Indiana proposal would allow some religious discrimination

[dmcowen674]

2-24-2014

http://archive.indystar.com/article/20140224/NEWS05/302240022/1001/NEWS

Indiana proposal would allow some religious discrimination


Senate Bill 367, a property tax bill, would allow any school, college, or religious institution affiliated with a church to hire employees based on religion, even if they have a contract with the state.

Republican state lawmakers slipped the provision into an unrelated bill during a House Ways and Means Committee meeting earlier today.

The change was offered by Rep. Eric Turner, R-Cicero, who also authored the much-debated constitutional same-sex marriage ban.

 

[dmcowen674]

I've seen people posting on Facebook how tired they are of Republicans pushing religion yet they are fervent Republican voters.

This includes family and friends. My wife and I wonder how they live with themselves, must be very confusing inside their little heads.

Oh that's right I see it right in here with all the Republicans posting in here.

 

[z1ggy]

Does this mean they could UN-hire somebody based on religion? Or deny them employment, too?

 

[dmcowen674]

Looks like there is some Democrats in the Indiana Legislature and they put a stop to it before it could do any more damage:

This story will be updated.


House Speaker Brian Bosma put the brakes on a measure that would allow some state contractors to discriminate against employees based on religion.

But within a few hours, Bosma announced that the measure would be re-committed to the Ways and Means Committee for further discussion.

Bosma said the measure was intended to address a state contracting issue with Indiana Wesleyan University, but that some people felt it went beyond that purpose.

 

[Texashiker]

Looks like there is some Democrats in the Indiana Legislature and they put a stop to it before it could do any more damage:

Allowing religious freedoms is somehow "damaging?"

 

[z1ggy]

Allowing religious freedoms is somehow "damaging?"

That's not at all the freedom of religion.

It's about an employer picking one employee over another purely based on one's religious beliefs.

That is discrimination- not freedom.

 

[Texashiker]

It's about an employer picking one employee over another purely based on one's religious beliefs.

And? What is your point?

Shouldn't employers be able to pick who they want?

 

[z1ggy]

And? What is your point?

Shouldn't employers be able to pick who they want?

Sure as hell they can.

But it can't legally be based on their ethnicity, martial status, handicaps, religious affiliations, etc etc etc.

The employer of course could just say the prospective employee(s) aren't qualified based on any number of legal things, however... Even if that's not true.

 

[GoPackGo]

What part of "shall make no law" don't they get?

 

[smackababy]

That's not at all the freedom of religion.

It's about an employer picking one employee over another purely based on one's religious beliefs.

That is discrimination- not freedom.

Realistically, I can see this bill holding up. Discrimination laws like this are pretty much automatically subject to higher court review, as they deal with the protected classes. However, in the case of a Catholic school wanting to only higher Catholic faculty (at least, for positions that interact with the children), they could make a case this is lawful discrimination. Similar to how, while age is a protected class, certain organization (the military, for example) can legally impose age restrictions or laws can legally discriminate based on age (drinking and drive laws; as there is no reasonably argument that it should be legal for a 6 year old to consume alcohol or drive a car).

While, I don't agree with Christian organizations such as schools, there is really no way around the fact they are a private organization and I can easily not allow my child to attend their. The only problem I have with the law is that it allows for institutions that receive state funding to use this. It should be reserved for only truly private institutions; receive any state funds and you have to abide by all state discriminatory laws, no exceptions.

 

[Incorruptible]

Private business has the right to discriminate. Government has no business getting involved with this.

 

[Fern]

I've seen people posting on Facebook how tired they are of Republicans pushing religion yet they are fervent Republican voters.
-snip-

I don't see how they are "pushing" religion.

Are they requiring everybody to go to church or face a lawsuit etc.?

If the employer is affiliated with a church they're just allowing the employer to hire people who fit in with the church's philosophy etc.

Sounds to me like they're freeing the church's from fear of lawsuit.

Fern

 

[senseamp]

What part of "shall make no law" don't they get?

You are assuming they read the Constitution, instead of just hearing about it on the AM radio.

 

[shortylickens]

Allowing religious freedoms is somehow "damaging?"

This issue is NOT about religious freedom.
Its about forcing the government into religion, and religion into government and even more, offering legal protection to those who run things based on religion.

 

[Texashiker]

Sounds to me like they're freeing the church's from fear of lawsuit.

Fern

The law would probably extend past christians.

Muslims and Jews would be able to hire who they wanted without a discrimination lawsuit.

I can see a feminist suing an ultra-orthodox jewish school because she did not get the job.

offering legal protection to those who run things based on religion.

See above.

 

[TheSiege]

There should just be a law that says you are required to hire the most qualified person for the job.

 

[Fern]

This issue is NOT about religious freedom.
Its about forcing the government into religion, and religion into government and even more, offering legal protection to those who run things based on religion.

No, I don't see where it's about forcing govt into religion at all.

It's about allowing the religiously affiliate hire whom they choose, specifically those who share their religious views.

Why should the govt/courts be involved in the hiring practices of the religious? If anything, it's about keeping the govt OUT of religion.

Fern

 

[smackababy]

No, I don't see where it's about forcing govt into religion at all.

It's about allowing the religiously affiliate hire whom they choose, specifically those who share their religious views.

Why should the govt/courts be involved in the hiring practices of the religious? If anything, it's about keeping the govt OUT of religion.

Fern

This is why I think the law will be upheld. A private, religious organization should be allowed to discriminate based on religion. You wouldn't expect a Muslim Mosque to get into trouble because they denied a Christian from being hired as prayer leader.

 

[smackababy]

There should just be a law that says you are required to hire the most qualified person for the job.

That is a rather unrealistic requirement and completely unenforceable. What if I was the most qualified and I demanded a salary of double that of someone just slightly less qualified than me. Is the business required to hire me?

Discriminatory laws (especially those against protected classes) are highly scrutinized for merit, as this one will be. It is likely to be upheld in a form (possibly removing the clause for those receiving state funding) because it is reasonable discrimination. A private religious organization should be able to only hire those that are of that same religion.

 

[Texashiker]

This is why I think the law will be upheld. A private, religious organization should be allowed to discriminate based on religion. You wouldn't expect a Muslim Mosque to get into trouble because they denied a Christian from being hired as prayer leader.

Liberals will tell you yes, that mosque should be sued for not hiring a woman, jew, atheist or christian.

And that ultra-orthodox jewish school, they should be forced to hire women, mulsim and christian teachers.

 

[Thebobo]

No, I don't see where it's about forcing govt into religion at all.

It's about allowing the religiously affiliate hire whom they choose, specifically those who share their religious views.

Why should the govt/courts be involved in the hiring practices of the religious? If anything, it's about keeping the govt OUT of religion.

Fern

It is if they are contractors/employees with federal government contacts minus some independent contractors. Those contractors have to follow the Equal employment Act. While it is a small percentage that includes military.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally Posted by Texashiker
Allowing religious freedoms is somehow "damaging?"

That's not at all the freedom of religion.

It's about an employer picking one employee over another purely based on one's religious beliefs.

That is discrimination - not freedom.

That poster is a professional troll shill, don't respond his nonsense.

 

[WTSherman]

What part of religious freedom don't these people understand? The 1st Amendment specifically says the government has no business involving itself in this issue. It means clearly, under any circumstances.

The modern religion is to be a liberal athiest, to have grown up with an effeminate culture sitting around text messaging. These people have no connection with their heritage. Nobody even used the internet in 2000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-1

 

[sandorski]

Jesus 3:16 - Verily verily I say unto you, don't hire those who disagree with you and have no dealings with the icky.

 

[WTSherman]

You wonder why more people don't realize what can be learned from history. The politically religious liberals would have to go back a little bit farther than 1960, or before WWI when their ideological heroes in Russia surrendered to the Germans, seized the citizens property, and redistributed it to the criminals. Its called the Russian revolution. Can you imagine the decent people who suffered because of this and the vermin who profited?