I wasn't sure whether to put this in US politics or here, so if the mods decide to move it I'm alright with that.
Senator Holdman authored a bill that would allow any faith-based organization (this includes corporations) that has a contract with Indiana to discriminate hiring and firing based on religious belief and following of tenets. This bill has come under fire for it's broad language.
So this could possibly used as justification to fire a gay janitor, or a teacher who dances. And if The Hobby Lobby gets a contract with the state? Sorry Jewish cashier.
The bill passed the state senate 39-11. All ten Democrats voted against it joined by one Republican, Ron Grooms.
It is apparently just to be able to give Wesleyan training contracts, but I just can't see the justification as valid here.
Senator Holdman authored a bill that would allow any faith-based organization (this includes corporations) that has a contract with Indiana to discriminate hiring and firing based on religious belief and following of tenets. This bill has come under fire for it's broad language.
Quote:
Senator Holdman claims he drafted the legislation in response to a ruling by the state Attorney General against Indiana Wesleyan University, a private, Christian evangelical liberal arts college. Holdman says in that ruling the Attorney General, as the Chicago Tribune reports, "said Wesleyan's religious lifestyle mandate violated state contracting requirements against employment discrimination." The university doesn't allow employees to teach against its faith beliefs. From its "lifestyle statement" that would include prohibitions on activities such as drinking, smoking, homosexuality, and dancing. |
So this could possibly used as justification to fire a gay janitor, or a teacher who dances. And if The Hobby Lobby gets a contract with the state? Sorry Jewish cashier.
The bill passed the state senate 39-11. All ten Democrats voted against it joined by one Republican, Ron Grooms.
It is apparently just to be able to give Wesleyan training contracts, but I just can't see the justification as valid here.
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1AG7lJu
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire