Inthemiddle
Rookie
- Oct 4, 2011
- 6,354
- 675
- 0
- Banned
- #21
should they be required to? a religious belief isn't a disability.
No, but religion IS considered an immutable characteristic.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
should they be required to? a religious belief isn't a disability.
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.
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.
Bingo.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.
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."
Bingo.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.
I wasn't aware that I was agreeing with you.Bingo.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.
Agreeing with one of the stupidest posters on the board is a good way to be wrong.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.