Another legislative attack on religion; Update: Bill dies due to ethical questions
January 29th, 2009 by Republican By DefaultLiberals in the Washington State legislature are once again attacking the free practice of religion. Bills introduced in the House and Senate by some of the most liberal Democrats in this state’s congress would put employers in further jeopardy of frivolous lawsuits by disgruntled employees and former employees. In addition it furthers the business-unfriendly climate that exists here in Washington State.
I’m guessing that this is payback for the trial lawyers who supported them in their campaigns.
Aside from opening the door to violating the free exercise clause of the US Constitution, this bill has a broad and nebulous definition of what constitutes a violation.
NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. (1) An employer may not require an employee to attend a meeting, or listen to, or respond to, or participate in, any other communication when a purpose of the requirement is to ensure that employees receive communications relating to political or religious matters or to influence the employee’s beliefs, opinions, or actions about political or religious matters.
(2) An employer may not take or threaten to take an adverse employment action against an employee because the employee:
(a) Refuses to attend a meeting or listen or otherwise respond to, or participate in, any other communication that the employee reasonably believes violates or would violate this section;
(b) Challenges or opposes any practice or action that the employee reasonably believes violates or would violate this section; or
(c) Makes a claim, files suit, testifies, assists, or participates in any manner in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing involving any practice or action that the employee reasonably believes violates or would violate this section.
The fact is proselytizing, or evangelism, is a basic tenet of most Christian religions. Preventing anyone, no matter where they are or what they’re doing, from engaging in those efforts violates the free exercise clause. This law would likely hold the employer responsible any such efforts by any employee for simply allowing the free exercise of religion by any employee. Let me put it another way. If an employer allowed one employee to talk about his religion in the workplace another employee could claim that he was therefore forced to listen to it.
And you can kiss the company Christmas party goodbye. And forget about businesses partnering with religious charities to benefit the needy in our communities.
Makes me wonder what these people are so afraid of. Why does religion, especially Christianity, frighten these people so much that they make every possible attempt to squelch it? Talk about frightened and clingy.
Here’s how I think they should change this bill:
- Remove any reference to religion, since it’s covered in the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which this law violates;
- Leave in all of the stuff about politics;
- Include labor unions everywhere that employers are mentioned.
This way some of the Republicans in the Puget Sound area who fear for their jobs just for mentioning their political affiliations will have some recourse and maybe some union members will feel free to vote their conscious instead of having to risk their paycheck and their safety.
Think that will ever happen?
Related:
COFFEE BREAK: business and politics
Update:
Holmquist: broad bill could limit free speech, cost jobs
February 6th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
I’m wondering how you would feel about this issue if you went to work for a Muslim.
Or an Atheist.
And you had to sit there while the person you worked for bloviated on and on about why you should believe what they believe.
That’s how non-believers feel most of the time.
And employers don’t have any right to what their employees believe– they are only renting your behavior for eight hours a day. They can’t have your brain, too. Just your behavior.
You as an employer may have free speech, but your right to natter on about what you believe ends at my ears; and if I am your employee I have lost the freedom to walk out (at the risk of my job).
My right to the private exercise of my beliefs trumps your right of free speech every time.
If you believe that much in free speech for yourself, how can you deny it to me?
If you want to spread what you believe, start ringing doorbells; don’t you dare use job retention as away to keep your little congregation in the seats.
What you propose is mental rape; creating a relationship by force that would not exist by choice.
Robert Sanford
Seattle, WA
February 7th, 2009 at 12:32 am
“Say you love Jesus, or you’re fired. SAY YOU LOVE JESUS! SAY IT!”
Seems to me if Jesus was the real deal you wouldn’t need to use people’s job security as vice in order to make them hear the “good news.”
I once knew a coffee shop owner who required her staff to a company meeting–so she could pitch them on her Mary Kay products. They all quit, every single one of them. And they were right to do so, because this employer abused her power over them, misled them and wasted their time in an act of dishonesty. It is one thing to offer the “good news” to someone, it is quite another thing when it becomes required for your continued employment or coercion for social acceptance.
It is disrespectful, at the very least. If you want to proselytize your religion, you would be better off if you didn’t have to threaten people into listening to you first. Is that what Jesus would have done? He was the threatening type, was he?
I think your rant is offensive to the very idea of Christianity.
February 7th, 2009 at 12:43 am
S’cuse me while I knock you off your high horse.
Christians have been putting up with the free speech of people like you since this country was founded. In my lifetime it’s meant listening to rap music that glorifies crime, violence and rape (actual rape, not the things you liberals imagine are like rape). We can’t turn on a television without implied (or actual) sex scenes, crude jokes, drugs use and heavy alcohol use.
Do we call lawyers every time it happens? No. Of course not, because it’s not illegal and because we have spines. You liberals, on the other hand, are whiny invertebrates who don’t understand the constitution or the implications it has on your supposed ‘rights’.
Free speech has very few limitations. The obvious ones are slander/libel, incitement to violence and conspiracy to commit a crime. But religious speech isn’t covered in any of those, so it’s still free.
And don’t worry about me and the Muslims. I can hold my own just fine, as can most Christians. You see, unlike liberalism, there is substance to what we believe. Christianity changes lives for the better. Islam, secularism/liberalism, etc. don’t have the same effect.
“[Y]our right to natter on about what you believe ends at my ears” Actually, it doesn’t. There’s no right in the US Constitution to “freedom from religion.” You have to put up with my free speech for the same reason I have to put up with yours. And at least I go to the trouble of checking into things before I say them.
You’re already protected from job discrimination based on your religion (or lack thereof). This law goes way beyond discrimination and stifles free speech of employees. I’ve read this law and it appears to me to be virtually limitless in its scope. “Any communication” can mean just about anything. If an employee mentions that he’s going to church tonight or sets a Bible on his desk suddenly every other employee would have the right to sue the employer.
“My right to the private exercise of my beliefs trumps your right of free speech every time.” Nobody is taking away your right to exercise your beliefs when they talk about theirs. Why are you so insecure about your beliefs? Does every little mention of Christianity shake your belief system to its foundation? Why are you so whiny?
“[D]on’t you dare use job retention as away [sic] to keep your little congregation in the seats.” I don’t even understand what you’re trying to say. Are you saying that Christians have somehow turned the workplace into a church? Probably not, that’s beyond absurd and I’m sure an obviously well educated liberal like yourself wouldn’t make a comment that ridiculous. Is that a threat of some kind? It’s an empty one at best. If it weren’t, why would this legislation be needed. I guess I’ll chalk it up to the mindless babbling of a senseless liberal.
I think you have your rights completely turned around. Your supposed right to freedom from religion infringes on my right to the free exercise of my religion.
“What you propose is mental rape; creating a relationship by force that would not exist by choice.” You liberals are the whiniest bunch of losers I’ve ever seen. And your use of terms like ‘mental rape’ trivializes the devastating victimization that actual rape victims go through. Your little discomfort from listening to someone talk about their religion is nothing compared to lifetime of emotional torment actual rape victims experience. Don’t try to elevate it to the level of pain they live with, you whiny twit.
February 7th, 2009 at 12:59 am
Oh I am glad you brought that part up, “businesses partnering with religious charities to benefit the needy in our communities.”
I work independantly in technology consulting.
I decided to donated a very good computer software/ to a non-profit because I had upgraded mine and could get a tax credit.
I did not realise that the person I talked to was part of a religious non-profit. She talked about how helping them out with this, they could help the needy by finding resources for families/printing resumes/internet access in thier office.
My life partner came home from work, all he said was “how was your day love”? He went into our home office and did not come back out and say anything else or do anything else.
She stopped talking, picked everything up walked to the door. As soon as she got outside our house she turned to me and told me that we deserved to go to hell and walked to her car. I did not even get a thank you.
She was part of a charity to help the needy? I guess only if you believe in what god or religion they believe in.
So Mr. Republican by default I whole heartedly agree with Robert Sanford. I have has a far better working relationship with people that “respected” but did not discuss thier religious beliefs then people who tried shoving it down like a pill every hour on the hour because it’s their calling to talk about God.
Have a good weekend.
John Bernardo
Tacoma, WA
February 7th, 2009 at 1:00 am
austen, your post doesn’t make sense. Are you slamming Christianity or defending it? Please make up your mind before posting. Thanks.
February 7th, 2009 at 1:09 am
Thanks for the whine, John. Does it have something to do with this post? The rule is stick to the subject.