Imagine daring to hold the same opinion as President Obama (who had this opinion until two years ago).
Never mind. Not my fight (although with the Love nest fence now turning into solid walls, and other open coercion for not approving of the lifestyle, it may soon become my fight).
The only comment that I have put in some of the comment sections on articles discussing this news story was: What about Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Law?
Well, someone finally noticed, and Volokh at the WAPO indeed has a long legal analysis of this.
Under Title VII of the federal Civil Rights Act, both public and private employers have a duty to exempt religious employees from generally applicable work rules, so long as this won’t create an “undue hardship,” meaning more than a modest cost, on the employer. If the employees can be accommodated in a way that would let the job still get done without much burden on the employer, coworkers, and customers — for instance by switching the employee’s assignments with another employee or by otherwise slightly changing the job duties — then the employer must accommodate them
yes, that is how I had always understood the law.
But I stand corrected on the actual law
my point so far has been simply to describe the American legal rule as it actually is, and as it has been for over 40 years (since the religious accommodation provisions were enacted in the 1972 amendments to Title VII).
Those who are hyperventilating that Christians are exaggerating this as if they are victims, forget that those of us who opposed abortion went through these fights in the 1960's and 1970's.
I was "failed" for refusing to cooperate with abortion in medical school (the school backed down since I was a known Catholic. And yes, I would have sued).
My best friend was not "exempted" because she was Hindu, and so was given the choice to fail her residency (and lose both her green card and ability to support her student husband), so she complied.
But what is interesting is that when the same hospital/medical school tried to force their Muslim residents to do abortions, they refused. Again, the residency program gave them the same order. And you know what?
Their reply: If you do this, every Muslim in training in OB will resign.
The residency program backed down.
Notice that those saying nay were not Catholic or Christians?
But of course, the "message" had been sent. Because after my bad experience in Medical School I decided I could not get a residency in OB/Gyn.
Oh what about taking a residency in a Catholic hospital? Well, my best friend actually chose a Catholic hospital for that reason...but she spent three months rotation at the University hospital for specialty instructions, and they had power to terminate her in her residency. (No, I don't know if the nuns running the Catholic hospital were aware of the problem)
So yes, a holy fool in Kentucky has gone to jail for a trivial opposition that could easily have been accommodated by the government.
That sends a chilling message, as do all those politicians who wail: IF you can't follow the law, resign.
Oh, you mean you want ethnic cleansing of Catholics/Muslims/Orthodox Jews and Evangelical Christians from government jobs?
Or do you mean we should just follow orders?
Which brings me to this article, in FirstThings: The Ethnic Cleansing of the Medical profession.
Wesley Smith is right: north of the border there is a concerted attempt to erase the conscience rights of doctors, by demanding referrals for the killing of the unborn (who do not need to put in a request) and of the terminally ill (who thus far do) and, for that matter, of any other procedure deemed “medical.”...
Yes, the fight is coming.
And just the idea that we will have to bow to Government fiats instead of taking care of patients.
And you thought Sarah Palin's "Death panels" were paranoid nonsense.
No comments:
Post a Comment