In NYC, some apartment elevators would be made to stop at every floor on Sabbath, so no one would need to push buttons.
I generally agree with you, musicprnt. But as in the airline case in Michigan regarding alcohol, employees are really pushing the envelope when it comes to what offends their religious principles, in my opinion. My guess is that we will see a fairly controversial case from a university campus in the near future, where a student will take their cue from one of these workplace accommodation controversies…
The law says, roughly, that as long as it’s not too much of a bother for the university to assign different employees to the event, the religious employee must be accommodated. Here’s an excellent discussion of the state of the law:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/09/04/when-does-your-religion-legally-excuse-you-from-doing-part-of-your-job/
And yes, it’s a judgement call as to whether it’s too much of a bother. But the intuition is that if the person is hired to be a bartender, they can’t refuse to serve alcohol, but if they are hired as wait staff for events that rarely include alcohol and there are plenty of other employees who are happy to work the alcohol events, then they have to be accommodated.
Hasn’t Tony Perkins of the conservative Family Values Coalition (or some such) spoken in favor of the muslim airline stewardess whom will not serve liquor to passengers?
The workplace controversies seem to mostly involve an employee refusing to provide a service to others that is ordinarily part of the job because the act violates religious principles. The problem is that this is unfair to the person who can’t get the service they would usually receive.
I’m having trouble extrapolating this to the college situation.
I really doubt an observant religious person could fit in on a sports team with a majority of players or a coach whoares not observant. It is not just the uniform (which, by the way, can’t just be modified by one player for his/her own beliefs but any change must be approved by a supervising authority because the team is supposed to look ‘uniform’) but the training and game schedule, food served, medical providers, trainers, etc. BYU doesn’t practice on Sundays, but most other teams do at least occasionally. They travel all days of the week and eat in restaurants that serve alcohol, pork, etc.
There are instances in high school where the schedule is not adjusted for religious reasons. A few years ago the Jewish high school had a very good basketball team and it made it to the playoffs. However, they were scheduled for Friday after 3 pm. Requested to have it changed. Nope. My daughter played on a team with Mormon players and coach. Many games on Sundays, and we played without them. No high school games on Sundays and schools asked if they could substitute another day as their off day. Nope, it’s Sunday for everyone.
It would depend on how observant the religious person was. The supervising authority ought to approve the uniform changes, so then it would be a matter of whether the athlete was OK with playing on Friday/Saturday/Sunday and eating in restaurants where alcohol or prohibited food was served. Perhaps the athlete could supply her own food, so that she wouldn’t be in a position to have to eat prohibited food.
About ten years ago, I watched a woman in a hijab win her round at the x-games. She chose to compete - and excel - with something that some might say poses unfair penalties on her for her religious beliefs. But she didn’t ask that everyone else in the competition cover their head. Seems reasonable to me.
On the other hand, there was a recent case in NY where an apartment building changed their door locks to digital keys, and the orthodox residents protested because unlike the previous metal keys, these violate the Sabbath. http://nypost.com/2015/08/01/orthodox-jewish-tenants-sue-building-over-electronic-key-fobs/ They claim discrimination. Seems like a little management sensitivity and perhaps even meeting with the residents prior to the renovation might have eliminated some of the problems.
The roommate can turn the light on and off as she desires. Or they can out in a nightlight.
So if the observant person is in the room, and the lights are on but the roommate flicks them off as she leaves the room (with intent or just by habit), is the observant person just to sit there for the remainder of the period? This could happen at 7 on a Friday night and the observant person is stranded.
The Volokh blog in the Washington Post today was enlightening on this issue of religious accomodations. Apparently, the Kentucky clerk just wants her name removed from the licenses, which seems like an easy accomodation. Just reprint the licenses to say “County Clerk”. Problem solved according to Professor Volokh.
That does not seem to me to be true. She’s had three months to petition the state for an accommodation, and she hasn’t done it. She hasn’t asked her lawyers to do it. She hasn’t gone to state court to get an accommodation.
If she accepted that gay people should get licenses from her office because it’s the law, but she didn’t want to issue them, she’s had three months to figure out a way for that to happen. She has done nothing to make sure that couples receive the licenses they are legally entitled to get. Instead, she has simply refused to issue the licenses and refused to let anyone in her office issue them either, while grandstanding about how gay people marrying is against Gawd’s law, as if anyone else cared about her narrow bigoted religious beliefs. It’s not that she doesn’t want to issue the licenses; she says gay people shouldn’t get the licenses from anyone else in her office either.
Cardinal Fang, I do not have much sympathy for the Kentucky clerk. The news reports today claim that Mrs. Davis has said that the licenses issued this weekend without her name are invalid. Huh? I thought that was the whole point. In my opinion now she and/or her staff are simply being vindictive. Her situation is no longer a matter of religious conviction or religious accommodation. She needs to follow the law; otherwise she’s just another Bull Connor or Gov. George C. Wallace in the schoolhouse door.
She never wanted an accommodation, and she has not tried to get an accommodation. Rather, she doesn’t want gays in any county in Kentucky to be able to get married. After the Obergefell decision, Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear issued a directive that all county clerks should begin issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples. Most people would think that was a routine action that any governor would do, to comply with the Supreme Court decision.
But Kim Davis sued the governor over that directive. That’s not the action of someone who is trying to figure out a way to get licenses in the hands of gays, as is legally required. She just wants to stop gay marriages.
^^ =D>
Kim Davis is taking full advantage of the fact that she is an [low level] elected official, and was not appointed to her position, in an arrogant attempt to IMPOSE her RELIGIOUS beliefs on the citizens of Kentucky.
As an elected government official- she has NO authority to do so.
So- she can stay in jail until she decides what is more important to her- her religion or her job- and either step down from her position or die in jail.
Its her choice.
The Supreme Court has ruled that she has NO jurisdiction to be the one who DECIDES who can or cannot marry in Kentucky .
period.
The long legal explanation from Professor Volokh.
“@oldfort:
Yeah, I was surprised that someone said that non observant people couldn’t turn on the lights/off the lights, etc. There was a longstanding tradition of the Shabbes Goy, where non observant neighbors would do things for observant Jews, like turn off lights, turn off the stove, etc.”
Well, not everyone grew up in a big city and knew Orthodox Jews. I knew about it because like your mother, my (non-Jewish) grandfather was a Shabbes Goy in a Jewish neighborhood in Philly, but it doesn’t surprise me at all that lots of people wouldn’t know the concept or understand the “legalities” of the prohibition. I assumed ucbslumnus asked in good faith.
Where did you get the source that Davis “just wanted her name removed” and all would be well?
I’m waiting for when a Saudi Arabian clerk who works in the drivers license office refuses to issue women drivers licenses because it offends his religious beliefs. Let’s see how the Davis supporters react to that.
I worked for an Orthodox Jew for 15 years. I used to drive him crazy with my questions. I still remember when he told me on Sabbath no work could be done, only fun/leisure activities with family. He said work is often defined as anything that could create or use energy. I asked him if ice skating would be considered work. He had to think about it for a minute. My two very good friends of 30+ years are also Jewish. I used to have to cover for them at work whenever they had holidays. I certainly had to cover for my old boss on Fri and Sat when he couldn’t work.
That’s exactly right. The observant person would not be permitted to say “Could you please turn the light back on?” or to ask another person in the dorm to turn it back on.
The more likely scenario, though (and I say this as a gentile who had an observant Jewish roommate in college) is that the observant person has gone to dinner or Sabbath services before the roommate goes out for the evening. The roommate, being a creature of habit, turns out the lights in the empty room just before leaving. The observant person comes home and has to sit in the dark (or, more likely, in the dorm lounge) until the roommate comes home or the observant person decides to go to bed, whichever comes first.