right to dictate rules that apply to companies that they do business with.

It's the same argument, just from different view points: Hobby Lobby says "these are our rules, if you don't like them you don't have to work here." The government says: "these are our rules, if you don't like them, you don't have to do business with us."

*giggle