Unemployment for quitting job to sell alcohol

[Inthemiddle]

should they be required to? a religious belief isn't a disability.

No, but religion IS considered an immutable characteristic.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I thought you said that the law never made exceptions for people and their beliefs.

I've said that religious belief is not an excuse from general laws that regulate non-religious activity. That's not the question in this unemployment case. The issue is not whether religious belief creates a special exception to the law, or creates a qualification to receive benefits.

The question will not be whether the court will find whether remaining employed in another capacity still constitutes "selling" alcohol within the framework of the woman's religion. The court will accept at face value the fact that religious belief was what caused the woman to quit. Perhaps I was a little too vague with my previous comment. It's not simply a question of whether the woman's religious belief is "good cause." But the addition of these new job duties also factors in, as well as whether there was any prior communication about the matter. If, before the woman was hired, she expressed the fact that she had religious prohibitions against serving alcohol, and the company hired her without informing her that they were going to sell alcohol in the future, then her voluntary departure becomes good cause in my view, because the required duties went beyond the initial agreement in an unreasonable way. Even if she did not express that fact, I still am inclined to say she is entitled to UE, because of the fact that absent any positive indication from the employer that alcohol sales would become a part of the job, there still would be no reasonable need for her to mention it.

The situation would change if the woman had knowledge at the time of hire that selling alcohol would become part of what was expected of her. If that were the case, then this would not be "good cause" because the woman accepted the terms of employment. It could also change based on whether there existed the opportunity for the woman to remain employed in some other capacity without being involved in the sale of alcohol.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I've said that religious belief is not an excuse from general laws that regulate non-religious activity. That's not the question in this unemployment case. The issue is not whether religious belief creates a special exception to the law, or creates a qualification to receive benefits.

The question will not be whether the court will find whether remaining employed in another capacity still constitutes "selling" alcohol within the framework of the woman's religion. The court will accept at face value the fact that religious belief was what caused the woman to quit. Perhaps I was a little too vague with my previous comment. It's not simply a question of whether the woman's religious belief is "good cause." But the addition of these new job duties also factors in, as well as whether there was any prior communication about the matter. If, before the woman was hired, she expressed the fact that she had religious prohibitions against serving alcohol, and the company hired her without informing her that they were going to sell alcohol in the future, then her voluntary departure becomes good cause in my view, because the required duties went beyond the initial agreement in an unreasonable way. Even if she did not express that fact, I still am inclined to say she is entitled to UE, because of the fact that absent any positive indication from the employer that alcohol sales would become a part of the job, there still would be no reasonable need for her to mention it.

The situation would change if the woman had knowledge at the time of hire that selling alcohol would become part of what was expected of her. If that were the case, then this would not be "good cause" because the woman accepted the terms of employment. It could also change based on whether there existed the opportunity for the woman to remain employed in some other capacity without being involved in the sale of alcohol.

Unemployment benefits regulate religious activity?

Or are you trying to claim employment is inherently a religious action?

Either way, your position here contradicts your position in the other thread. Unless, that is, your position is that government mandated benefits are a right that cannot be denied, then it makes sense.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Unemployment benefits regulate religious activity?

Or are you trying to claim employment is inherently a religious action?

Either way, your position here contradicts your position in the other thread. Unless, that is, your position is that government mandated benefits are a right that cannot be denied, then it makes sense.

No, the problem is that you're completely incapable of comprehending that someone can take an objective stance, based on a full evaluation of facts and information, as opposed to your approach which is to dogmatically settle into partisan bull shit. So, instead of taking my arguments as they are, you are deliberately twisting them in ways that are nonsensical to the words I've spoken.

Once again, just to underscore how much of a hack you are, my position is that THE TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT CHANGED in such a way that the woman was pushed into deciding between her job and her religion, and this, in my view, constitutes good cause for her quitting. Because THE TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT CHANGED. As I said, if additional information were to be presented, and it turned out that the woman knew at the time of hire that she would be expected to sell alcohol in the future, then there would be no "good cause."

 

[Ravi]

Since she quit and wasn't fired, nope, she shouldn't.

Unemployment insurance is ONLY if your job was eliminated through no fault of your own.

She made a choice not to work there.

Bingo.

 

[editec]

Damned good question.

I think she ought not have taken the job in the first place.

But I definitely see the problems with granting people unemployment if their unemployment is based on their objections to some work activity that is LEGAL.

DAMN now this really IS a great question.


And folks, as with so many social science questions facing us, there really is no RIGHT answer, either.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Unemployment benefits regulate religious activity?

Or are you trying to claim employment is inherently a religious action?

Either way, your position here contradicts your position in the other thread. Unless, that is, your position is that government mandated benefits are a right that cannot be denied, then it makes sense.

No, the problem is that you're completely incapable of comprehending that someone can take an objective stance, based on a full evaluation of facts and information, as opposed to your approach which is to dogmatically settle into partisan bull shit. So, instead of taking my arguments as they are, you are deliberately twisting them in ways that are nonsensical to the words I've spoken.

Once again, just to underscore how much of a hack you are, my position is that THE TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT CHANGED in such a way that the woman was pushed into deciding between her job and her religion, and this, in my view, constitutes good cause for her quitting. Because THE TERMS OF EMPLOYMENT CHANGED. As I said, if additional information were to be presented, and it turned out that the woman knew at the time of hire that she would be expected to sell alcohol in the future, then there would be no "good cause."

Is that what my problem is? Employment changes all the time. People get promotions, get transferred, or the company gets sold. You cannot quit a job simply because the employment changes and expect to collect unemployment, that is not good cause. The only reason this might be good cause is if you accept that people actually have scruples based on religion.

You said that freedom of religion never applies to anything that is not directly related to religion, and that no one is ever allowed a religious exception to a law. Now you are arguing that, because a person trying to collect unemployment they are entitled to a religious exception from the law. Yet, somehow, you are taking a logical, considered, and reasoned approach to both position that is based solely on the facts.

Seriously, do you want to keep digging a hole?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Since she quit and wasn't fired, nope, she shouldn't.

Unemployment insurance is ONLY if your job was eliminated through no fault of your own.

She made a choice not to work there.

Bingo.

Agreeing with one of the stupidest posters on the board is a good way to be wrong.

 

[Ravi]

Since she quit and wasn't fired, nope, she shouldn't.

Unemployment insurance is ONLY if your job was eliminated through no fault of your own.

She made a choice not to work there.

Bingo.

Agreeing with one of the stupidest posters on the board is a good way to be wrong.

I wasn't aware that I was agreeing with you.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Employment changes all the time. People get promotions, get transferred,

These are voluntary moves, and generally speaking the employee can decline these. The one difference would be when a transfer is done for medical reasons, like an injury that limits the employee's ability to perform the essential job duties. These aren't voluntary, and the employer has the right to insist upon these moves when necessary. Of course, these are usually temporary as well. And if the employee has a religious objection to the new job duties, they could opt instead of time off, under FMLA.

or the company gets sold.

This does not change the nature of one's job duties. If you are a cashier at a conveinence store, and it gets sold, being a cashier will still consist of the same duties.

You cannot quit a job simply because the employment changes and expect to collect unemployment, that is not good cause. The only reason this might be good cause is if you accept that people actually have scruples based on religion.

I never said that people don't have religious scruples. I said that religious scruples do not grant a person an exception to a generally applicable law that regulates that industry. Unemployment laws do not regulate any industry. They merely establish under what circumstances a person may claim unemployment benefits. In the state in question, the law allows for benefits to be granted upon a voluntary departure for good cause. As your own link explains, this allows for subjective elements to be taken into consideration on a case by case basis. As I've explained, under that subjective consideration, if I were the person making the decision, I would grant UE in this situation, because I find it to be good cause to depart a job when the duties are unforseeably changed without the employee's consent in such a way as to invoke a religious objection that the employer is not willing to accommodate.

You said that freedom of religion never applies to anything that is not directly related to religion, and that no one is ever allowed a religious exception to a law. Now you are arguing that, because a person trying to collect unemployment they are entitled to a religious exception from the law.

No, I'm not. STOP TWISTING MY WORDS YOU IGNORANT N FUCK. The state law in question explicitly permits unemployment to be granted for a voluntary departure IF THERE IS GOOD CAUSE FOR THE DEPARTURE. Under these particular circumstances, I find the woman's religious objections to be good cause. UNDER THESE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES. I never said that religious objections create an automatic exception to the law. I said that IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, UNDER SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES, the religious objection FULFILLS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW. If you'd bothered to give any attention to my full position, you'd be mindful of the fact that I've also explained that under different circumstances the religious objection would not suffice.

Unemployment law applies to all people. The woman does not claim an exception from unemployment law. So your accusations are unfounded. The woman presents her religious objections to the change in job duties as the kind of "good cause" the law demands. In my opinion it does.

Yet, somehow, you are taking a logical, considered, and reasoned approach to both position that is based solely on the facts.

That's right, I am. I'm taking the facts of this particular case into consideration, as far as we have the facts, and applying them to that which is explicitly contained in the law. See, unlike you, I don't insist on painting the world with two or three broad brushes. I'm capable of coming to a position based on a full consideration of all the nuances of the situation. You are under the fallacious frame of mind that religious freedom must entertain complete exception from all things that become intertwined in some legal process, or it does not exist.

It's interesting to note, that in your desperate attempt bringing this subject up hoping to be able to label someone a hypocrite, you have actually turned out to be a hypocrite. While I continue to treat all matters with a full analysis of all nuanced information, you continue to paint with broad brushes. Based on your position here, a person's religious objections cannot be taken into consideration at all, and rejecting unemployment benefits is necessary. This contradicts your previous broad brush strokes regarding applying general laws to all people without regard to their religious objections to the law.

 

[Decepticon]

She is "free" to pursue other options.

Point of law here.
If you quit, you usually don't get unemployment except under unusual circumstance unless you can PROVE that the employer made work un-endurable.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I never said that people don't have religious scruples. I said that religious scruples do not grant a person an exception to a generally applicable law that regulates that industry. Unemployment laws do not regulate any industry. They merely establish under what circumstances a person may claim unemployment benefits. In the state in question, the law allows for benefits to be granted upon a voluntary departure for good cause. As your own link explains, this allows for subjective elements to be taken into consideration on a case by case basis. As I've explained, under that subjective consideration, if I were the person making the decision, I would grant UE in this situation, because I find it to be good cause to depart a job when the duties are unforseeably changed without the employee's consent in such a way as to invoke a religious objection that the employer is not willing to accommodate.

Quite right, unemployment laws regulate government benefits, and government benefits are a fracking right.

Unemployment benefits are routinely denied to people who quit jobs simply because the job changed. If you don't believe me, try quiting a job because they suddenly decided you are the one that has to clean the bathroom and see if your claim passes the laugh test. You can claim your religion forbids that if you want, it won't work.

No, I'm not. STOP TWISTING MY WORDS YOU IGNORANT N FUCK.

Did you, or did you not, say that the 1st Amendment only applies to activities that are strictly religious in nature? Simple yes or no.

The state law in question explicitly permits unemployment to be granted for a voluntary departure IF THERE IS GOOD CAUSE FOR THE DEPARTURE. Under these particular circumstances, I find the woman's religious objections to be good cause. UNDER THESE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES. I never said that religious objections create an automatic exception to the law. I said that IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, UNDER SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES, the religious objection FULFILLS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW. If you'd bothered to give any attention to my full position, you'd be mindful of the fact that I've also explained that under different circumstances the religious objection would not suffice.

Unemployment law applies to all people. The woman does not claim an exception from unemployment law. So your accusations are unfounded. The woman presents her religious objections to the change in job duties as the kind of "good cause" the law demands. In my opinion it does.

Of course you find it to be good cause, it allows her to tap taxpayers and her employer for more money. After all, unemployment is a right. The fact that the board, who is a lot more familiar with state law and good cause under it than you are, thought it was a bunch of hooey is irrelevant, because without unemployment should would have been denied her right to not work and still collect money.

In other words, genius, you arguing that state law is what made the difference here makes you look stupid, especially when you add in the fact that you specifically argued that the 1st Amendment only applies to actions that are specifically religious in nature. The court specifically ruled that the 1st Amendment, not state law, is what applies here. I am pretty sure that if she was a pharmacist who thought that her religion interfered with her ability to do hand out certain drugs you would come down on the opposite side of the issue.

In fact, I can point to a whole thread where you did just that.

That's right, I am. I'm taking the facts of this particular case into consideration, as far as we have the facts, and applying them to that which is explicitly contained in the law. See, unlike you, I don't insist on painting the world with two or three broad brushes. I'm capable of coming to a position based on a full consideration of all the nuances of the situation. You are under the fallacious frame of mind that religious freedom must entertain complete exception from all things that become intertwined in some legal process, or it does not exist.

What is the difference between someone refusing to sell Plan B and someone refusing to sell alcohol? Both decisions were based on a religious scruple, the only substantial difference between the two cases is that one person is applying for unemployment. Yet, somehow, I am wrong for assuming that you are being disingenuous. Feel free to keep arguing that your position is logical and considered if you want, no one actually believes you.

It's interesting to note, that in your desperate attempt bringing this subject up hoping to be able to label someone a hypocrite, you have actually turned out to be a hypocrite. While I continue to treat all matters with a full analysis of all nuanced information, you continue to paint with broad brushes. Based on your position here, a person's religious objections cannot be taken into consideration at all, and rejecting unemployment benefits is necessary. This contradicts your previous broad brush strokes regarding applying general laws to all people without regard to their religious objections to the law.

My intent in bringing this subject up was not to label anyone a hypocrite, it was to educate people who think they know everything. You jumping in and proving you are a lying hypocrite was just a bonus.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

She is "free" to pursue other options.

Point of law here.
If you quit, you usually don't get unemployment except under unusual circumstance unless you can PROVE that the employer made work un-endurable.

Quite true.