Quote:
Originally Posted by henry quirk
"The issue boils down to this simple question. Can an employer impose his religious beleifs on employees."
I disagree.
The issue boils down to: can employees force an employer to provide a benefit said employer finds morally repugnant?
|
Repugnant is an emotion. Emotions have no standing in the court. If this was about an emotion, it would have been never been heard.
Your sentence is missing fundamental underlying word that is the basis of their suit. It is completely about their
religious beliefs. Their standards for what is socially acceptable (along with other irrelevant emotions such as ego) were never discussed in this case, were never considered, and was completely irrelevant to the court and to all parties. In fact, one who is emotional is often considered irresponsible or negligent. And so the word repugnant is never discussed by anyone but Henry Quick.
This case is 100% about their religious beliefs. To ignore the religion behind it is hypocrisy. Court has said an employeer can impose his religious beliefs on his employees. Only posts relevent to this court decision must include the word religion. Some will try to justify that decision by ignoring the entire basis of this case - which is a religious belief. Repugnant is how one would avoid admitting the problem with this decision. The court says one can impose their religious beliefs on employees. Impossible to be honest and deny this is about religious beliefs.