TOTALLY GEEKED!

flan327 wrote:

---

Long live bigots!

flan

---

 I am going to get that put on a tshirt and a cake. 

Tinydancer wrote:

---

Religious Freedom is one of the most important parts of the Constitution. We fought wars to uphold Religious Freedom. What part of that is so hard to understand?

---

 "Long live bigots".  They must be referring to religious bigots.  RELIGION is a protected right in ALL 50 states.

Tinydancer wrote:

---

Religious Freedom is one of the most important parts of the Constitution. We fought wars to uphold Religious Freedom. What part of that is so hard to understand?

---

 No one is saying they can't practice their religion. What we are saying is, bake the same cake you baked for every other wedding you bake cakes for. The same cake. Just let someone buy it who is a homosexual. Not sure what that has to do with religion. Oh wait. It doesn't. 

No one is arguing that you can't practice your religion. What I am saying is, if you offer a service, you can't decide someone is unworthy of that service becsuse your holy book decided they sleep with the wrong person. You offer that service to anyone who can pay the bill. 

Lawyerlady wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

Religious Freedom is one of the most important parts of the Constitution. We fought wars to uphold Religious Freedom. What part of that is so hard to understand?

---

 "Long live bigots".  They must be referring to religious bigots.  RELIGION is a protected right in ALL 50 states.

---

 Which means you can be whatever religion you want to be. You can worship whomever or whatever you choose. If you own a business you cannot decide not to sell your services to someone who is Wiccan because you don't like their religoin. Correct? Well all we are saying is you cannot also decide not to sell your services to someone who is homosexual because you don't like who they sleep with. 

A business transaction is not an endorsement of anything. It isn't condoning anything. It's a business transaction. 

Tinydancer wrote:

---

So you get to decide what a person can consider against their own religion. Wow, I just can't fathom how you think that is even the right thing to do.

---

Or how that doesn't violate the frickin FIRST AMMENDMENT!!!!!  

Tinydancer wrote:

---

So you get to decide what a person can consider against their own religion. Wow, I just can't fathom how you think that is even the right thing to do.

---

 I am not deciding what against anyone's religion. I am saying that religion and business are separate.  

Mellow Momma wrote:

---

I have a conference call to get on. I can't continue now. Just now that I support your right to practice your religion. Go worship dead ducks or holy chickens. I don't care. But leave it at home. At work, we don't practice religion.

---

So now we should leave our faith at the doorstep????  This just gets better and better.  You can't make this stuff up!!!!! 

Mellow Momma wrote:

---

I have a conference call to get on. I can't continue now. Just now that I support your right to practice your religion. Go worship dead ducks or holy chickens. I don't care. But leave it at home. At work, we don't practice religion.

---

 We do at my work.  We pray before group meals.  We pray before and after company wide meetings. We have prayer sessions when something horrible happens (we had a dedicated prayer room for a week after 9/11).

Now granted, I work for a Christian company, but we are owned by a secular company.  And we have many non-Christians working here. 

Mellow Momma wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

If your religion states homosexuals are sinning why should a homosexual be able to force you to bake them a cake? I guess you both believe only the homosexual has rights and those with religious convictions should just do whatever anyone else wants. They are protected under the Constitution not to have to do it. Part of practicing their religion is to not knowingly sin which they would be doing if they sanctioned the marriage enough to bake them a cake. Go find someone who wants your business and leave the law abiding shop owners alone.

---

 I don't think selling a cake is "sanctioning" anything. It's a business transaction. By your definition any business owner is sanctioning any activity of the person they do business with. That's ridiculous. 

 

---

 It's a business transaction is exactly right.

I find this whole thing very funny. Because you know these merchants who don't want to sell to gays or the KKK or blacks or people who tie their shoelaces weird or anyone else whose morals or lifestyle they disagree with? They have probably already done business with plenty of them, and they just didn't know it.

So did a merchant die because he unknowingly did business with someone whose morals he abhors? No, he just did business. That's what it is. Business. What a huge fuss over nothing.

Do you think everyone who sells something screens every customer to make sure their values are aligned? Get real.

Mellow Momma wrote:

---

I have a conference call to get on. I can't continue now. Just now that I support your right to practice your religion. Go worship dead ducks or holy chickens. I don't care. But leave it at home. At work, we don't practice religion.

---

 Your work is required by law to provide reasonable accomodation for your religious beliefs.  That's the LAW. 

Religious Rights in the Workplace
By Mathew D. Staver, Esq.
Copyright © 2000

Federal law, commonly referred to as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or Title VII,(1) prohibits most employers(2) and unions(3) from discriminating against their employees on the basis of religion.(4) Title VII applies to any employer having fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of the twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.(5) Other state or local laws may also prevent discrimination on the basis of religion and such laws may apply to employers with less than fifteen employees.(6)

Title VII states as follows:

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer --

(1) To fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) To limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.(7)

Title VII then defines "religion" as follows:

The term "religion" includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate an employee's or prospective employee's religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer's business.(8)

Under Title VII, an employer is required to accommodate an employee's sincerely held religious belief unless the employer can prove that the accommodation would result in an undue hardship to the employer's business.

Three Aspects of a Title VII Claim

The three aspects of a Title VII claim involve the employee's sincerely held religious belief, the employer's accommodation of that belief, and the employer's defense that it cannot accommodate the belief because the accommodation would result in an undue hardship.

Sincerely Held Religious Belief

Title VII prohibits discrimination based upon an employee's religious belief. This discrimination applies not only to hiring and firing but to all terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. Under Title VII the term "religion" is broadly defined to include "all aspects such as religious observance and practice, as well as belief."(9) The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (hereafter "EEOC"), defines religious practice to include "moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views. . . . The fact that no religious group establishes such beliefs or the fact that the religious group to which the individual professes to belong may not set the beliefs, will not determine whether the belief is a religious belief of the employee. . . ."(10) Title VII protects individual religious practices even though the practice is not mandated by the religious institution to which the employee belongs.(11)

The employee should apprise the employer of this sincerely held religious belief. For example, if the employer requires the employee to work on the Sabbath or Sunday, and if the employee has a sincerely held religious belief to attend church and worship with fellow believers on that day, then the employee should advise the employer of this belief. The employee should state the belief not only verbally but in writing, and refer to any biblical or religious-based references that form the basis of this belief. The employee should also advise the employer as to why this belief conflicts with the employer's practice. An employee cannot claim religious discrimination if the employer is unaware of the belief being violated.

Accommodation

Once the employee advises the employer of the sincerely held religious belief, the burden shifts to the employer to accommodate that belief. The employee should suggest accommodation alternatives. In the example of working on the Sabbath or Sunday noted above, the employee can offer to work on an alternative day or suggest other employees who may work the Sabbath or Sunday shift.

The employer must undertake efforts to accommodate the employee's religious belief. An employer cannot establish a zero tolerance policy against accommodating religious belief and practice. The employer must take seriously its obligation to accommodate the belief.

Undue Hardship

Once apprised of the employee's sincerely held religious belief, an employer is required to accommodate the belief unless to do so would be an undue hardship on the employer's business. An undue hardship means more than mere inconvenience. An employer cannot claim that employee morale, as a result of the accommodation, is itself undue hardship. Minimal expense is not undue hardship. Undue hardship is determined case by case. The employer must undertake serious attempts to accommodate the employee's belief.

When To File A Title VII Claim

If an employer fails or refuses to accommodate an employee's sincerely held religious belief, the employee may file a Title VII religious discrimination claim with the EEOC. An employee cannot seek legal recourse unless the employee first files an administrative claim with EEOC.(12)

In most states, an employee must file a claim within three hundred days of the discrimination.(13) However, a few states provide that the claim must be filed within one hundred eighty days.(14)

Filing The Complaint

A Title VII claim is initiated by filing a complaint form with the nearest EEOC office. The nearest office can be located by calling (800) 669-EEOC. In the complaint, the employee should describe the religious belief, the employer practice which burdened or discriminated against the belief, and identify those in supervisory authority who have the power to accommodate the belief but failed or refused to do so.

The employee should accurately describe the belief and any religious references that support the belief. The employee should state why the belief conflicts with an employer practice and describe the employer discrimination. The employee should list the names, addresses, and phone numbers of any supervisory personnel who were informed of the belief and who failed or refused to accommodate the belief or who are capable of taking action to make an accommodation. The employee should then deliver the complaint to the nearest EEOC office.

EEOC intake personnel are not necessarily well versed in religious discrimination claims. Some may discourage an employee from presenting a claim or ask the employee to change the category of discrimination from religious to something else. The employee should insist that the intake personnel accept the complaint. The employee may refer the intake personnel to the EEOC Compliance Manual, which states that "if the charging party insists on filing a charge the charge should be taken."(15)

If your state or local agency has a law or ordinance that also addresses religious discrimination, you may be required to file a charge with the state or local agency in addition to the EEOC.(16) Though the EEOC is supposed to file a copy of your charge with the appropriate state or local agency,(17) you should either file a duplicate copy or get the name of the local or state agency and follow up to see if EEOC in fact filed a duplicate copy.(18)

The EEOC Proceeding

The EEOC proceeding is an administrative matter and not a court hearing. However, EEOC may require the parties to appear before an EEOC investigator. EEOC may take several steps. First, EEOC may issue a Right To Sue letter, which allows you the right to file suit in a court of law. An employee has ninety days in which to file a suit after the Right To Sue letter is issued.(19) An employee may request a Right To Sue letter if the charge has been pending before the EEOC more than one hundred eighty days.

Second, EEOC may issue a No Cause letter. Generally, EEOC will advise the employee in advance that a No Cause letter will be issued. In this situation, an employee should request that the EEOC instead issue a Right To Sue letter so that if the employee decides to later file suit, the court will not have any knowledge of the EEOC's reasoning that there was no cause to the complaint.

Finally, EEOC may find in the employee's favor and issue a Cause determination letter. Instead of being simply a mediator at this stage, EEOC takes the employee's position and requests the employer to accommodate the religious belief. However, EEOC has no power to act on its own. If the employer refuses to accommodate the employee's belief, EEOC can either discontinue any further efforts or file suit in its own name against the employer. If EEOC files suit against the employer in its own name, the employee has the right to obtain separate counsel and intervene as a co-plaintiff against the employer. If an employee obtains counsel and is successful against the employer in a court action, the employer may have to pay the employee's attorney's fees.(20)

Summary Of A Title VII Claim

• Federal law prohibits employers with fifteen or more employees for each working day in each of the twenty preceding calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year, as well as unions, from discriminating against an employee's sincerely held religious belief.

• An employee should apprise the employer of the sincerely held religious belief.

• An employer is required to accommodate the employee's sincerely held religious belief unless to do so would result in an undue hardship on the employer's business.

• In most states an employee must file an administrative complaint with EEOC within three hundred days of the religious discrimination, but in some states the time period is shortened to one hundred eighty days.

• File a complaint form with the nearest EEOC office (800) 669-EEOC.

• Particularly describe the religious belief, the employer discrimination against the belief, and identify any supervisors engaged in the discrimination or who have authority to make decisions that would accommodate the belief.

• The employee should describe various options that are available to the employer to accommodate the belief.

• If the EEOC intake officer refuses to accept the complaint, ask the EEOC employee to consult the EEOC Compliance Manual, Field Notes 112-1(1.7)(issued 1/88).

• EEOC will either issue a Right To Sue letter, a No Cause letter, or a Cause letter.

• If the EEOC has not acted within one hundred eighty days of the charge, the employee may ask the EEOC for a Right To Sue letter.

• If the EEOC advises that it will issue a No Cause letter, ask the EEOC to refrain from issuing such letter and instead issue a Right To Sue letter.

• EEOC may file suit after issuing a Cause letter, at which time the employee may retain separate counsel and intervene as a co-plaintiff with the EEOC.

• If EEOC does not file suit on behalf of the employee, the employee may receive a Right To Sue letter and obtain counsel to file suit in court, and if successful, the employer may have to pay the employee's attorney's fees.

Blankie wrote:

---

Mellow Momma wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

If your religion states homosexuals are sinning why should a homosexual be able to force you to bake them a cake? I guess you both believe only the homosexual has rights and those with religious convictions should just do whatever anyone else wants. They are protected under the Constitution not to have to do it. Part of practicing their religion is to not knowingly sin which they would be doing if they sanctioned the marriage enough to bake them a cake. Go find someone who wants your business and leave the law abiding shop owners alone.

---

 I don't think selling a cake is "sanctioning" anything. It's a business transaction. By your definition any business owner is sanctioning any activity of the person they do business with. That's ridiculous. 

 

---

 It's a business transaction is exactly right.

I find this whole thing very funny. Because you know these merchants who don't want to sell to gays or the KKK or blacks or people who tie their shoelaces weird or anyone else whose morals or lifestyle they disagree with? They have probably already done business with plenty of them, and they just didn't know it.

So did a merchant die because he unknowingly did business with someone whose morals he abhors? No, he just did business. That's what it is. Business. What a huge fuss over nothing.

Do you think everyone who sells something screens every customer to make sure their values are aligned? Get real.

---

 Apparently Christians have super-special radar that the rest of us lack.

flan

flan327 wrote:

---

Blankie wrote:

---

Mellow Momma wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

If your religion states homosexuals are sinning why should a homosexual be able to force you to bake them a cake? I guess you both believe only the homosexual has rights and those with religious convictions should just do whatever anyone else wants. They are protected under the Constitution not to have to do it. Part of practicing their religion is to not knowingly sin which they would be doing if they sanctioned the marriage enough to bake them a cake. Go find someone who wants your business and leave the law abiding shop owners alone.

---

 I don't think selling a cake is "sanctioning" anything. It's a business transaction. By your definition any business owner is sanctioning any activity of the person they do business with. That's ridiculous. 

 

---

 It's a business transaction is exactly right.

I find this whole thing very funny. Because you know these merchants who don't want to sell to gays or the KKK or blacks or people who tie their shoelaces weird or anyone else whose morals or lifestyle they disagree with? They have probably already done business with plenty of them, and they just didn't know it.

So did a merchant die because he unknowingly did business with someone whose morals he abhors? No, he just did business. That's what it is. Business. What a huge fuss over nothing.

Do you think everyone who sells something screens every customer to make sure their values are aligned? Get real.

---

 Apparently Christians have super-special radar that the rest of us lack.

flan

---

It's KNOWINGLY doing something against your beliefs.  What do you not understand about that? 

flan327 wrote:

---

burns07 wrote:

---

Long live bigots!
______________

as usual, the liberal's last resort--anyone that disagrees with your agenda has to be a bigot

and, as usual, I reply: you have the right to your opinion

---

When you (general you) discriminate against a group of people...what's that called?

flan 

---

Liberalism?  Because are wanting to deny the very basic First Amendment right that everyone is afforded in the country.  You want to deny Christians the right to practice their religion as they see fit.  Do you not see your hypocrisy????

flan327 wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

Blankie wrote:

---

Mellow Momma wrote:

---

Tinydancer wrote:

---

If your religion states homosexuals are sinning why should a homosexual be able to force you to bake them a cake? I guess you both believe only the homosexual has rights and those with religious convictions should just do whatever anyone else wants. They are protected under the Constitution not to have to do it. Part of practicing their religion is to not knowingly sin which they would be doing if they sanctioned the marriage enough to bake them a cake. Go find someone who wants your business and leave the law abiding shop owners alone.

---

 I don't think selling a cake is "sanctioning" anything. It's a business transaction. By your definition any business owner is sanctioning any activity of the person they do business with. That's ridiculous. 

 

---

 It's a business transaction is exactly right.

I find this whole thing very funny. Because you know these merchants who don't want to sell to gays or the KKK or blacks or people who tie their shoelaces weird or anyone else whose morals or lifestyle they disagree with? They have probably already done business with plenty of them, and they just didn't know it.

So did a merchant die because he unknowingly did business with someone whose morals he abhors? No, he just did business. That's what it is. Business. What a huge fuss over nothing.

Do you think everyone who sells something screens every customer to make sure their values are aligned? Get real.

---

 Apparently Christians have super-special radar that the rest of us lack.

flan

---

It's KNOWINGLY doing something against your beliefs.  What do you not understand about that? 

---

How is baking a cake against your beliefs? 

flan

---

 Baking a cake for a GAY WEDDING is against my beliefs. Luckily I have the law on my side.

Ohfour wrote:

---

flan327 wrote:

---

burns07 wrote:

---

Long live bigots!
______________

as usual, the liberal's last resort--anyone that disagrees with your agenda has to be a bigot

and, as usual, I reply: you have the right to your opinion

---

When you (general you) discriminate against a group of people...what's that called?

flan 

---

Liberalism?  Because are wanting to deny the very basic First Amendment right that everyone is afforded in the country.  You want to deny Christians the right to practice their religion as they see fit.  Do you not see your hypocrisy????

---

No, because I'm not a hypocrite.

You are baking a cake. You are not officiating at their wedding.

They will get married whether or not you bake the cake, actually.

flan

Well then go to the baker who has no problem with baking you a cake for your gay wedding. You're so inclusive except for those you disagree with. Then you're all about forcing them to conform. That is the very definition of a hypocrite.

Mellow Momma wrote:

---

burns07 wrote:

---

it isn't about bakeries or wedding cakes or widgets or indian restaurants--it IS about an individual's ( be it a natural person or not ) FREE choice as to what's a religious / moral / value-based decision FOR THEM--the customer ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT have the right to decide what is religiously / morally / value-based objectionable to ANYONE ( besides themselves ) and neither does the government

---

 And the business has no right to decide what is morally objectionable about their customers. Period. 

---

 You are confusing a right to a societal difference. 

You do not have the right to cake. You do have a right to religious freedom.

flan327 wrote:

---

Ohfour wrote:

---

Mellow Momma wrote:

---

It isn't that the bakery doesn't offer the service of wedding cakes and that's what being demanded of them. The bakery offers the service and says "we offer what you want, we just don't want to sell it to you because we don't like how you spend your time". How is that ok?

---

So I ask again, should a black baker be forced to bake a cake for a KKK rally? 

---

The thought of comparing a HATE group to gays is offensive.

flan 

---

 Gay agenda tearing apart basic rights is offensive. 

chef wrote:

---

Why is the homosexual's want of a cake, flowers, whatever more important than a Christian's Constitutionally protected right to freedom of religion?

As to the bigotry claim - Amazing how that doesn't get applied in reverse. Bigotry is shouted when a person upholds their religious beliefs but never in reference to those trouncing on that person's religious beliefs.

For me, it's not the cake itself that's the issue. It's the FORCING the baker to make the cake that's the issue. If the homosexuals want their rights respected, they need to respect the rights of the religious folk.

---

 This is very well said.