SENATE BILL: Freedom from Religion Act (Law'd)

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Amendment 59:19 and 59:20 have been adopted.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Friendly
Status: Senators have 24 hours to object.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Religious organizations being able to hire on the basis of their values is important for their free exercise.  Does this bill mean that a mosque will be required to consider an evangelical for a position as an imam so as not to be discriminatory? 

[President Tyrion]

Religious organizations being able to hire on the basis of their values is important for their free exercise.  Does this bill mean that a mosque will be required to consider an evangelical for a position as an imam so as not to be discriminatory? 

That's not discrimination! You're allowed to use a person's identity if it would hinder their work.

[TNF]

What Tyrion said. It would be ridiculous to assume otherwise.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Religious organizations being able to hire on the basis of their values is important for their free exercise.  Does this bill mean that a mosque will be required to consider an evangelical for a position as an imam so as not to be discriminatory? 

That's not discrimination! You're allowed to use a person's identity if it would hinder their work.

Yes, and that is why religious groups may require labor standards that are different from nonreligious groups - due to the nature of their work.   

I submit an amendment striking the final clause from the bill.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I also have an amendment that I will be offering soon.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Amendment 59:22 has been adopted

I will let shua go first.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[President Tyrion]

Object to shua's amendment, because shua is applying a definition of discrimination which frankly does not hold water.

A church who hires a priest instead of an imam isn't discriminatory; the imam would lack the abilities to do the job. A similar example follows:

You have a college professor who is classically trained to teach about the history of Christianity, but not Islam. Is turning down his application to teach a class on Islam religious discrimination? No, of course not. It's discrimination on the basis of merit, which is the same as what any religious institution would do.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

What is the point of the fourth clause, if not to force religious institutions to hire those who may not adhere to their beliefs and values, or to force them to act in a way counter to those beliefs and values with regard to their employees?  This is a fundamental attack on religious liberty.  If you do not like the way a religious group conducts its business, you are free not to associate with them.  If you are looking for freedom from religion, there it is.

[TNF]

EXTREMELY Hostile.

[ZuWo]

What is the point of the fourth clause, if not to force religious institutions to hire those who may not adhere to their beliefs and values, or to force them to act in a way counter to those beliefs and values with regard to their employees?  This is a fundamental attack on religious liberty.  If you do not like the way a religious group conducts its business, you are free not to associate with them.  If you are looking for freedom from religion, there it is.

shua is right. I hope the Senate votes to remove clause 4 from the bill.

[TNF]

What is the point of the fourth clause, if not to force religious institutions to hire those who may not adhere to their beliefs and values, or to force them to act in a way counter to those beliefs and values with regard to their employees?  This is a fundamental attack on religious liberty.  If you do not like the way a religious group conducts its business, you are free not to associate with them.  If you are looking for freedom from religion, there it is.

shua is right. I hope the Senate votes to remove clause 4 from the bill.

Don't you have a Region to ruin, or something?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Forgive me if I am wrong, but does clause 4 really change anything at all? I don't know much about being  employed by a church, but don't they already have to follow Labor standards i.e., paying minimum wage, offering healthcare when they need to offer it, offering overtime when someone works longer than X number of hours, etc?

I am not understanding where some of you are getting the idea that clause 4 forces them to hire people who are not qualified to be part of the church into the church. Proving discrimination is difficult in Court anyway, and if you are hiring for a pastoral position or youth minister, etc, obviously someone who is not a pastor is not qualified and does not have to be hired. Companies hire people all the time based on their beliefs, background, qualifications, etc. It's just after they're hired, they have to be treated a specific way.

I believe religious organizations should be free to do as they wish, but they still need to treat their employees as other private places treat their employees. They already do that, as far as I know, having friends who are involved in churches. I don't see how clause 4 changes anything. Correct me if I am wrong.

Further, how many people who are not part of a religious organization will apply to work for church anyway? I don't know many. Nothing in that clause forces churches to interview/hire X number of atheists or people of different religions. I am taking employment law now, hence my rant.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

The idea as I understand it is to ensure for example that a Catholic school couldn't refuse to hire an open and practicing homosexual, and could be forced to provide services to its employees that it doesn't agree with. That's bad enough from a religious liberty point of view, but there isn't even a limiting principle.  Once you start saying a religious group shouldn't be allowed to conduct itself according to its beliefs, how far is the law supposed to take that?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

The idea as I understand it is to ensure for example that a Catholic school couldn't refuse to hire an open and practicing homosexual, and could be forced to provide services to its employees that it doesn't agree with. That's bad enough from a religious liberty point of view, but there isn't even a limiting principle.  Once you start saying a religious group shouldn't be allowed to conduct itself according to its beliefs, how far is the law supposed to take that?

Right, I see where you are coming from, and the government has no business infringing on the rights of religious organizations. It isn't constitutional. I think what we are aiming in this bill is provide balance.

Perhaps I am interpreting clause 4 incorrectly if it would force churches to hire homosexuals who are otherwise qualified.

There is a big debate going on between the Episcopal church of SC and the national Church regarding gay priests. While I am not opposed to it, I think they have the right to practice as they wish, and if I chose not to associate with them, it is my right to choose that.

I was interpreting clause 4 from a purely economic standpoint where we require churches to follow the same labor laws, like wages, benefits, hours, etc, not necessarily dictating policy and who to hire and what to hire. I think, as a private group, it is up to them, just as it is up to Augusta National Golf Club to not allow women into their private club. Let The People decide if they are correct with their wallets. The word private is what led me to believe clause 4 was not harmful because private groups are held to a different standard than public groups. 

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

OK, according to what I found in my reference book regarding labor law:

Churches are employers and are subject to the same labor laws in the U.S. as any private organization. They must follow the same wages, healthcare law, discrimination laws, hiring and firing procedures as any other organization in this country would.

The question is, what does discrimination mean? In the US, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act is still on the floor of Congress. The bill would not allow any organization to discriminate based on sex or orientation if they employ over 15 people full time.

I assume in Atlasia, something the equivalent has already passed, and if so, clause 4 is really irrelevant because religious organizations are already effected by it in Atlasia. Keeping it or removing it will change literally nothing, as I suspected earlier, unless the non-discrimination act passed in Atlasia excluded religious organizations.

Sorry for being so nitpicky, but that's what you get for having a third year law student as your President.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Oh, I like nitpicky.

Any version of ENDA that would stand a chance of passing in the US would make an explicit exception for religious organizations. That is the difference here. 

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Oh, I like nitpicky.

Any version of ENDA that would stand a chance of passing in the US would make an explicit exception for religious organizations. That is the difference here. 

Yeah, I know, but my question is, what are the laws of Atlasia? If we have banned discrimination based on gender identity and orientation and did not include an exception for religious groups, then, as I said, clause 4 is irrelevant and redundant.

In the US, clause 4 would be an unconstitutional infringement of government on religion and would surely be struck down by the courts even if it was passed and signed into law.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor Feedback: Hostile
Status: A vote to come tomorrow probably.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[TNF]

Another hostile amendment.

[Talleyrand]

The latest amendment offered is quite obvious. There are probably many municipalities in Atlasia that would give preference to certain religious organizations in an inappropriate manner without hesitation. These standards should be felt down the entire nation, and not just be limited to the federal government (which would effectively make this bill limp).

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

No one has answered my question.