t actually opens up major medical institutions to more law suits, and these would not be frivolous. People that seek medical attention and are denied it on the basis of someone else's beliefs will sue - a lot.
They're already suing a lot. This legislation is addressing the issue and coming down on the side of healthcare providers.
Actually, by refusing a patient or a procedure, one could argue that there is a bias against the patient and it is actually the patient who is at greater risk. By refusing to treat a patient a doctor is refusing to DO THEIR JOB. This places them in greater danger, regardless of the rule as the result can be a person's harm or death. The point here is that it is a DOCTOR'S JOB to treat and now he, his staff, etc. can refuse to do that job to detriment of the patient. This will open up far more malpractice suits and all the rule does is provide a legal defense, it does not prevent the suit. Also, usually it is not the doctors themselves that are harmed by lawsuits, it is their insurance companies. Most importantly, you have deemed that the lawsuits brought against doctors are frivolous as a rule. Just because someone is a doctor doesn't mean that they are always in the right. Look, it boils down to the fact that no one is holding a gun to the doctor's head to treat anyone, they can get jobs at specialty hospitals that do not engage in medical procedures that they disagree with or get a job doing something else entirely. Also, there were already REASONABLE RELIGIOUS PROTECTION for all employees in any profession that were in place. All this does is hurt the patient.
A private employer must reasonably accommodate employees’ sincerely held religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer.
Let's create a hypothetical situation here.
I'm an employer. I have two employees from two different religions. One employee has the reasonable religious belief that that they must pray before a small idol twice a day. That's fine by me. You can bring your idol in, and pray to it twice a day. Doesn't take too much time, and I'll let every other employee have equal amounts of break time, so it's fair.
I hire another employee. That employee has the reasonable religious belief that they can not be in the presence of any idols. Idols are a sin, and it is a sin to look upon any physical representation of any god or gods. I don't think it's too unreasonable to create a workplace that lacks religious idols. It's not hard to keep them out.
Now I'm required by law to do two contradictory things. Bullshit strikes again. This is what happens when you allow religion to be used as an excuse.
The correct answer is that I am the employer. I decide what your job is, and I decide the rules of the workplace. Those rules are based on totally secular reasoning. If you follow the rules and carry out your job, all good. If you don't, no good. I don't care what the reason is, it doesn't matter. If you refused to do a job because you hate the client, you're fired. If you refuse to do a job because of religious reasons, you're fired.
You know, it's funny how the law contradicts itself in this way. People actually don't have freedom of speech in the workplace.
Generally, employees of private sector employers have no constitutional “free speech†rights in the workplace, so take pause before you wrap yourself in the flag and speak your mind. In both Geary v. U.S. Steel Corp., 456 Pa. 171, 319 A.2d 174 (1974) and Wagner v. General Elec. Co., 760 F.Supp. 1146 (E.D. Pa. 1991), Pennsylvania courts rejected wrongful discharge claims based on First Amendment protects asserted by employees who were terminated for criticisms of their employers.
As I said before, the right to religious expression is in that very same Amendment. Religious speech is part of free speech. In other words, the US law contradicts itself. One law says that your right to religious expression does not go into the workplace. Another law says that employers must reasonably accommodate it. You know what side I'm on.
Re-read the "undue hardship" phrase. You're not required by law to do two contradictory things. You can use the "undue hardship" argument to back yourself out of corners like the three employee problem you posit. For instance, you could say that accommodating your idol hating guy is an undue hardship because you have to accommodate two other guys with the idol.
Your citation of employees criticising employers is not well taken. Free speech and freedom of religion are in the same Amendment, but the analysis of free speech and religion cases is usually pretty different. Even if the analysis were exactly the same, please remember that employers aren't forced to make accommodations that would produce an undue hardship. The cases in you quote are about employees criticizing their employers. It's easy to frame an undue hardship argument around those facts.
Here's an example: a pregnant woman goes into labor early, but there are complications. The doctor is faced with a choice: abort the baby and save the mother, or proceed with the procedure, lose the mother, and probably lose the baby. He proceeds with the latter option, using his religious beliefs as a basis. Mom dies, and the husband sues the fuck out of the doctor. Tell me how anything in that scenario is acceptable.
That's a loaded question and you know it. And what's wrong with a decision to try and save a new life? Most good parents would give their lives to save their children. A far harder and even more loaded question to answer is what if the woman tells the doctor to try to save the child over her? We'll assume the doctor is a practical person and knows the odds are extremely low of saving the child and aborting the child is the best option. What if she comes into the ER unconscious and the doctor decides to do the abortion?
The correct answer is that I am the employer. I decide what your job is, and I decide the rules of the workplace. Those rules are based on totally secular reasoning.
The problem is that while your reasoning may be secular, the reasoning of others may not be. And that's why we have laws to protect people.
I could easily envision a company run by an evangelical that has workplace rules that make it impossible for a practicing Jew to work there, even though on the surface the rules appear to be religion neutral. That's why the accommodation laws make a lot of sense. True, employers give up some freedom in order to protect against discrimination. But the overall result is greater good.
Your citation of employees criticising employers is not well taken. Free speech and freedom of religion are in the same Amendment, but the analysis of free speech and religion cases is usually pretty different. Even if the analysis were exactly the same, please remember that employers aren't forced to make accommodations that would produce an undue hardship. The cases in you quote are about employees criticizing their employers. It's easy to frame an undue hardship argument around those facts.
Well, I already disagree with the whole undue hardship thing is necessary. The employer shouldn't be required to accommodate anything. Yes, Mr. Lawyer, you are correct as to what the law says. I am saying I disagree with the law, and the law is wrong. Judges may have said differently, but I disagree with those judges. As I read it, religious freedom granted by the constitution is the same as speech freedom.
However, I'll play your undue hardship game, simply because I've said everything I can say.
I would count just about any accommodation required of an employer as an undue hardship. If an employer is required to provide an accommodation, however slight, for a reason that is non-secular, then I would classify that as undue. If providing that accommodation costs the employer even one faction of one cent, or one fraction of one second of their time, then that is hardship. Thus, if a religion of of an employee requires an employer to blink five times when greeting the employee, that is undue hardship in the book of Scott. If the employee refuses to do their duties when this accommodation is not met, then that employee can be terminated.
Granted. The employer can, if they so choose, provide this accommodation of their own will, as long as equal accommodations are provided to all employees equally. However, the employer should in no way be legally required to provide it, unless they are providing something equal to the other employees.
Also, to bring back the issue of federal money. If it is a job that is supported by public funds, then the employer should be disallowed from providing the accommodation, as taxpayer dollars should not go towards any any religious accommodation whatsoever. Not even a fraction of a cent. Religion in a publicly funded workplace is no different than religion on the lawn in front of town hall. If one group can make a display, everyone can make a display. Otherwise, nobody can make one. That's how it goes down. However, tax dollars can in no way go towards the constructing or maintenance of the displays, only the maintenance of the lawn.
Also, usually it is not the doctors themselves that are harmed by lawsuits, it is their insurance companies. Most importantly, you have deemed that the lawsuits brought against doctors are frivolous as a rule. Just because someone is a doctor doesn't mean that they are always in the right.
I didn't say they were always right, and lawsuits do harm the doctor and in the healthcare industry. Malpractice insurance is hugely expensive and has to be given the ridiculous pay outs that are made for pain and suffering.
EDIT: If data are scarce, then your point is weak. Get more data or abandon the point. A doctor sticks his neck out every time he does somethingand every time he does not do something. Err on the side of thepatient, not the doctor. That's the point of the medical profession.
No, people used to think the world was the center the universe because they lacked data to the contrary. I'm not saying I'm right, we need more data, surveys of health workers and such. Is this really an issue, or are the incidents isolated.
It's moot anyway because the Democrats are already working on legislation to repeal this, so you guys are going to get your way.
EDIT: Anyway, I'm done, I knew I shouldn't have come back on here before my last final. I've pissed my morning away arguing.
I could easily envision a company run by an evangelical that has workplace rules that make it impossible for a practicing Jew to work there, even though on the surface the rules appear to be religion neutral. That's why the accommodation laws make a lot of sense. True, employers give up some freedom in order to protect against discrimination. But the overall result is greater good.
I do see the case where an evangelical purposefully makes a business that makes everyone work on Saturday, that way he doesn't have to hire Jews. So I do see the ability to use secular reasoning as a way to mask discrimination. However, I'm actually fine with it, because where there is non-secular discrimination, it will show its face in other ways.
To use the same example, in order for the evangelical to not hire jews, he has to work every Saturday! That's punishment enough. If we catch that evangelical closing his shop on Saturday, we got him! Likewise, if even one of his employees in the same position as a jew applied for, gets Saturdays off, we got him! If he tries to do a loophole by "opening" his store for five minutes every Saturday, we've got him!
Let's say an employer tries to keep out the Muslims and Jews by requiring employees to eat pork for lunch. Well, it's plainly obvious that eating pork isn't a real job requirement. It has nothing to do with the job performance. Even in a deli, you are only required to handle it, not eat it. It cleary makes no sense for the job, and is obviously an attempt at unfair discrimination.
Much like the language of the dragons in Earthsea, it is nearly impossible for humans to lie when using correct secular and rational reasoning. There is no valid and fair secular reason that validates unfair discrimination. Thus, even if it may appear that my policy opens the door for racists and fucktards to use loopholes to discriminate, it actually does not. They will still be found out.
If you think otherwise, please provide a counter-example.
Let's say an employer tries to keep out the Muslims and Jews by requiring employees to eat pork for lunch. Well, it's plainly obvious that eating pork isn't a real job requirement. It has nothing to do with the job performance. Even in a deli, you are only required to handle it, not eat it. It cleary makes no sense for the job, and is obviously an attempt at unfair discrimination.
Take this example:
I own a restaurant. I don't want Muslims or Jews working in Billie Bob's Coffee 'n Slop Shack. I want the staff to be very familiar with the menu, so they can give good advice and represent the restaurant while I'm out 'coon hunting. Therefore, they must eat every dish on the menu. That includes my famous Muskrat 'n Pork stew. It's the only way that they can give informed advice. And did I mention that I change up my recipes on a regular basis? No Muslims or Jews working in my restaurant! And by the way... tell that new waitress with a dot in the middle of her forehead that I make the best meatloaf south of the Mason-Dixon line!
Reasonable accommodation laws make sense. In a perfect world you would not need them, but we don't live in that world.
I own a restaurant. I don't want Muslims or Jews working in Billie Bob's Coffee 'n Slop Shack. I want the staff to be very familiar with the menu, so they can give good advice and represent the restaurant while I'm out 'coon hunting. Therefore, they must eat every dish on the menu. That includes my famous Muskrat 'n Pork stew. It's the only way that they can give informed advice. And did I mention that I change up my recipes on a regular basis? No Muslims or Jews working in my restaurant! And by the way... tell that new waitress with a dot in the middle of her forehead that I make the best meatloaf south of the Mason-Dixon line!
If Billie Bob is indeed a discriminatin' halfwit, then we're going to catch him and here's how.
First off, we see if Billy Bob hires any not so orthodox religious folk. Is he going to hire reform jews or muslims who don't care, and are ready to eat bacon? Is he going to hire the Indian dude who doesn't care about eating a burger? He'll give himself away if he doesn't.
Likewise, while Billy Bob might think tasting all the dishes on the menu is necessary job function, it's easy to demonstrate that it is not. Similar jobs in other restaurants do not have this requirement. Even some fancy restaurants don't have this requirement. Also, are they forced to eat every dish prior to waiting on even one table? If Billie Bob let's even a single employee wait on a single table before eating every dish, then obviously it's not really required. If he comes out with five new specials in one night, He's got to make five plates for the entire serving staff, and they have to eat five dinners each? That's not going to work out for a whole bunch of other reasons.
If Billie Bob were hiring a taste tester, he would get away with it, and perhaps rightfully so. A taste tester who won't eat isn't worth hiring. If he's using it as an excuse to discriminate in hiring, he won't get away with it.
The problem is that you're putting a huge burden on the person who is the victim of discrimination.
I agree that you shouldn't be able to cry wolf without some gate-keeping function, but it's easy for a corporation to take advantage of its power once a claim is established. And under your system, due to the barriers, some legitimate claims wouldn't even make it out of the starting gate.
With reasonable accommodation requirements, there may be some litigation concerning what is reasonable. However, there would be much less than in a system that requires you to pierce through subtle and/or hidden forms of discrimination.
Less litigation for companies is, overall, a good thing. Fewer insurmountable hurdles for victims of discrimination is a good thing.
If you want to play the pragmatic game, I can play that too.
Let's be honest here. Even right now, discrimination is a huge problem, and our current system is sovling it only very slowly. Would you believe that their are only 4 African American college football coaches in the NCAA? The current system isn't solving the discrimination problem by any means. Neither of our policies concerning the right of conscience are going to change it very much. That is a problem that has a separate solution.
However, your policy on this issue has a great overall cost to society. Tons and tons of people will be forced to drive further to pharmacies to get drugs, when they are ill. They will be forced to go to different hospitals to see different, non-crazy, doctors. Employers will have to pay many employees who are not doing as much work as they need them to do.
When someone does not do their job properly, everyone who depends on that job getting done is made to suffer. The more important the job, the more hurt is spread. If lots of people start doing this, employers will have to hire additional workers, which may seem good for the economy, but it's terrible for small businesses.
When we have such a terrible economy, we can't afford to hire people who won't do their job fully, when plenty of other willing and able candidates are available. The possibility of a slight increase in discrimination is a risk I am willing to take in order to avert an almost certainly greater suffering from so many, duties going unfulfilled. The fact that these duties are primarily related to medicine and public services inflates that dramatically.
I'll say this: if I were running a business, I'd want to staff it with people that want to get more customers. If an employee were to deny service to anyone, they'd be taking money away from my company, and quite frankly, I don't want people creating unnecessary losses.
First off, we see if Billy Bob hires any not so orthodox religious folk. Is he going to hire reform jews or muslims who don't care, and are ready to eat bacon? Is he going to hire the Indian dude who doesn't care about eating a burger? He'll give himself away if he doesn't.
Something I always wonder about is why Jews and Muslims would want to work for Billy Bob in the first place. Of course, I understand and support anti-discrimination labor laws, but I do have to wonder why, for instance, homosexuals would worry about being discriminated against by Cracker Barrel Restaurant because I can't imagine why anyone would actually want to work for Cracker Barrel.
Along those same lines, I wondered about those racial discrimination lawsuits against Denny's. Of course, those Denny's patrons should not have been discriminated against, but why were they in Denny's in the first place? Denny's is terrible. I've eaten there once, and never, never went back.
First off, we see if Billy Bob hires any not so orthodox religious folk. Is he going to hire reform jews or muslims who don't care, and are ready to eat bacon? Is he going to hire the Indian dude who doesn't care about eating a burger? He'll give himself away if he doesn't.
Something I always wonder about is why Jews and Muslims would want to work for Billy Bob in the first place. Of course, I understand and support anti-discrimination labor laws, but I do have to wonder why, for instance, homosexuals would worry about being discriminated against by Cracker Barrel Restaurant because I can't imagine why anyone would actually want to work for Cracker Barrel.
Along those same lines, I wondered about thoseracial discrimination lawsuits against Denny's.Of course, those Denny's patrons should not have been discriminated against, but why were they in Denny's in the first place? Denny's is terrible. I've eaten there once, and never, never went back.
If Cracker Barrel is the only person hiring in your area or Denny's is the only restaurant at an exit, then your question is answered.
First off, we see if Billy Bob hires any not so orthodox religious folk. Is he going to hire reform jews or muslims who don't care, and are ready to eat bacon? Is he going to hire the Indian dude who doesn't care about eating a burger? He'll give himself away if he doesn't.
Something I always wonder about is why Jews and Muslims would want to work for Billy Bob in the first place. Of course, I understand and support anti-discrimination labor laws, but I do have to wonder why, for instance, homosexuals would worry about being discriminated against by Cracker Barrel Restaurant because I can't imagine why anyone would actually want to work for Cracker Barrel.
Along those same lines, I wondered about thoseracial discrimination lawsuits against Denny's.Of course, those Denny's patrons should not have been discriminated against, but why were they in Denny's in the first place? Denny's is terrible. I've eaten there once, and never, never went back.
If Cracker Barrel is the only person hiring in your area or Denny's is the only restaurant at an exit, then your question is answered.
It's pretty hard to imagine an area that is so depressed that Cracker Barrel is the only place hiring. If this is so in any area, the better bet would be to move away. Also, I've been in the "Denny's is the only restaurant at an exit" situation more than once. We've always solved that problem by waiting until the next exit.
but I do have to wonder why, for instance, homosexuals would worry about being discriminated against by Cracker Barrel Restaurant because I can't imagine why anyone would actually want to work for Cracker Barrel.
but I do have to wonder why, for instance, homosexuals would worry about being discriminated against by Cracker Barrel Restaurant because I can't imagine why anyone would actually want to work for Cracker Barrel.
Ahh... separate but equal. Cute.
Yeah, I am with Kilarney on that. Reasonable projections are necessary and protected class status is necessary.
but I do have to wonder why, for instance, homosexuals would worry about being discriminated against by Cracker Barrel Restaurant because I can't imagine why anyone would actually want to work for Cracker Barrel.
Ahh... separate but equal. Cute.
Yeah, I am with Kilarney on that. Reasonable projections are necessary and protected class status is necessary.
If you'll take the time to read what I said, you'll see that I support anti-discrimination laws. There is nothing in what I said that should lead anyone to believe otherwise. There is definitely nothing in what I said from which any reasonable person could glean an espousal of "separate but equal" treatment. What I said was, in the case of Denny's for example, is that it's hard for me to imagine why anyone would want to eat there.
If Denny's were to institute a policy of discrimination against people who wear contact lenses, I wouldn't be inconvenienced in the least, because I would never go into a Denny's in the first place. If Cracker Barrel were to institute a policy of not hiring people who wear contact lenses, I would also not be inconvenienced, because I would shine shoes on a corner before I would work at a Cracker Barrel.
but I do have to wonder why, for instance, homosexuals would worry about being discriminated against by Cracker Barrel Restaurant because I can't imagine why anyone would actually want to work for Cracker Barrel.
Ahh... separate but equal. Cute.
Yeah, I am with Kilarney on that. Reasonable projections are necessary and protected class status is necessary.
If you'll take the time to read what I said, you'll see that I support anti-discrimination laws. There is nothing in what I said that should lead anyone to believe otherwise. There isdefinitelynothing in what I said from which any reasonable person could glean an espousal of "separate but equal" treatment. What Isaidwas, in the case of Denny's for example, is that it's hard for me to imagine why anyone would want to eat there.
If Denny's were to institute a policy of discrimination against people who wear contact lenses, I wouldn't be inconvenienced in the least, because I would never go into a Denny's in the first place. If Cracker Barrel were to institute a policy of not hiring people who wear contact lenses, I would also not be inconvenienced, because I would shine shoes on a corner before I would work at a Cracker Barrel.
I get you. Sometimes people with lower qualifications or little money have to resort to things that seem illogical to those that have more options.
I get you. Sometimes people with lower qualifications or little money have to resort to things that seem illogical to those that have more options.
You're approaching getting me, but you're not quite there. I have been in the "lower qualifications or little money" situation. I still would not work at Cracker Barrel or eat at Denny's.
It's not just them really. I'm mostly thinking of food right now because I'm hungry, but I would never eat at a Waffle House, a Jerry's, or a Shoney's either. Sometimes I'm tricked by Sbarro's. There's one in Union Station and I'll walk past it and think, "That doesn't look so bad. In fact it smells pretty good. Maybe if I got something there, it would be good this time." Then I'll get something, and yell, "Goddammit, I forgot how bad Sbarro's is!"
I get you. Sometimes people with lower qualifications or little money have to resort to things that seem illogical to those that have more options.
You're approaching getting me, but you're not quite there. I have been in the "lower qualifications or little money" situation. I still would not work at Cracker Barrel or eat at Denny's.
It's not just them really. I can mostly think of food right now because I'm hungry, but I would never eat at a Waffle House, a Jerry's, or a Shoney's either.
Different storkes, also, in the case of working for Cracker Barrel, they may have decent benefits, better lower class clientele, or higher wages than other restaurants in the same area. I have no clue.
but I do have to wonder why, for instance, homosexuals would worry about being discriminated against by Cracker Barrel Restaurant because I can't imagine why anyone would actually want to work for Cracker Barrel.
I love the logic here. If they work at Cracker Barrel they would be discriminated against. Because of this, they shouldn't want to work there. Therefore, they just shouldn't worry about discrimination. Huh??????
It's pretty callous to say that a minority class should just "not worry" when there is discrimination - even if that discrimination is in a place that they don't personally care for.
I get you. Sometimes people with lower qualifications or little money have to resort to things that seem illogical to those that have more options.
You're approaching getting me, but you're not quite there. I have been in the "lower qualifications or little money" situation. I still would not work at Cracker Barrel or eat at Denny's.
It's not just them really. I can mostly think of food right now because I'm hungry, but I would never eat at a Waffle House, a Jerry's, or a Shoney's either.
Different storkes, also, in the case of working for Cracker Barrel, they may have decent benefits, better lower class clientele, or higher wages than other restaurants in the same area. I have no clue.
Well, that's pretty much the point. I know people who have worked at Cracker Barrel. They all say that it sucks in a major way. They have no benefits, wages are low, they are treated poorly by management, and tips are bad.
Comments
Look, it boils down to the fact that no one is holding a gun to the doctor's head to treat anyone, they can get jobs at specialty hospitals that do not engage in medical procedures that they disagree with or get a job doing something else entirely. Also, there were already REASONABLE RELIGIOUS PROTECTION for all employees in any profession that were in place. All this does is hurt the patient.
Your citation of employees criticising employers is not well taken. Free speech and freedom of religion are in the same Amendment, but the analysis of free speech and religion cases is usually pretty different. Even if the analysis were exactly the same, please remember that employers aren't forced to make accommodations that would produce an undue hardship. The cases in you quote are about employees criticizing their employers. It's easy to frame an undue hardship argument around those facts.
I could easily envision a company run by an evangelical that has workplace rules that make it impossible for a practicing Jew to work there, even though on the surface the rules appear to be religion neutral. That's why the accommodation laws make a lot of sense. True, employers give up some freedom in order to protect against discrimination. But the overall result is greater good.
However, I'll play your undue hardship game, simply because I've said everything I can say.
I would count just about any accommodation required of an employer as an undue hardship. If an employer is required to provide an accommodation, however slight, for a reason that is non-secular, then I would classify that as undue. If providing that accommodation costs the employer even one faction of one cent, or one fraction of one second of their time, then that is hardship. Thus, if a religion of of an employee requires an employer to blink five times when greeting the employee, that is undue hardship in the book of Scott. If the employee refuses to do their duties when this accommodation is not met, then that employee can be terminated.
Granted. The employer can, if they so choose, provide this accommodation of their own will, as long as equal accommodations are provided to all employees equally. However, the employer should in no way be legally required to provide it, unless they are providing something equal to the other employees.
Also, to bring back the issue of federal money. If it is a job that is supported by public funds, then the employer should be disallowed from providing the accommodation, as taxpayer dollars should not go towards any any religious accommodation whatsoever. Not even a fraction of a cent. Religion in a publicly funded workplace is no different than religion on the lawn in front of town hall. If one group can make a display, everyone can make a display. Otherwise, nobody can make one. That's how it goes down. However, tax dollars can in no way go towards the constructing or maintenance of the displays, only the maintenance of the lawn.
It's moot anyway because the Democrats are already working on legislation to repeal this, so you guys are going to get your way.
EDIT: Anyway, I'm done, I knew I shouldn't have come back on here before my last final. I've pissed my morning away arguing.
To use the same example, in order for the evangelical to not hire jews, he has to work every Saturday! That's punishment enough. If we catch that evangelical closing his shop on Saturday, we got him! Likewise, if even one of his employees in the same position as a jew applied for, gets Saturdays off, we got him! If he tries to do a loophole by "opening" his store for five minutes every Saturday, we've got him!
Let's say an employer tries to keep out the Muslims and Jews by requiring employees to eat pork for lunch. Well, it's plainly obvious that eating pork isn't a real job requirement. It has nothing to do with the job performance. Even in a deli, you are only required to handle it, not eat it. It cleary makes no sense for the job, and is obviously an attempt at unfair discrimination.
Much like the language of the dragons in Earthsea, it is nearly impossible for humans to lie when using correct secular and rational reasoning. There is no valid and fair secular reason that validates unfair discrimination. Thus, even if it may appear that my policy opens the door for racists and fucktards to use loopholes to discriminate, it actually does not. They will still be found out.
If you think otherwise, please provide a counter-example.
I own a restaurant. I don't want Muslims or Jews working in Billie Bob's Coffee 'n Slop Shack. I want the staff to be very familiar with the menu, so they can give good advice and represent the restaurant while I'm out 'coon hunting. Therefore, they must eat every dish on the menu. That includes my famous Muskrat 'n Pork stew. It's the only way that they can give informed advice. And did I mention that I change up my recipes on a regular basis? No Muslims or Jews working in my restaurant! And by the way... tell that new waitress with a dot in the middle of her forehead that I make the best meatloaf south of the Mason-Dixon line!
Reasonable accommodation laws make sense. In a perfect world you would not need them, but we don't live in that world.
First off, we see if Billy Bob hires any not so orthodox religious folk. Is he going to hire reform jews or muslims who don't care, and are ready to eat bacon? Is he going to hire the Indian dude who doesn't care about eating a burger? He'll give himself away if he doesn't.
Likewise, while Billy Bob might think tasting all the dishes on the menu is necessary job function, it's easy to demonstrate that it is not. Similar jobs in other restaurants do not have this requirement. Even some fancy restaurants don't have this requirement. Also, are they forced to eat every dish prior to waiting on even one table? If Billie Bob let's even a single employee wait on a single table before eating every dish, then obviously it's not really required. If he comes out with five new specials in one night, He's got to make five plates for the entire serving staff, and they have to eat five dinners each? That's not going to work out for a whole bunch of other reasons.
If Billie Bob were hiring a taste tester, he would get away with it, and perhaps rightfully so. A taste tester who won't eat isn't worth hiring. If he's using it as an excuse to discriminate in hiring, he won't get away with it.
I agree that you shouldn't be able to cry wolf without some gate-keeping function, but it's easy for a corporation to take advantage of its power once a claim is established. And under your system, due to the barriers, some legitimate claims wouldn't even make it out of the starting gate.
With reasonable accommodation requirements, there may be some litigation concerning what is reasonable. However, there would be much less than in a system that requires you to pierce through subtle and/or hidden forms of discrimination.
Less litigation for companies is, overall, a good thing. Fewer insurmountable hurdles for victims of discrimination is a good thing.
Let's be honest here. Even right now, discrimination is a huge problem, and our current system is sovling it only very slowly. Would you believe that their are only 4 African American college football coaches in the NCAA? The current system isn't solving the discrimination problem by any means. Neither of our policies concerning the right of conscience are going to change it very much. That is a problem that has a separate solution.
However, your policy on this issue has a great overall cost to society. Tons and tons of people will be forced to drive further to pharmacies to get drugs, when they are ill. They will be forced to go to different hospitals to see different, non-crazy, doctors. Employers will have to pay many employees who are not doing as much work as they need them to do.
When someone does not do their job properly, everyone who depends on that job getting done is made to suffer. The more important the job, the more hurt is spread. If lots of people start doing this, employers will have to hire additional workers, which may seem good for the economy, but it's terrible for small businesses.
When we have such a terrible economy, we can't afford to hire people who won't do their job fully, when plenty of other willing and able candidates are available. The possibility of a slight increase in discrimination is a risk I am willing to take in order to avert an almost certainly greater suffering from so many, duties going unfulfilled. The fact that these duties are primarily related to medicine and public services inflates that dramatically.
Along those same lines, I wondered about those racial discrimination lawsuits against Denny's. Of course, those Denny's patrons should not have been discriminated against, but why were they in Denny's in the first place? Denny's is terrible. I've eaten there once, and never, never went back.
If Denny's were to institute a policy of discrimination against people who wear contact lenses, I wouldn't be inconvenienced in the least, because I would never go into a Denny's in the first place. If Cracker Barrel were to institute a policy of not hiring people who wear contact lenses, I would also not be inconvenienced, because I would shine shoes on a corner before I would work at a Cracker Barrel.
It's not just them really. I'm mostly thinking of food right now because I'm hungry, but I would never eat at a Waffle House, a Jerry's, or a Shoney's either. Sometimes I'm tricked by Sbarro's. There's one in Union Station and I'll walk past it and think, "That doesn't look so bad. In fact it smells pretty good. Maybe if I got something there, it would be good this time." Then I'll get something, and yell, "Goddammit, I forgot how bad Sbarro's is!"
It's pretty callous to say that a minority class should just "not worry" when there is discrimination - even if that discrimination is in a place that they don't personally care for.
Sorry.