4 ms·
> You can say these are subjective But they are subjective. > No judge is going to let a non-Abrahamic sham religion impose strange conundrums for the employe
by irahul 14y ago
> You can say these are subjective
But they are subjective.
> No judge is going to let a non-Abrahamic sham religion impose strange conundrums for the employer.
What qualifies a religion as sham? From what I have seen, whatever complies with a religious person's belief is legit, everything else is a sham. People often love to mention scientology is a made up religion. No one ever explained to me scientology is made up as opposed to what?
- dinkumthinkum 14y ago> But they are subjective. So is the application of most of our laws. I don't know what your point is. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is the most subjective thing I can imagine but does that really matter? The answer is, in reality and not in fantasy, NO. > What qualifies a religion as sham? If you made a religion that was "It is a commandment that one shall not be taxed more than 10% and that one cannot work more than 4 hours" it will be clearly seen that you do not "sincerely" hold that belief and that you are just trying to game the system and you will have put, under any normal person's view, an unreasonable burden on the employer. This is a distinct question from objectively makes a religion a sham. We were talking about what you could actually get away with in the real world right? If that's the case then what I said is true and holds. Now, if you want a defense of religion or why Judaism is any better than Scientology, you certainly won't get one from me. But if you try to play games and expect a judge to agree with you under EEOC laws, I doubt you will get very far. :)