close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

JPL Wins religious discrimination suit

Discussion in 'Religious Issues' started by void *, Jan 20, 2013.

  1. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    It's just a lack of manners on his part. Self esteem issues on his part, that's all. He is an interesting caricature.
     
  2. Bren

    Bren NRA Life Member

    42,115
    8,980
    Jan 16, 2005
    Kentucky
    As I understood his post, he was saying that crationists often substitute creationism (actually "Intelligent Design") as an alternate "scientific" theory of origins - that is at least how they package it when they argue that it isn't religion and should be taught in school.

    Beliefs asbout scientific issues are not constitutionally protected against discrimination. So, if the guy believed in intelligent design as an alternative scientific theory, it would be hypocritical to claim religious discrimination if he was fired for it.

    However, I agree that all "creationism" isn't called "scientific" by believers - just the ID "theory."
     


  3. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    Would you want to defend a manager who, on tape, clearly said:

    "I do not like the fact that you believe in intelligent design, other co-workers don't believe in intelligent design, so based on that, you are fired, now get out you fairy tale believing idiot."

    It's hard to get that level of proof of discrimination, but if someone is fired only for their religious beliefs, and you can show the nexus, it can be a good case.

    Anyway, there are obviously some details in this particular story that aren't very clear, and a lot more to the story, as usual.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2013
  4. Glock36shooter

    Glock36shooter

    3,157
    0
    May 30, 2010
    No it usually has to do with people that babble idiotically without having any of the information... even though it was freely available.

    Let me ask you... is Creationism Science or Religion?
     
  5. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    If it was created, and that could be proven, it would be science.
     
  6. void *

    void * Dereference Me!

    In this case it would have been, because his belief in ID did not affect his job duties (other than the fact that he wouldn't stop talking about it during work time to the point that others complained about him harassing them, and his supervisor, who helped get him the job in the first place while knowing that the guy believed in ID, had to ask him to stop - but in fact only asked him to stop during work time and explicitly told him that he could talk about it during non-work hours such as his lunch break, etc. ).

    However, as others have pointed out - consider a case where someone's belief in a religious position causes them to actually fail perform their job duties correctly. Suppose someone were purportedly a radiologist but held some hypothetical religious belief that required them to deny that exposure to X-rays had potentially adverse effects, and thus refused to use the body shielding that is normally used when taking X-rays. If that person's employer fired them, would you still consider that 'religious discrimination'?

    Or consider someone whose religious beliefs require that they attempt to haste the coming of Armageddon (this is not hypothetical, there are actually people who believe this and act on it, attempting to cause various Biblical prophecies to occur). Would a nuclear plant refusing to hire such a person, when doing so would put that person at the plant's controls, be religious discrimination?
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2013
  7. cowboywannabe

    cowboywannabe you savvy?

    21,908
    5,701
    Jan 26, 2001
    a priest cant take a job as an abortionist and then say he wont cut the baby up inside the womb because of his religeon, then sue after getting fired for not committing an abortion....saying he was fired because of his religeous beliefs....
     
  8. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    All people are unique, just like everyone else. Same goes with all situations. You'd have to really know all the details to know if what happened was fair or not, or even if fair was possible. I was responding to a particular question, that I thought was rather obvious. Turns out, it's a bit more complicated than that.

    Sometimes things can be accommodated. I've been to combat with conscientious objectors. :wavey:
     
  9. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    There are plenty of examples of people gaming the system for their own agenda. Many times, both sides of an issue will do that, especially where the courts are involved.
     
  10. void *

    void * Dereference Me!


    Of course.

    And I gave you specific hypothetical situations and asked your opinion of them, strictly in the context of the information provided. (I.E. do you consider it religious discrimination when the fact a decision is based on is *not* religious, but the cause of that fact *is* religious - a radiologist refusing to provide a protective vest is not a religious condition, but in the hypothetical example the *cause* of the hypothetical radiologist refusing to provide the vest is their religious beliefs)

    You could just simply answer, qualifying your statement with something along the lines of 'in the absence of other factors, I think such and such' - that would be fairly simple, don't you think? I'm not going to add super-secret qualifying conditions to the hypothetical situations I gave, I just wanted to see what you thought on very specific point (I.E., non-religious causes of termination where the reason the non-religious cause is present is due to a person's religious belief).
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2013
  11. Bren

    Bren NRA Life Member

    42,115
    8,980
    Jan 16, 2005
    Kentucky
    The point 2 of us made, and you ignored, is that christians often claim intelligent design is science, NOT religious belief. Under that theory, if the court would buy it, or there was significant evidence of the plaintiff claiming ID was not a religious belief, there would be no evidence someone was fired "for their religious beliefs." That could be an easy case for the defendant.

    You can be equitably stuck with a false "fact" as a matter of law, if you have claimed it is true. There is a case, Stambovsky v. Ackley, where a court ruled that a house was haunted as a metter of law. The buyer sued the former owner for selling him a haunted house - normally that would be laughed out of court and the former owner, of course, said "there's no such thing as ghosts." However, the former owner had told people the house was haunted before he sold it, so he was stuck with that fact as a matter of law and lost the case. "having reported [the ghosts'] presence in both a national publication... and the local press... defendant is estopped to deny their existence and, as a matter of law, the house is haunted."

    As I said, however, that would only work with ID, not all religious creationism.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2013
  12. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    OK, in the radiologist case, just to show that there are still not enough details to be sure to go the right way, what if he signed a waiver that absolved me and the facility for any of his damages due to exposure to radiation, or if we only let him work in the Ultrasound room. Or since he's a radiologist, he reads imaging from home and dictates the results into the system. etc etc etc.

    So, If I may hasten the arrival here. In a case that has nothing to do with religious belief, it's not very likely that religious discrimination is going to be an issue, unless someone pushes you off a subway platform in front of an oncoming train, because she hates muslims, and mistook you for one.....

    Cookie cutter answers don't always work.

    Back to the original question.

    In the absence of any further details, it would seem that fits the legal definition of religious discrimination if there is a direct cause and effect relationship, as the question implied.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2013
  13. void *

    void * Dereference Me!

    First, the vest I am talking about protects the patient, not the radiologist. Have you never had an x-ray? The radiologist is not the person having x-rays blasted into them. So your "the radiologist signed a waiver" condition is irrelevant.

    Second, you really don't understand that I'm not asking you to add random other factors, do you?

    Let me be clearer:

    In the radiologist hypothetical example, assuming no other factors: The radiologist gets fired because the radiologist refused to put the protective vest on patients in violation of policy, and the radiologist refused to do so because of a religious belief.

    Was that radiologist discriminated against because of their religion?

    Or, to state it another way, do you consider it discrimination to fire an employee because they refuse to do a required job duty solely because they have a religious belief that requires them to not perform that duty? With the qualifier that the previous statement is the *only* issue?
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2013
  14. JBnTX

    JBnTX Bible Thumper

    20,039
    4,184
    Aug 28, 2008
    Fort Worth Texas
    Religion.
     
  15. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    And how much ionizing radiation would the patient need protecting from if they were getting an ultrasound again? How about if the radiologist was just teleworking, not doing exams (note to others, radiology TECHNICIANS usually perform the exams, RADIOLOGISTS, MD's that have years of additional training, look at and interpret imaging, and yes, there are exceptions to that basic rule too, especially for interventional radiologists. RADIOLOGISTS can make a very good productive living, never having to lay eyes directly on a patient. So, the question isn't whether I have ever had an x-ray, but whether you know what a radiologist is or not?)

    So, again to try to hasten our arrival, your question was if the guy was discriminated against because of something other than a religious freedom, would it be religious discrimination.

    Answer: no, not most of the time.

    But, back to the original question that was asked that I answered, and you still have not said exactly what problem you have with that answer remains.


    In the absence of any further details, it would seem that fits the legal definition of religious discrimination if there is a direct cause and effect relationship, as the question implied.

    Is there a point you are trying to make, or is this supposed to be circuitous by design?
     
  16. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    I don't think I ignored it, but I did disagree with it. With no proof either way, both creation and wild random chance are religious beliefs, based on faith.

    The truth is, that life was either created here, brought from somewhere else, or just happened as part of a natural phenomena, or something in between those, or some kind ofcombination thereof. Or even something that none of us have considered possible yet? Who really knows? The only fact is that people do believe certain details about the earliest origins of life, even to the point of claiming knowledge.

    I love the haunted house case. Just goes to show you, humans, no matter how hard we try to make things fair and objective, and to make sense, will always have examples of where foolproof systems weren't.

    :wavey:
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2013
  17. Glock36shooter

    Glock36shooter

    3,157
    0
    May 30, 2010
    I agree... so it has no place in public schools.
     
  18. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    Skipped over a very significant issue, didn't you?

    If it were created, and as an agnostic atheist, that should still be at least a little possible, wouldn't it be science?

    Science is the discovery of what is, and if we discovered that life were created, that most certainly would not exclude the teaching of evolution, and creation would simply be another detail of the natural order of the world.


    I'd think until it's settled, and there is irrefutable proof one way or the other, they should both be discussed. Education requires critical thinking, examining opposing viewpoints, and reaching conclusions.

    Your version sounds a lot more like indoctrination.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2013
  19. JBnTX

    JBnTX Bible Thumper

    20,039
    4,184
    Aug 28, 2008
    Fort Worth Texas
    Damn! I walked right into that one.:rofl:
     
  20. Glock36shooter

    Glock36shooter

    3,157
    0
    May 30, 2010
    Can't have it both ways ya know? Can't teach religion in a public school. Can't be discrimination if you get fired for what kind of science you favor.

    But I do agree it's religion as not much of it is supported by any evidence.
     
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2013