An actual case of Christian persecution in America?

[edwardmurphy]

Persecution as I see is being told to convert, stop praying or have physical ramifications such as being tossed in jail, beaten, beheaded, stoned, tossed from a building, etc. Gay people are persecuted for example in Saudi Arabia, as well as Christians and Atheists.

That's about where I am. I suppose that the guy in the story Rick posted was, technically, being persecuted by his boss - forcibly linking religion to somebody's ability to pay their bills is wrong and abusive - I still think that persecution is too strong a word. It invites comparisons between a guy losing a job and the Trail of Tears, Apartheid, and the like. I don't think that those three things belong in the same category.

The Christian guy in your story owns his business. It is his full right to run his business as he sees fit and hire who he desires to hire. That is the libertarian in me speaking. If he fired someone merely because he thought they gave him an odd look, then that's his right. He may have no reason, that too is his free right. It is not persecution as I see to fire someone for any reason, however stupid that reason is. The owner has every right to run his business as he sees fit. The worker has every right to agree to those terms, however ridiculous they might seem, or disagree and find work elsewhere.

I see this one a differently. If you hire me to work for you and I do the job I'm asked to do in the manner that I'm asked to do it and together we're making a profit then no, you absolutely do not have the right to fire me out of the blue because you don't like my taste in ties, or you find out I'm gay, or we have different political views. I have bills to pay. I'm making plans based on the assumption that you and I have a contract, and as long as I meet my end it remains in force.

That's the kind of thing that leads me to support the Democrats over the Republicans 99 times out of 100. Democrats support unions and pass legislation barring wrongful termination, both of which protect me from capricious libertarian nonsense. Repubicans give us States where "right to work" and "at will employment" are the law, and in those places your boss can fire you for any silly reason he comes up with, regardless of whether or not you're doing everything that's ever been asked of you and more. I'm sure that's very satisfying for a boss, but it doesn't make for a just society.

The thing is, if you opt to start a business and employ your neighbors you have some responsibilities. One of them is to offer stable employment, even if your inner libertarian wants to roar. For that reason I think it's entirely acceptable for the rest of us - those who believe in a social contract and value a stable society - to organize ourselves and force you to treat us fairly and honor the contract implied by entering into the employer-employee relationship.

The worker likely knew what he was getting into from the get go when he signed up to the job. Perhaps he didn't believe it was a serious requirement, but it is likely he agreed to it as a condition of employment.

How could you possibly know that?

To then reneg on his agreement and cry foul shows his word and honour are fickle. Neither do I don't think it's right for Christians to discriminate like the employer did -- we're to treat both non-Christian and Christian equally, and even focus more on having the non-Christian (prodigal son) return rather than the Christian who has already returned.

Or maybe - assuming that your blind speculation is accurate - he decided that he was willing to give it a try, but eventually had a crisis of conscience and felt an overwhelming need to return to the faith or his ancestors. I'm not sure that making an honest attempt to meet his boss's unreasonable (and probably illegal) expectation, but eventually realizing that he couldn't is indicative of the guy being a dishonorable liar.

Beyond that, the guy is a felon trying to put his life back together. In our society a felony conviction is a black mark that makes it damned near impossible to get a decent job. That means that his employer had him over a barrel - go to Bible study or I'll can you and you'll probably wind up homeless. Heck, maybe this really is persecution.

[Kurieuo]

Persecution as I see is being told to convert, stop praying or have physical ramifications such as being tossed in jail, beaten, beheaded, stoned, tossed from a building, etc. Gay people are persecuted for example in Saudi Arabia, as well as Christians and Atheists.

That's about where I am. I suppose that the guy in the story Rick posted was, technically, being persecuted by his boss - forcibly linking religion to somebody's ability to pay their bills is wrong and abusive - I still think that persecution is too strong a word. It invites comparisons between a guy losing a job and the Trail of Tears, Apartheid, and the like. I don't think that those three things belong in the same category.

Well, at least we start off agreeing with each other.

The Christian guy in your story owns his business. It is his full right to run his business as he sees fit and hire who he desires to hire. That is the libertarian in me speaking. If he fired someone merely because he thought they gave him an odd look, then that's his right. He may have no reason, that too is his free right. It is not persecution as I see to fire someone for any reason, however stupid that reason is. The owner has every right to run his business as he sees fit. The worker has every right to agree to those terms, however ridiculous they might seem, or disagree and find work elsewhere.

I see this one a differently. If you hire me to work for you and I do the job I'm asked to do in the manner that I'm asked to do it and together we're making a profit then no, you absolutely do not have the right to fire me out of the blue because you don't like my taste in ties, or you find out I'm gay, or we have different political views. I have bills to pay. I'm making plans based on the assumption that you and I have a contract, and as long as I meet my end it remains in force.

I also agree contracts matter. The contract is what matters, and if someone does the dirty on you, you ought to be able to shoot them. Well, if it were the wild west right? Today, there are laws to protect, so I'm not complete libertarian but rather minimalist government. There should be law and order as just as we can get it, and with contractual agreements, laws should uphold them. Without such, then people would be more likely to kill each other.

That's the kind of thing that leads me to support the Democrats over the Republicans 99 times out of 100. Democrats support unions and pass legislation barring wrongful termination, both of which protect me from capricious libertarian nonsense. Repubicans give us States where "right to work" and "at will employment" are the law, and in those places your boss can fire you for any silly reason he comes up with, regardless of whether or not you're doing everything that's ever been asked of you and more. I'm sure that's very satisfying for a boss, but it doesn't make for a just society.

I don't know enough about your parties, but it seems to me not all Republicans I've heard would dismiss contractual agreements (if any, barring Trump ). In Australia the equivilent of Republicans (though they're more left-leaning) often do make a push towards business and having workers as more casual rather than permanent, which gives employers less contractual obligations. To be fair, businesses have to provide quite a bit of benefits to employees with materinity/paternity leave, holiday leave, etc. The government is perhaps too involved in enforcing obligations.

Contracts should be enforced. I'm doubtful that's really a Democrat thing, I'd actually think it more a Republican thing. Taking ownership and responsibility. It's perhaps not really an either/or party thing at all. There would be few Christians who'd say it's good not to honour contracts, and if their political affiliation is largely Republican then...

The thing is, if you opt to start a business and employ your neighbors you have some responsibilities. One of them is to offer stable employment, even if your inner libertarian wants to roar. For that reason I think it's entirely acceptable for the rest of us - those who believe in a social contract and value a stable society - to organize ourselves and force you to treat us fairly and honor the contract implied by entering into the employer-employee relationship.

Libertarians generally want to keep government out of interfering with personal affairs. An agreement is between one person and another. You want your neighbours to turn down the music, go talk with them and settle it yourself rather than calling the police to intervene. It doesn't mean, so far I see, doing whatever you please, breaking contracts, etc. Rather, if you make an agreement that's between you and the other party. You break it, you're being dishonourable, and wronging the other party who should now extract compensation. I'm not sure why you see not keeping promises (contracts) as antithetical to the libertarian.

The worker likely knew what he was getting into from the get go when he signed up to the job. Perhaps he didn't believe it was a serious requirement, but it is likely he agreed to it as a condition of employment.

How could you possibly know that?

When you sign up to a job, you generally know the job description and, being such an important thing to the employer, I'm sure it would have been discussed during the interview. But, I don't know that for sure, any more than you and Rick know the contrary.

RickD has pulled B.W. and Stu up on jumping the gun, and while I didn't comment, I thought the same as Rick. Not waiting or searching for the other side. Aren't we being rather presumptive here, or don't we need to listen to the other side now because it's a Christian? We have a one-sided story here, and I wonder what the employer would say. It seems like a strange story to say the least. Let the court decide, the judge will get to hear both sides.

To then reneg on his agreement and cry foul shows his word and honour are fickle. Neither do I don't think it's right for Christians to discriminate like the employer did -- we're to treat both non-Christian and Christian equally, and even focus more on having the non-Christian (prodigal son) return rather than the Christian who has already returned.

Or maybe - assuming that your blind speculation is accurate - he decided that he was willing to give it a try, but eventually had a crisis of conscience and felt an overwhelming need to return to the faith or his ancestors. I'm not sure that making an honest attempt to meet his boss's unreasonable (and probably illegal) expectation, but eventually realizing that he couldn't is indicative of the guy being a dishonorable liar.

Beyond that, the guy is a felon trying to put his life back together. In our society a felony conviction is a black mark that makes it damned near impossible to get a decent job. That means that his employer had him over a barrel - go to Bible study or I'll can you and you'll probably wind up homeless. Heck, maybe this really is persecution.

That he is a felon, he has himself to blame for -- and by a large felons can't be trusted as much as those who don't commit crime. Doesn't mean not to give them a chance, but don't be naive either. If I knew a pedofile was out of jail, wanting a second chance, it doesn't mean I'd give him a chance to babysit my kids. The risk is too high.

As I see, it really depends on what the guy agreed to when he took the job. Now he's suing for 750k? Call me discriminatory, but on top of being a felon he has much to gain, and I just don't find his story completely trustworthy. And, to be honest, I think you and Rick are both being a bit gullible for swallowing it without question.

But, if we take his story at face value, that a Christian would force someone to do something they didn't believe in, such is contrary to the very freedom God desired us to have in giving us choice to either accept or deny Him. Like I said, he'd be an ass for requiring anything the sort of an employee. I don't think that's very Christian at all, certainly not Christ-like. It doesn't sound like something any Christian I know would do, and considering the employer is a Christian, himself a felon who believes in second chances, and who appears to want to help other felons with jobs...

Maybe it is like you say. He had him over a barrel, because that's what we Christians love to do. We're so intollerant and love to force our beliefs onto others, right? Please...

[Philip]

As for employers, employees, and what each should or should not be able to legally do:

An offer of employment involves consideration on the part of both parties - the employer and the employee. And neither can inclusively know every possible thing about the other's ethics, practices, etc. So if an employee can quit anytime they so desire, why cannot an employer let one go whenever they consider the employee to not be what they need? Now, that asked, it obviously does benefit society to make laws prohibiting race-based or faith-based biases that allow employers to fire based upon such attributes - as if an employee is fulfilling his work-based responsibilities, not insubordinate, etc. - those kinds of attributes (race, etc.) shouldn't be legal reasons for termination.

But for employers, there are circumstances where they must make a business decision to let people go. Economic ones, supply and demand, etc. Unless there is a contract stipulating no circumstances allowing termination, then employers should have the right to hire and fire as they so please - excepting discriminatory practices. As well, employers should have the right to dictate certain expectations per how they perceive those expectations benefit or degenerate from their business success or harm. Certain firms require certain dress - which can pose conflicts of certain religious types. Ah, but these types can seek employment that allows this. It's just not right when a person insists that THEIR rights are more important than the perceived rights of an employer.

There is a point at which regulatory measures begin to hurt us all - economically and in our freedoms of practices. And a whole lot of regulations and laws are created by lawmakers who are often clueless about the realities of business - by both what is good for them and what is bad for them.

As for Libertarianism, it only works to the point we have a mature and moral populace. If everyone is allowed great personal freedom to do whatever they think is right or want - well, that becomes a question of numbers of people and whatever practices THEY collectively think is right or wrong. It's just that there is NO perfect political approach, as they all have pitfalls. They all create winners and losers. And some have substantially more negatives - particularly in the long haul.