Traditionally, Seventh-day Adventists have been very willing to accept the scope of EEOC accommodations, but Seventh-day Adventists do believe that the 10 Commandments are universal in application, but they must be voluntarily accepted in an environment free of coercion. In its strictest reading, the language of the Sabbath commandment in Exodus 20:8-11 would apply to "servants" and the "stranger that is within thy gates." There is obviously variance within Adventist practice but let's say for the sake of our hypothetical that the federal employee believes that accommodating her by requiring another, whom she supervises in her capacity as manager, to work in her place would constitute a "stranger within thy gates" and thus make her complicit in a violation of the commandment.
I chose a Seventh-day Adventist as it is a community I'm familiar with and I've met some who did feel a pang on their conscience for seeking an accommodation that would conceptually require another person to "sin." I further would presuppose that there are those who would argue, as in the Little Sisters, et al, cases, that whether adherence to a sincerely held religious belief is reasonable or practical is outside the scope of the legal system. So in that scenario, would our hypothetical Adventist federal employee be able to claim that the only accommodation is her to have complete control? (I'm starting to sense shades of Kim Davis in this hypothetical.) On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 3:43 PM, Kwall, Roberta <rkw...@depaul.edu> wrote: > Normally, I hesitate to opine on matters in which I am not thoroughly versed > and I must confess that I am not up to speed on these cases. That said, I am > an observant Jew and I do not travel or work on Shabbat (which also begins > Friday night). In the traditional Jewish community, such swaps are > encouraged and very much appreciated. Jews do not believe that the laws > concerning Shabbat observance apply to non-Jews (there are other laws that > do, but not these). > > So I don't understand why this would also not be the case here. Does she > feel she is complicit because she believes everyone who doesn't observe the > way she does would be a sinner, even if they aren't of the same religion? > > Warmly, > Bobbi > > > Roberta Rosenthal Kwall > Raymond P. Niro Professor > Founding Director, DePaul University College of Law > Center for Intellectual Property Law & Information Technology > > Author of The Myth of the Cultural Jew: Culture and Law in Jewish Tradition > http://amzn.to/15f7bLH > > You can view my papers on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at the > following > URL: http://ssrn.com/author=345249 > > _______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
