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

That is my thought as well. On the other hand, I agree with the majority that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was designed to accomplish exactly what it did in the Hobby Lobby case. I think the majority applied the law properly; the problem is with the law. Neither the First Amendment nor RFRA excuse conscientious objectors from paying federal taxes (which go toward funding war), so neither should excuse conscientious objector employers from employing or reemploying Reservists who fight in or support war efforts.

USERRA lawsuits can result in enormous damages. One Guardsman recently won $2 million. http://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/12/19/guardsman-wins-2m-in-post-office-userra-case.html.

I have heard of stories like this, surprised he won anything die to the postal service being so far in debt. He did have a right to get position equal to the pay he had before. Good for him though.

SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S., thank you for the response. I appreciate your hypothetical, and consider one point further. What impact would such a rejection for re-employment (or employment in the first place) have on the mental health of a Reservist or draftee? When Service-member unemployment and suicide are considered, I think this problem hits closer to home for us.

Self-worth is a huge issue for returning Veterans IMHO. Returning to the real-world is never going to be an easy task. My wife was reading a book about returning WW2 vets and how concerned the civilian population was about "the gun-crazed veterans" returning into their towns. I still remember what happened the first time (when asked if I was a Vet) I said that I was a Vietnam Head Injury. I never repeated it to civilians again! So here you are asking yourself why you bothered in the fist place and you get hit with the re-employment issue. -gawk-

1st Lt Matt Azimi, thanks for your candor. I don't think your views are extreme at all. There are many reasonable positions to take on this matter.

You are right, permitting discrimination is not making it the law.

Right now we are in an odd period where religious values are at odds with certain secular values. The law should be fair to everyone, in my opinion. I don't believe a system of freedom to practice discrimination (i.e. refuse housing, employment, medical care, commercial service, civil benefits) would be of much social utility. I favor a system where people are valued equally, their opinions and beliefs respected, and their actions regulated reasonably. We are now, however, in an in-between period where classes are protected more or less arbitrarily and according to the social mores of the day. In the case of religion, I think it is a legal anomaly when a "religious business" can refuse to serve a customer with objectionable sexual orientation but a "gay business" cannot refuse to serve a person with objectionable religious views. Natural human conditions should be universally respected.

LTC (Join to see) Sir, thanks for being level-headed regarding my views, I've had some very caustic responses to my libertarian-ness (in particular, the thread about desecrating the flag).

Now I know you said it's best not to bring labels into this discussion, and I understand the reasoning for that, but for this next point I'm not sure how to avoid it. I think "secular values" is too broad, because that can mean any value outside the context of religion. My embrace of the philosophy of Objectivism is very much secular, but it is in extreme contrast to the secular philosophy of Communism, or Utilitarianism. Objectivism rejects religion as valid, but it also rejects interfering (via force) its practice and belief, thus promoting freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion. Communism and Utilitarianism concern themselves with "the greater good" (which is arbitrary in my opinion), and using force to attain it.

This brings me to the labels: I think the Left has moved away from its long ago stance of social liberty and towards a position advocating the use of force to implement whatever it deems to be "social justice". This has caused me to view them in more or less the same light that I view the Right, as each side wishes to impose their social norms on the other. I think the push from the left, unfortunately having the blanket label of being "secular", has caused the religious Right to see secularism in general as the enemy, rather than progressivism or whatever. So I don't think secularism is inherently at odds with religious values, but that's just my opinion.

Regarding housing, employment, medical care, etc.; I don't think gov't should be involved in any of those things. If they weren't, then it wouldn't matter whether the seller of a good or service refused to engage with an individual, because it wouldn't constitute gov't discrimination. This is based on my opinion that a lack of initiatory force or fraud constitutes fairness, and that a gov't position of neutrality (i.e. non-involvement) therefore constitutes fairness in the law. I agree that discrimination is not productive in any way, shape, or form; but I think it is an inevitable facet of human nature. We all have our biases, and we often behave irrationally despite our capability for reason, but I don't think it's anyone else's business unless we are actively seeking to use force or fraud against another person.

I also reject the concept of social utility, and of "society" in general; as it is my opinion that societies are incapable of being actors, only individuals can act. And because I think only individuals can act, I think that only individuals can attain benefit (however one wishes to define benefit), and not societies. I think society is just a label we apply to a group of individuals who share a certain commonality or commonalities. For a "society" to benefit in my opinion would really just be many individuals attaining a benefit, who all share some common trait(s).

I too would favor a world in which people are valued equally and what not, but not one in which their actions are regulated beyond the prohibition of initiatory force or fraud against person or property. I think all our rights stem from just one right, which is the right to not be aggressed against (via initiation of force or fraud against person or property). As such while I favor a world in which people are valued equally, I would not favor a "system" in which people are valued equally. I know that's probably getting into semantics there, but I like to be thorough...and I'm deployed so I have plenty of free time to kill.

I agree that there's a lot of arbitrariness to go around, which again is why I favor removing gov't from as many equations as possible. I think there will always be arbitrariness and double-standards and so on regardless of gov't intervention in the social realm. I definitely agree that that last scenario is an anomaly, part of why I'd favor a Constitutional amendment to make freedom of association an explicit right, rather than an implied one. It would solve "right to work" issues as well, since a union forcing non-members to pay dues is definitely an issue of freedom of association in my opinion. I'm sure there are plenty of other issues such a broad amendment would touch upon, but I have no problem with that since it would be a removal of bias, rather than an imposition of it.

1st Lt Matt Azimi, you won't get a caustic response from me. I will have to think about the "system" (or lack thereof) that you suggest. Are you talking about a world where the sole role of government is to prohibit and punish physical aggression. That is a thought-provoking concept. Anyway, thanks for the discussion. All the best, and stay safe on your deployment!

LTC (Join to see) Yes sir, for the most part. I think the sole role of government is to enforce the right of individuals and their property to be free from aggression and fraud, via the police, courts, and military (for foreign aggression), as well as to enforce contracts.

I would caution though, that I use the term aggression to refer to an initiation of force or fraud, with force ultimately referring to threat of physical violence or coercion (as I think force is meaningless without the underlying intent to inflict pain/imprisonment/death). "Microaggressions" for example are not things I would consider to be force. And retaliatory force is also not something I would consider faulty, unless it is out of proportion to that presented by the aggressing party.

Regarding "systems", I think people would be surprised how readily "spontaneous order" manifests itself in markets and nature. For example, our global trade network was not centrally planned, yet a system has developed and continues to increase in efficiency. Same deal with the internet....except now the FCC has decided to regulate it, boo.

If you want a more thorough explanation of my philosophy sir, I would recommend Googling "Objectivism", the wiki is accurate enough. Or if you like novels then I would recommend Atlas Shrugged (yes, I'm one of those....lol). I hope this discussion has given you some fodder for your paper!

I absolutely agree with the first part. Regarding the second, I would think the introduction of a new condition would warrant reconsideration of employment, because a person deserves to know what they're investing in.

In a right to work state, an employee could hire a reservist and terminate that same reservist for no reason whatsoever. It's not a guarantee that the reservist's duty is conflicting with business interests. Hiring a guardman or reservist doesnt necessarily equate to support.

When it comes to mobilization or deployments, the employer is being asked for an extended sacrifice and that could be considered support for a war or political agenda. This new law allows employers to say "My God doesn't support war and you're a warrior. You can not work here."

As long as school districts are legally firing teachers for being unwed mothers and pizza shops are legally refusing gay business, veterals are also vulnerable.

SFC (Join to see), no I have not. What was your essay topic? My topic was for a law review.

We had a discussion question about religious accommodation in the workplace and the Hobby Lobby case was used as a reference.

As for them denying morning after items, thats a decision of the company and insurance which they choose to cover or not. Theyre not bound by anything to cover everything medical, tricare included.

Im pretty sure they cant 'stop' an employee, but that employee would pay out of pocket

Absolutely, If a man or woman put up the finances struggled to dig a buisness up from nothing than they should have the right to insure that those who work for them share their values and morals. After all it's there company and they should have the right to run it in the ground or build it up. Besides if a soldier is a good employee there will be another employee that will hire them. Who would want to work for someone that doesn't support our military? Good employees are hardbto come by there will be someone that would be honored to higher the veteran.

SGT Anthony Rossi, so then it seems you disagree with USERRA's premise absolutely. Should the government be permitted to require any business to hold a civilian job for a Reservist if the Reservist is sent to war or mobilized for any other purpose?

If a buisness is required to hire back a veteran than they may be forced to fire the employee that they had to hire to replace him. The employee that replaced the veteran may be a greater asset to the company.

SGT Anthony Rossi, you're right and I think it goes deeper than that. The company has to provide a similar job to the Reservist or draftee when he/she returns, along with pay and benefit increases. Presumably, the company has hired someone to fill in, trained them, groomed them, and now either must keep them on (costing even more) or fire them.

If I have your position right I think it is a reasonable one. I think you oppose USERRA on the grounds that it interferes with ownership and business decision-making. There are many RallyPoint members who depend or have depended on USERRA for their well-being and that of their family. Honestly, we couldn't have the Reserve Component we have today without USERRA. I take the opposite approach. I think USERRA serves a valuable purpose in terms of anti-discrimination, economic support, and mental and emotional health for our Reservists and Guardsmen. It is nearly indispensable as a nation-wide program, but does it justify government-hijacking of someone's conscience? I think RFRA says that it does not, and that's a problem.