Menu
ReligiousLiberty.TV / Founders' First Freedom®
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Articles
ReligiousLiberty.TV / Founders' First Freedom®

Oregon Senate Judiciary Committee hears testimony on the Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act

Posted on April 13, 2009June 3, 2009 by ReligiousLiberty.TV

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.

 

 

p1010194ONLINE 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

3.  Talking Points on SB 786

4.  Full Text of SB 786

  • Dave Hunt
  • Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act
  • SB 786
  • Title VII
  • Workplace Religious Freedom Act
  • 6 thoughts on “Oregon Senate Judiciary Committee hears testimony on the Oregon Workplace Religious Freedom Act”

    1. Alison Agins says:
      April 14, 2009 at 7:20 am

      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!

    2. Alison Agins says:
      April 14, 2009 at 12:20 am

      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!

    3. John Zalas says:
      March 27, 2011 at 8:41 pm

      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!

      1. Greg Hamilton says:
        March 27, 2011 at 9:18 pm

        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.

    4. John Zalas says:
      March 27, 2011 at 1:41 pm

      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!

      1. Greg Hamilton says:
        March 27, 2011 at 2:18 pm

        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.

    Comments are closed.

    Tweets by RelLibertyTV

    Recent Posts

    • Learn About US Government and Liberty of Conscience in the Nation's Capitol: New Course for Adventist High School Students Gives College Credit

      Learn About US Government and Liberty of Conscience in the Nation's Capitol: New Course for Adventist High School Students Gives College Credit

      March 28, 2023
    • Founders’ First Freedom files Amicus Brief in US Supreme Court in Support of Workplace Religious Freedom

      Founders’ First Freedom files Amicus Brief in US Supreme Court in Support of Workplace Religious Freedom

      March 26, 2023
    • U.S. District Court Dismisses Hunter v. US Dept of Education Lawsuit

      U.S. District Court Dismisses Hunter v. US Dept of Education Lawsuit

      February 5, 2023
    • Colorado Court: Baker Must Provide "Non-Expressive" Cake to Transgender Customer

      Colorado Court: Baker Must Provide "Non-Expressive" Cake to Transgender Customer

      January 30, 2023
    • Supreme Court to Hear Christian Postal Employee Religious Discrimination Claim - Groff v. DeJoy

      Supreme Court to Hear Christian Postal Employee Religious Discrimination Claim - Groff v. DeJoy

      January 13, 2023

    We are not a law firm, do not provide any legal services, legal advice or “lawyer referral services” and do not provide or participate in any legal representation.

    ©2023 ReligiousLiberty.TV / Founders' First Freedom® | WordPress Theme by Superb Themes
    Manage Cookie Consent
    To provide the best experience, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent may adversely affect certain features and functions.
    Functional Always active
    The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
    Preferences
    The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
    Statistics
    The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
    Marketing
    The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
    Manage options Manage services Manage vendors Read more about these purposes
    View preferences
    {title} {title} {title}