Should religious businesses whose owners are opposed to war be able to deny Service-members their Veteran's rights?

2014-10-12T17:05:58-04:00

I am writing (edit: already wrote) a paper on the Hobby Lobby decision, and I know that many RP members are deeply religious. For obvious reasons, almost no RP members are conscientious objectors (i.e. opposed to all war and supporting it in any form; pacifists are one example). Do you think a religious business should be able to deny a Reservist to return to his job after a deployment? This is a hypothetical. As far as I know this has not happened yet.

The Supreme Court in Hobby Lobby said that employers can avoid statutory obligations (e.g. paying for health insurance which covers contraceptives that destroy fertilized eggs, otherwise termed "abortifacient" contraceptives) if following the law would substantially burden the exercise of their religion. In the Hobby Lobby case, the employers won and now will not have to fund insurance for abortifacients.

What about other laws, and other employers? Mennonites, for example, are conscientious objectors, and owners of large businesses. Should they be allowed to deny a Reservist's right to get his or her job back after a deployment because supporting war violates their religious principles? The law that requires this is called USERRA, you can read about it here: http://www.dol.gov/vets/programs/userra/.

There are other examples: some believe God commanded the races to remain separate (i.e. KKK); some religions do not permit vaccinations or surgery; some do not permit unwed couples to live together.

U.S. Department of Labor -- Veterans' Employment and TrainingService (VETS) -- Uniformed Services...

VETS provides assistance to those persons experiencing service connected problems with their civilian employment and provides information about USERRA to employers. VETS also assists veterans who have questions regarding Veterans' Preference.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 13 at 2014 10:01 AM

2014-10-13T10:01:27-04:00

Not sure about this exact situation, but I think Justice Ginsberg is correct in her prediction that this decision will have far more implications than anyone is seeing at the moment.

Response by SSG Tim Everett made Nov 10 at 2014 11:12 AM

2014-11-10T11:12:11-05:00

You know, I'm going to be honest -- under the Supreme Court ruling, this very thing could feasibly happen. And it would be both ironic and appropriate -- we have opened that door. By affording rights to a corporation, and preaching about equality, this opens the door for religious-based businesses of ANY faith to discriminate. So everyone who supported this decision, don't make a big deal when it happens, or when a Muslim shopkeeper discriminates against customers because they're Christian or Jewish or whatever.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 31 at 2015 11:48 AM

2015-03-31T11:48:47-04:00

In a desperate attempt to keep this discussion on life support, this is the situation playing out in Indiana right now (http://www.politicususa.com/2015/03/31/indianapolis-rfra-ignore-conventions-indiana.html), albeit in the context of discrimination against sexual orientation.

Notably, the mayor of Indianapolis enacted an executive order that the city will not follow the law with respect to certain protected classes; Veterans and Service-members, and homosexuals are among the protected classes.

Indianapolis Mayor Puts RFRA on Ignore, Conventions Reassess Indiana

Indy's mayor issuing an executive order protecting the very people RFRA targets for persecution and conventions think twice about Indiana

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 26 at 2015 11:38 PM

2015-04-26T23:38:47-04:00

Response by SGT Anthony Rossi made Apr 26 at 2015 11:44 PM

2015-04-26T23:44:59-04:00

What rights are you referring to?

Response by SFC Chris Sedlock made Apr 27 at 2015 12:15 AM

2015-04-27T00:15:50-04:00

The federal law states that they have to 'hold' the (a) job for you if you got mobilization orders. USERRA (Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Relief Act of 1994) states 5 years, which is enough for any reservist, national guard, or initial termer.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 27 at 2015 12:22 AM

2015-04-27T00:22:57-04:00

Sir are you taking the Employment Law class for UMUC? I had to do a similar essay for that course a few weeks ago.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 27 at 2015 6:48 AM

2015-04-27T06:48:02-04:00

If the reservist had a job with the business prior to deploying, the business does not have any grounds to not give the job back upon redeployment. They were already "supporting war" by having a Soldier work there, even if he/she hadn't deployed. But, a business should be able to use status as a reservist as a valid reason to not hire someone to begin with.

My question about this area is, should a business be able to fire an employee that wants to join the Reserves/National Guard? I think this is a more difficult scenario because the employee is introducing a NEW condition that didn't exist at the time of his original employment. Potentially adding a burden to the business that didn't exist when he got the job.

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 27 at 2015 7:51 AM

2015-04-27T07:51:00-04:00

Why would they have hired a reservist or otherwise military person in the first place, if those are their beliefs? I don't see that particular situation materializing. Regardless, I think individuals have the right to freedom of association, regardless of whether or not it's explicitly in the Constitution (and the 9th amendment could be argued to cover it anyway).

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Apr 27 at 2015 9:39 AM

2015-04-27T09:39:29-04:00

How about this for a wrinkle.

You work for Company A and are a Reservist.
You are called up and get a tour in Iraq.
While you are away the owner of Company A has an epiphany and is delivered a message that all war is bad.
Based on the owner of Company A "deeply held religious beliefs" they can no longer allow any person with military connections on the property. A few employees are given the gate, but that's OK because this is a right-to-work state.
You return and are rejected for re-employment.

Response by SGT Lawrence Corser made Apr 27 at 2015 9:48 AM

2015-04-27T09:48:52-04:00

They can deny service to anyone I would think if it doesn't go against title 7, not allowing someone to work there based on military service might qualify as discrimination but what would someone get by suing them, nothing outside of a minimum wage job settlement. Think of it as maybe someone who loves ISIS comes into your store and wants to buy a cake that says death to America would you deny them service based on that? (I would prob make the cake with bacon and short hairs)

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Apr 27 at 2015 1:46 PM

2015-04-27T13:46:50-04:00

Hell no. Reservists and NG are discriminated many times because their AT and Deployments causes a lot of friction at the place of employment. It often starts with welcome home, then little counseling statements to prepare for firing.