Woman exempted from union membership due to religious beliefs

[Grey Fox]

Anti union and pro religion is a conservative thing, how are you blaming the left here?

The left is all pro religion nowadays.  At least, when it ain't about Christian beliefs.  I'm curious about what it'll be here.

There is a significant difference between opposing discrimination and being pro religion.

A line that my lefty brethren too often cross. Today's anglo-saxon influence left sees religion based discrimination as something that needs defending. Especially, like viper notes, if it's non-Christian.

[Sheilbh]

I think the court decision is right

[crazy canuck]

Anti union and pro religion is a conservative thing, how are you blaming the left here?

The left is all pro religion nowadays.  At least, when it ain't about Christian beliefs.  I'm curious about what it'll be here.

There is a significant difference between opposing discrimination and being pro religion.

A line that my lefty brethren too often cross. Today's anglo-saxon influence left sees religion based discrimination as something that needs defending. Especially, like viper notes, if it's non-Christian.

Really? I often see the left opposing discrimination against non-Christian religious minorities.  Can you cite an example where the left defends it?

[grumbler]

A line that my lefty brethren too often cross. Today's anglo-saxon influence left sees religion based discrimination as something that needs defending. Especially, like viper notes, if it's non-Christian.

Really? I often see the left opposing discrimination against non-Christian religious minorities.  Can you cite an example where the left defends it?

Religious discrimination is discrimination for religious reasons, not discrimination against religion.

An example of religious discrimination might be where leftists support Sharia law in family matters, if those who are subject to it "agree."  Sharia law heavily discriminates against women, however (e.g. they get half the share of an inheritance a male gets).  The degree to which Muslim woman can refuse to agree to the application of Sharia law is naturally very limited, given that they would need to oppose their own family in order to do it.  What seems like a fair system ("everyone agreed") is not, in fact, fair at all.

[Valmy]

Really? I often see the left opposing discrimination against non-Christian religious minorities.  Can you cite an example where the left defends it?

Well it is a tricky line because often that position leads to alliances of convenience with conservative and ugly political forces of that religion that can sometimes lead leftists to defending some unsavory things in the service of that alliance. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and all that.

But the idea that leftists are out there praising non-Christian religions as objectively good things is ridiculous.

Of course there probably are tribalist leftists who just hate Christians and the majority culture and will favor anybody who isn't them. Like all those dumbass "leftists" who are supporting Russia's fascist invasion of Ukraine just because Russia is not the US.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I think the court decision is right

I do too, actually. At the same time I strongly identify with CC's position, I don't really like making religious exceptions to laws. But I also think there is some room in society, when the law being excepted doesn't undermine some other person's core / fundamental rights, and isn't a major disruption to public policy, for allowing some exceptions to laws.

A few examples I can think of--Sikhs are allowed to maintain their full beards while serving in the U.S. Armed Forces, despite a general grooming rule that only allows a neatly trimmed moustache. This is basically an order & discipline rule, and letting a Sikh adhere to a traditional cultural/religious practice that is very important to them, does not meaningfully undermine their abilities as a soldier or undermining American interests, and it is entirely victimless. Mind you before a certain period of time, formal appearance for American officers often included a full beard, and we have always allowed special forces to grow full beards if they were operating in areas where they were seen as helping them blend into the culture of whatever locals they were working with.

Another one is Amish not paying into Social Security. I think that is a good example, because if we just let huge swathes of society opt out of Social Security for a religious reason, it could undermine the entire system. The Amish however have a very well documented, very easily verified belief against participating in such schemes--and importantly, they have developed an internal social welfare system for caring for their elderly--elderly and infirm people are basically never left to die alone in Amish country because Amish society doesn't have the sort of concepts of individualism and everyone out for themselves mentality that largely defines the majority of the neoliberal West.

[viper37]

Anti union and pro religion is a conservative thing, how are you blaming the left here?

The left is all pro religion nowadays.  At least, when it ain't about Christian beliefs.  I'm curious about what it'll be here.

There is a significant difference between opposing discrimination and being pro religion.

In this case, it is blatant discrimination against anyone not religious.  Non religious people have to pay their union dues, no matter their beliefs on the subject, but religious people are allowed to bust the union. 

It is clearly a double standard, which is discrimination against non theist, of which there are plenty of cases in this country.

[grumbler]

"Discrimination" is recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.  It can be just or unjust, but by itself is neutral.  The woman in the warehouse with the broken arm doesn't have to lift boxes, while the woman without the broken arm does, no matter her beliefs about lifting boxes. 

It is clearly a double standard, which is discrimination against non broken-armed, of which there are plenty of cases in this country.

[Jacob]

In Sweden unions negotiate for their members. There are often several unions at a workplace. Everyone gets represented by the union they are member of.

The Scandinavian union model is significantly less adversarial than the North American one. I follow Danish labour negotiations on-and-off (mostly when it makes the news) and I assume Sweden is not too far off. It's much more a we-recognize-we-need-each-other, collaborative, win-win type situation than what you see in the US and Canada - here it's way more zero-sum, we'll-screw-you-any-way-we-can outright fuckery in many places.

[Berkut]

Anti union and pro religion is a conservative thing, how are you blaming the left here?

The left is all pro religion nowadays.  At least, when it ain't about Christian beliefs.  I'm curious about what it'll be here.

There is a significant difference between opposing discrimination and being pro religion.

In this case, it is blatant discrimination against anyone not religious.  Non religious people have to pay their union dues, no matter their beliefs on the subject, but religious people are allowed to bust the union. 

It is clearly a double standard, which is discrimination against non theist, of which there are plenty of cases in this country.

Jesus man. I am as "New Atheist" as most, but like....relax.

Discrimination to mean anything has to be systemic, or at least rampant.

"Religious people are allowed to bust the union".

No, they are not. *One* religious person has been given an exemption. To get this exemption, one needs to show reasonably that their religious views, held honestly and in good faith, make such an exemption reasonable, and in the balance, not significantly harmful.

You know what does harm non-theists? Silly hyperbole.

[Josquius]

The rise in edgy hard right atheism in recent years is most curious.

[crazy canuck]

I think the court decision is right

It wasn't a court decision. It was a decision of the labour board which is subject to judicial review. I would be surprised if the union didn't apply to court for judicial review. I think the decision maker put too much emphasis on the first branch of the test which is establishing a bona fide religious belief. But that is only the beginning of the analysis. To use an extreme example, at least in Canada, someone can't claim that paying taxes is against their religion and save themselves from a lifetime of taxation. Apparently in the United States, according to Otto, that is possible. I don't know what the analysis is in the United States for establishing A religious freedom argument. But that would not fly in Canada.

Likewise, this person cannot merely assert that belonging to a union is contrary to their religion to achieve their remedy. 

The nuances are considerable, and I don't propose to set it all out here. We are about to receive a decision from the British Columbia Court of appeal which will likely provide some further explanation as to what is required in order to establish a violation of religious freedom. When that comes out I will post here, for your benefit, to give a bit of analysis of what the court said.

[OttoVonBismarck]

But that is only the beginning of the analysis. To use an extreme example, at least in Canada, someone can't claim that paying taxes is against their religion and save themselves from a lifetime of taxation. Apparently in the United States, according to Otto, that is possible.

The Amish don't receive exemptions from all taxation--only ones that they have been able to justify violate their religious beliefs, and that the government has agreed they can be exempted from without harming public policy. The Amish have a well documented religious belief against insurance, and any form of insurance scheme. The exemption given to the Amish for Social Security, Unemployment and Medicare however was not granted by a court, it was actually established by Federal law in 1965. It also doesn't technically exempt "Amish", but rather a member of a religious sect that can meet certain criteria (which virtually only the Amish / Mennonites can meet, but a few others may as well.)

They do not get any exemptions on income or property tax--even though they actually utilize very few of the services that, for example, local property taxes fund. One of the largest expenses funded by local property taxes are schools, and the Amish more or less universally do not participate in the public school system.

They also are only exempt as individuals--if they run a business, they still have to pay the employer share of all of the relevant taxes.

[crazy canuck]

But that is only the beginning of the analysis. To use an extreme example, at least in Canada, someone can't claim that paying taxes is against their religion and save themselves from a lifetime of taxation. Apparently in the United States, according to Otto, that is possible.

The Amish don't receive exemptions from all taxation--only ones that they have been able to justify violate their religious beliefs, and that the government has agreed they can be exempted from without harming public policy. The Amish have a well documented religious belief against insurance, and any form of insurance scheme. The exemption given to the Amish for Social Security, Unemployment and Medicare however was not granted by a court, it was actually established by Federal law in 1965. It also doesn't technically exempt "Amish", but rather a member of a religious sect that can meet certain criteria (which virtually only the Amish / Mennonites can meet, but a few others may as well.)

They do not get any exemptions on income or property tax--even though they actually utilize very few of the services that, for example, local property taxes fund. One of the largest expenses funded by local property taxes are schools, and the Amish more or less universally do not participate in the public school system.

They also are only exempt as individuals--if they run a business, they still have to pay the employer share of all of the relevant taxes.

Sure, but that is my point.  The Labour boards decision is much more consistent with US law which permits a religious community to carve out certain autonomy from the state. That is not how the Canadian law has developed and so that is why I am surprised the labour board decided the case the way they did. I would be surprised if Canadian law developed in the same way that US law has. However, I might have to rethink that after we receive the court of appeal decision. But I'm willing to bet that the court will provide reasons that make it very difficult for a religious community to make the argument that they do not have to interact with the rest of society and follow the rules and general law of that society.

[OttoVonBismarck]

I would posit it is pretty damn hard to meet the criteria of the Amish--they are an incredibly small group that grows almost solely through biological reproduction. There aren't really people casually becoming Amish, and many people leave the community in early adulthood.