Oregon House has passed a bill that requires employers to afford their employees the opportunity to freely practice their religion in the workplace. Sounds pretty cool, eh? Wonder if it'll apply to Christians? You also have to consider exactly who gets to define the nebulous term, "undue hardship". I'm guessing that it won't be the employers.
Senate Bill 786 requires employers to accommodate religious beliefs provided they don’t impose an “undue hardship” on the business. The bill now goes to Gov. Ted Kulongoski for his signature.
from a country that would forbid establishment, to one where religious negligience is now justiciable.
marvelous.
.
Posted by: OregonGuy | May 31, 2009 at 11:08 AM
Well, only if it can be proven that such negligence does not arise in the context of the "undue hardship" clause - whatever that may entail.
Posted by: Max | May 31, 2009 at 04:03 PM
Why is it that I keep misunderstanding the 1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."
On the one hand, this bill seems to fall into the second clause, but I have little doubt what would happen if somebody tried to put a Catholic chapel in a breakroom, or change the cafeteria menu for Lent.
A long time ago I had an idea for a short story: A guy (perhaps looking like a Rastafarian) goes to the Workers Complaint Commission and says that his employer is preventing him from preparing his religion's sacred dish a work.
"That's terrible - we'll got after them right away. By the way, what is that sacred dish?"
"Fried money brains, freshly harvested. It's in our sacred texts."
Posted by: ZZMike | June 01, 2009 at 12:21 PM