Hubris? Chutzpah? Naglasti? Pro-life nurse sues over discrimination....

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Hubris? Chutzpah? Naglasti? Pro-life nurse sues over discrimination....

    ....specifically, that a family planning center - you know what that is, yes? - a family planning center violated her religious freedom and unfairly discriminated against her by refusing to hire her when she said that if hired, she would refuse to prescribe birth control pills to patients in this.....


    ...and I can't stress it enough....


    ....this family planning center she applied to.


     


    ************************************************************************


    From the organization who filed the suit:


    TAMPA, Fla. — Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys have filed a federal lawsuit against a federally funded health center in Tampa for refusing to consider an applicant for employment as a nurse because she is a member of a pro-life medical association and has a faith-based objection to prescribing some birth control methods that could lead to an abortion.


    “No one deserves to suffer discrimination just because they’re pro-life,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. “Federal and state law make it clear that being pro-abortion cannot be a prerequisite for employment, nor can federally funded facilities force nurses to assist with practices that could lead to an abortion.”


    In April, the human resources director of Tampa Family Health Centers questioned Sara Hellwege about her membership with the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists after she submitted a job application for a nurse-midwife position. After Hellwege confirmed her association with the group and that her religious beliefs prevent her from prescribing hormonal birth control drugs that can result in an early abortion in some circumstances, the director informed her in an e-mail, “Due to the fact that…you are a member of AAPLOG, we would be unable to move forward in the interviewing process.”


    The lawsuit, Hellwege v. Tampa Family Health Centers, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, explains that “TFHC’s refusal to consider Ms. Hellwege’s application for employment on the basis of her religious beliefs and association with the pro-life group AAPLOG violates multiple federal laws.”


    The lawsuit also explains that “Florida law shall not require ‘any person to participate in the termination of a pregnancy, nor shall...any person be liable for such refusal.’” Moreover, “Ms. Hellwege has the right to refuse to prescribe abortifacient contraceptives where such actions violate her religious beliefs or moral convictions.”


    On Hellwege’s behalf, ADF attorneys also filed a Title VII complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission field office in Tampa and a Federal Tort Claims Act complaint with the Department of Health and Human Services in Washington, D.C. Both laws protect Hellwege from discrimination based on her pro-life views.


    “Willingness to commit an abortion cannot be a litmus test for employment,” added ADF Senior Counsel Steven H. Aden. “All we are asking is for the health center to obey the law and not make a nurse’s employment contingent upon giving up her respect for life.”


    http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/?CID=78491


     


     


    From a hardcore feminist I usually can't stand:


     


    Is “religious freedom” about being free to practice your faith, or just a generic cover story for any and all attempts to try to foist your beliefs on others? In this era of Hobby Lobby vs. Burwell, it’s understandable that many on the right have decided it’s the latter and are eager to start testing the limits of how much leverage the expansive new definition of “religious freedom” gives them to meddle with the private contraception choices of others. Next on the docket: Attempting to force family planning centers to hire nurses who refuse to let patients plan their families, all in the name of “religious freedom.”


    Sara Hellwege is a nurse in Tampa, Florida, who opposes the use of some of the most effective and female-controlled forms of contraception, such as the birth control pill. Despite that position, Hellwege applied for a job with the Tampa Family Health Centers. When asked by the human resources director about her affiliation with an anti-contraception group called the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Hellwege admitted she would refuse to prescribe the birth control pill to anyone who wanted it. She was summarily told that prescribing the birth control pill was part of the job and was not hired.


    Now, Hellwege is suing, with the backing of the Christian right organization Alliance Defending Freedom handling her case. Both ADF and Hellwege throw the word “abortion” around a lot, falsely conflating non-barrier methods of contraception with abortion. But the factual inaccuracy of Hellwege’s claims may not be an issue here, since the lawsuit argues that Hellwege is a victim of religious discrimination and deserves to be hired by a family planning clinic despite “her religious beliefs and association with the pro-life group AAPLOG.” Of course, the Supreme Court in Burwell v Hobby Lobby said that case covers all forms of contraception objected to in the name of religion, with no need for pseudoscience garble conflating ovulation suppression with abortion necessary, suggesting that the liberal use of the word “abortion” in this case is more about the continued right wing campaign to demonize contraception than anything else.


    Win or lose, Hellwege’s case provides insight in how the war on contraception is shaping up. Direct assaults through legislation are going to be a much harder sell with contraception than abortion, so instead we’re getting the argument that someone else’s “religious freedom”—your boss, your nurse—entitles them to interfere with your ability to get contraception. Family planning centers are one place that women have long been able to trust will provide them contraception access without unnecessary hassle, and now the Christian right is trying to take even that away.


    http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/07/21/sara_hellwege_sues_tampa_family_health_centers_pro_life_nurse_says_her_religious.html

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Hubris? Chutzpah? Naglasti? Pro-life nurse sues over discrimination....

    Exactly the same issue as when an openly gay person claims she has to be hired as a "pastoral counselor" in a religious organization that considers sex outside traditional marriage a sin.


    "A Missouri church worker sued the Catholic diocese in Kansas City on Thursday claiming she was wrongfully fired from her salaried position as a pastoral associate after her marriage to another woman was mentioned in a local newspaper."The lawsuit, filed in Jackson County Circuit Court in Independence, Missouri, against the Catholic Diocese of Kansas City-Saint Joseph and embattled church leader Bishop Robert Finn, claims fraud and violation of Missouri law.


    The diocese issued a statement defending its "freedom to practice our faith and uphold the integrity of our mission."


    "As a Church we have the right to live and operate according to our faith and Church teachings," the diocese said.


    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/17/us-usa-gaymarriage-lawsuit-idUSKBN0FM1ZJ20140717" rel="nofollow">http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/17/us-usa-gaymarriage-lawsuit-idUSKBN0FM1ZJ20140717" rel="nofollow">http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/17/us-usa-gaymarriage-lawsuit-idUSKBN0FM1ZJ20140717


     

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Hubris? Chutzpah? Naglasti? Pro-life nurse sues over discrimination....

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:


    Exactly the same issue as when openly gay persons want to work in a religious organization that considers sex outside traditional marriage a sin.




    How is it exactly the same?


    The nurse is refusing to perform a basic requirement of a job she is applying for.


    How does being gay equate to refusal to perform a requirement of a job in "a religious organization that considers sex outside traditional marriage a sin"?


     

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Hubris? Chutzpah? Naglasti? Pro-life nurse sues over discrimination....

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Exactly the same issue as when openly gay persons want to work in a religious organization that considers sex outside traditional marriage a sin.

    [/QUOTE]

    How is it exactly the same?

    [/QUOTE]

    There is no unlimited right to be hired for a job, unless one is able to fulfill the requirements...
     The church has a right to hire those who have the same belief system, as their pastoral counselors... If the coercive State forces the Church to hire non-believers, freedom of religion will be a thing of the past.

    Just as the hospital has the right to hire those who can fulfill the duties to prescribe contraceptives...

    Just as the Army can reject those who are pacifists....

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Hubris? Chutzpah? Naglasti? Pro-life nurse sues over discrimination....

    To be clear: I think both suits should lose, but they are very different.


     


    If the employer is a Church, then I do think they get to discriminate on religious grounds.


    My OP is about a job applicant not getting the job because she said "see, this thing here that your employees regularly have to do, I refuse to do it," and then claiming its discrimination against her on the basis of religion. It isn't. It's discrimination on the basis that she's told the interviewer that she refuses to do the job she's applying for. The reason for her refusal is simply irrelevant.


     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Hubris? Chutzpah? Naglasti? Pro-life nurse sues over discrimination....

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:


    To be clear: I think both suits should lose, but they are very different.


     


     


     


    If the employer is a Church, then I do think they get to discriminate on religious grounds.


     


    My OP is about a job applicant not getting the job because she said "see, this thing here that your employees regularly have to do, I refuse to do it," and then claiming its discrimination against her on the basis of religion. It isn't. It's discrimination on the basis that she's told the interviewer that she refuses to do the job she's applying for. The reason for her refusal is simply irrelevant.


     


     



    It is exactly the same.

    So, they interview the lesbian who is in a gay marriage,  to be a pastoral counselor for the Catholic Church, and she says, "the thing here that your employees regularly have to do, I dont believe in it, I refuse to do it!"  


    And I cant stress it enough...the Catholic Church she wants to work at...


     She wants to work as a Catholic pastoral counselor even though she does not believe in the tenets of the Catholic faith, so she cannot counsel those who want to be counseled based on Catholic principles...but she wants to be hired anyway.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Hubris? Chutzpah? Naglasti? Pro-life nurse sues over discrimination....

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:


    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    []


    To be clear: I think both suits should lose, but they are very different.


    If the employer is a Church, then I do think they get to discriminate on religious grounds.


    My OP is about a job applicant not getting the job because she said "see, this thing here that your employees regularly have to do, I refuse to do it," and then claiming its discrimination against her on the basis of religion. It isn't. It's discrimination on the basis that she's told the interviewer that she refuses to do the job she's applying for. The reason for her refusal is simply irrelevant.


    []

    So, they interview the lesbian who is in a gay marriage,  to be a pastoral counselor for the Catholic Church, and she says, "the thing here that your employees regularly do, I dont believe in it, I refuse to do it! " 


     I want to work as a Catholic pastoral counselor even though I do not believe in the tenets of the Catholic faith, so I cannot counsel those who need to be counseled based on Cathilic principles...but you must hire me anyway.




    That's the opposite of what I said. See the bolded above....   

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Hubris? Chutzpah? Naglasti? Pro-life nurse sues over discrimination....

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:


    It is exactly the same.

    So, they interview the lesbian who is in a gay marriage,  to be a pastoral counselor for the Catholic Church, and she says, "the thing here that your employees regularly have to do, I dont believe in it, I refuse to do it!"  


    And I cant stress it enough...the Catholic Church she wants to work at...


     She wants to work as a Catholic pastoral counselor even though she does not believe in the tenets of the Catholic faith, so she cannot counsel those who want to be counseled based on Catholic principles...but she wants to be hired anyway.






    The lesbian situation = discrimination on the basis of religion. The employer is refusing to hire someone because that person doesn't follow all dictates of their religion.


    The employer is, because they are a church, imposing their religion on employees.


     


     


    The OP = discrimination on the basis of refusal to do the job being applied for. The fact that the refusal is supposedly motivated by religion isn't relevant. They aren't refusing to hire Christians. They aren't refusing to hire people who aren't of their religious belief. They are refusing to hire people who won't do the job.


    The employee is attempting to impose her religion on the non-religious organization.


     


     


    There is a difference.


    However, as I said, both plaintiffs should lose. A church gets to discriminate on the basis of religion, and an employer gets to not hire people who announce they won't do their job.


     

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Hubris? Chutzpah? Naglasti? Pro-life nurse sues over discrimination....

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Exactly the same issue as when openly gay persons want to work in a religious organization that considers sex outside traditional marriage a sin.

    [/QUOTE]

    How is it exactly the same?

    [/QUOTE]

    There is no unlimited right to be hired for a job, unless one is able to fulfill the requirements...
     The church has a right to hire those who have the same belief system, as their pastoral counselors... If the coercive State forces the Church to hire non-believers, freedom of religion will be a thing of the past.

    Just as the hospital has the right to hire those who can fulfill the duties to prescribe contraceptives...

    Just as the Army can reject those who are pacifists....

    [/QUOTE]

    She was already hired and got fired after her marriage was posted in the paper.  Obviously her sexual orientation did not prevent her from doing a good job else she would have been fired earlier.  It's more like a vegetarian suing for a job at a steak house after saying she wouldn't cook steaks.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from sprague1953. Show sprague1953's posts

    Re: Hubris? Chutzpah? Naglasti? Pro-life nurse sues over discrimination....

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:

    [QUOTE]

     

     

    It is exactly the same.

    So, they interview the lesbian who is in a gay marriage,  to be a pastoral counselor for the Catholic Church, and she says, "the thing here that your employees regularly have to do, I dont believe in it, I refuse to do it!"  

     

    And I cant stress it enough...the Catholic Church she wants to work at...

     

     She wants to work as a Catholic pastoral counselor even though she does not believe in the tenets of the Catholic faith, so she cannot counsel those who want to be counseled based on Catholic principles...but she wants to be hired anyway.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]


     

     

    The lesbian situation = discrimination on the basis of religion. The employer is refusing to hire someone because that person doesn't follow all dictates of their religion.

     

    The employer is, because they are a church, imposing their religion on employees.

     

     

     

     

     

    The OP = discrimination on the basis of refusal to do the job being applied for. The fact that the refusal is supposedly motivated by religion isn't relevant. They aren't refusing to hire Christians. They aren't refusing to hire people who aren't of their religious belief. They are refusing to hire people who won't do the job.

     

    The employee is attempting to impose her religion on the non-religious organization.

     

     

     

     

     

    There is a difference.

     

    However, as I said, both plaintiffs should lose. A church gets to discriminate on the basis of religion, and an employer gets to not hire people who announce they won't do their job.

     

     

    [/QUOTE]

    CLC can go round and round and round with you all he likes.

    It seems clear to me that the plaintiffs in both cases should lose their cases for the reasons you laid out.

    In addition, I would not be surprised at all if the nurse in the FL. case applied for that job, etc. just so she and the ADF could file that lawsuit and try to change the law in Florida.

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Hubris? Chutzpah? Naglasti? Pro-life nurse sues over discrimination....

    In response to NowWhatDoYouWant's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    ....specifically, that a family planning center - you know what that is, yes? - a family planning center violated her religious freedom and unfairly discriminated against her by refusing to hire her when she said that if hired, she would refuse to prescribe birth control pills to patients in this.....

     

    ...and I can't stress it enough....

     

    ....this family planning center she applied to.

     

     

     

    ************************************************************************

     

    From the organization who filed the suit:

     

    TAMPA, Fla. — Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys have filed a federal lawsuit against a federally funded health center in Tampa for refusing to consider an applicant for employment as a nurse because she is a member of a pro-life medical association and has a faith-based objection to prescribing some birth control methods that could lead to an abortion.

     

    “No one deserves to suffer discrimination just because they’re pro-life,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Matt Bowman. “Federal and state law make it clear that being pro-abortion cannot be a prerequisite for employment, nor can federally funded facilities force nurses to assist with practices that could lead to an abortion.”

     

    In April, the human resources director of Tampa Family Health Centers questioned Sara Hellwege about her membership with the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists after she submitted a job application for a nurse-midwife position. After Hellwege confirmed her association with the group and that her religious beliefs prevent her from prescribing hormonal birth control drugs that can result in an early abortion in some circumstances, the director informed her in an e-mail, “Due to the fact that…you are a member of AAPLOG, we would be unable to move forward in the interviewing process.”

     

    The lawsuit, Hellwege v. Tampa Family Health Centers, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, explains that “TFHC’s refusal to consider Ms. Hellwege’s application for employment on the basis of her religious beliefs and association with the pro-life group AAPLOG violates multiple federal laws.”

     

    The lawsuit also explains that “Florida law shall not require ‘any person to participate in the termination of a pregnancy, nor shall...any person be liable for such refusal.’” Moreover, “Ms. Hellwege has the right to refuse to prescribe abortifacient contraceptives where such actions violate her religious beliefs or moral convictions.”

     

    On Hellwege’s behalf, ADF attorneys also filed a Title VII complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission field office in Tampa and a Federal Tort Claims Act complaint with the Department of Health and Human Services in Washington, D.C. Both laws protect Hellwege from discrimination based on her pro-life views.

     

    “Willingness to commit an abortion cannot be a litmus test for employment,” added ADF Senior Counsel Steven H. Aden. “All we are asking is for the health center to obey the law and not make a nurse’s employment contingent upon giving up her respect for life.”

     

    http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/?CID=78491" rel="nofollow">http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/?CID=78491

     

     

     

     

     

    From a hardcore feminist I usually can't stand:

     

     

     

    Is “religious freedom” about being free to practice your faith, or just a generic cover story for any and all attempts to try to foist your beliefs on others? In this era of Hobby Lobby vs. Burwell, it’s understandable that many on the right have decided it’s the latter and are eager to start testing the limits of how much leverage the expansive new definition of “religious freedom” gives them to meddle with the private contraception choices of others. Next on the docket: Attempting to force family planning centers to hire nurses who refuse to let patients plan their families, all in the name of “religious freedom.”

     

    Sara Hellwege is a nurse in Tampa, Florida, who opposes the use of some of the most effective and female-controlled forms of contraception, such as the birth control pill. Despite that position, Hellwege applied for a job with the Tampa Family Health Centers. When asked by the human resources director about her affiliation with an anti-contraception group called the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Hellwege admitted she would refuse to prescribe the birth control pill to anyone who wanted it. She was summarily told that prescribing the birth control pill was part of the job and was not hired.

     

    Now, Hellwege is suing, with the backing of the Christian right organization Alliance Defending Freedom handling her case. Both ADF and Hellwege throw the word “abortion” around a lot, falsely conflating non-barrier methods of contraception with abortion. But the factual inaccuracy of Hellwege’s claims may not be an issue here, since the lawsuit argues that Hellwege is a victim of religious discrimination and deserves to be hired by a family planning clinic despite “her religious beliefs and association with the pro-life group AAPLOG.” Of course, the Supreme Court in Burwell v Hobby Lobby said that case covers all forms of contraception objected to in the name of religion, with no need for pseudoscience garble conflating ovulation suppression with abortion necessary, suggesting that the liberal use of the word “abortion” in this case is more about the continued right wing campaign to demonize contraception than anything else.

     

    Win or lose, Hellwege’s case provides insight in how the war on contraception is shaping up. Direct assaults through legislation are going to be a much harder sell with contraception than abortion, so instead we’re getting the argument that someone else’s “religious freedom”—your boss, your nurse—entitles them to interfere with your ability to get contraception. Family planning centers are one place that women have long been able to trust will provide them contraception access without unnecessary hassle, and now the Christian right is trying to take even that away.

     

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/07/21/sara_hellwege_sues_tampa_family_health_centers_pro_life_nurse_says_her_religious.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2014/07/21/sara_hellwege_sues_tampa_family_health_centers_pro_life_nurse_says_her_religious.html

    [/QUOTE]


    Yikes..that is just crazy!

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Hubris? Chutzpah? Naglasti? Pro-life nurse sues over discrimination....

    I'm wondering if this is some sort of alinski-type move on the part of the nurse. Or maybe she's just nuts. Interesting in either case.

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Hubris? Chutzpah? Naglasti? Pro-life nurse sues over discrimination....

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    I'm wondering if this is some sort of alinski-type move on the part of the nurse. Or maybe she's just nuts. Interesting in either case.

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

    [/QUOTE]


    Interesting indeed. Either way..she has to be at least somewhat delusional.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Hubris? Chutzpah? Naglasti? Pro-life nurse sues over discrimination....

    "War on contraception"... such laughable rhetoric...

    If taxpayers dont pay for your birth control, you are the moral equivalent of Nelson Mandela...

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from NowWhatDoYouWant. Show NowWhatDoYouWant's posts

    Re: Hubris? Chutzpah? Naglasti? Pro-life nurse sues over discrimination....

    In response to ComingLiberalCrackup's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    "War on contraception"... such laughable rhetoric...

    If taxpayers dont pay for your birth control, you are the moral equivalent of Nelson Mandela...

    [/QUOTE]


     

    Cool story.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share