SALEM, OREGON – On April 9, 2009, the Oregon Senate Judiciary Committee heard testimony on the Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act (SB 786). House Speaker Dave Hunt, Bureau of Labor and Industry director Brad Avakian, and Senator David Nelson led the testimony in favor of the bill followed by Northwest Religious Liberty Association president Gregory Hamilton, attorney Michael D. Peabody, and two employees who would benefit from SB 786, David Miller and Shani Balverio. Willamette College of Law professor Steven Green, former general counsel for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, also testified on behalf of SB 786.
SB 786 would clarify the definition of the term “undue hardship” and provide a series of factors that employers can apply in determining whether or not they can honor an employee’s request for religious accommodation in the areas of holy day observance and religious dress requirements.
This is an effort that has been spearheaded for the past few years by the Northwest Religious Liberty Association president Gregory Hamilton.
ONLINE RESOURCES:
1. Testimony of Northwest Religious Liberty Association president Gregory Hamilton in support of SB 786
2. Testimony of Attorney Michael D. Peabody in support of SB 786
This is wonderful news! Perhaps this is the way to bring about accommodation doing one state at a time. We certainly are not making much headway at the Federal level. After elections that cause a shift of power then our liberty leaders have to start all over again.
At the state level perhaps the job can get done!
Now let’s pray that this is made law in Oregon. Good work Greg Hamilton and all the others involved!
This is wonderful news! Perhaps this is the way to bring about accommodation doing one state at a time. We certainly are not making much headway at the Federal level. After elections that cause a shift of power then our liberty leaders have to start all over again.
At the state level perhaps the job can get done!
Now let’s pray that this is made law in Oregon. Good work Greg Hamilton and all the others involved!
According to NW Boomer & Senior News (April 2011) steps are being contemplated by the Oregon Senate Judiciary Committee to target all senior drivers in the State with a “special treatment” legislation because of a few accidents caused by senior citizens.
A survivor of WWII, when it was expedient to blame the Jews for all problems encountered in Germany and across Europe, I am thoroughly appalled. Does it take much logic and fairness to distinguish between safe and unsafe drivers, as evidenced by their record, and to consider whether risky medical substances are responsible for some traffic mishaps? If the latter should be the case, then all doctors and pharmacists should be held responsible for the proper education and dispensation of drugs to senior drivers.
I cannot say more, since I am boiling with righteous (European) anger!
What does this have to do with the Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act that this artcle addresses, an article that was written in 2009 regarding a law that was eventually passed and signed in 2009??? Please how you can coherently and rationally tie the two together. Please do that for all of our readers.
According to NW Boomer & Senior News (April 2011) steps are being contemplated by the Oregon Senate Judiciary Committee to target all senior drivers in the State with a “special treatment” legislation because of a few accidents caused by senior citizens.
A survivor of WWII, when it was expedient to blame the Jews for all problems encountered in Germany and across Europe, I am thoroughly appalled. Does it take much logic and fairness to distinguish between safe and unsafe drivers, as evidenced by their record, and to consider whether risky medical substances are responsible for some traffic mishaps? If the latter should be the case, then all doctors and pharmacists should be held responsible for the proper education and dispensation of drugs to senior drivers.
I cannot say more, since I am boiling with righteous (European) anger!
What does this have to do with the Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act that this artcle addresses, an article that was written in 2009 regarding a law that was eventually passed and signed in 2009??? Please how you can coherently and rationally tie the two together. Please do that for all of our readers.