In response to the Mish's Corner vlog presentation - "Interpreter Woes - Refusal Due To Religion Beliefs".
More and more religious zealots exploit the existing federal law - "Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993" as an excuse to refuse to proceed with any workplace or personal task.
Several recent cases involved the male doctor at the emergency room (ER) refused to accompany the simple request from the female rape victim for the "after-morning pills" to prevent any unwanted pregancy. The doctor simply ignored the endless pleas from that rape victim. At last, the doctor finally responded "Sorry, I could not give you the "after-morning pill" which is against my religious belief".
Same thing happened with the pharmacist refused to serve the female client for the birth control prescription. The pharmacist stated "That is against my religious belief".
The passage of "Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993" federal law was in response to the controvestial topic on the use of peyeote by the Native Americans. The law enforcement officers arrested the particular tribe for using peyeote (hallicutated drug), etc.
The U.S. Supreme Court declared the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, Public Law 103-141, November 16,1993, 103rd Congress, H.R. #130 to be unconstitutional in a 6 to 3 decision in June 25,1997 in the case of City of Boerne, Texas v. Flores.
States across the United States ought to address the issue of educational interpreters what they could do or not.
More info on the Religious Freedom Restortation Act of 1993 Act -
http://www.religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/RFRA 1993.hmtl
Excellent vlog presentation, Mish! I would respond much earlier but the computer system error prevent me from doing it yesterday. I hope that my blog posting is very helpful for you to comphrend why terps and other people usually find some kind of excuses for not going ahead with their given duties.
More employers are putting in sticky situations.
ASLize yours,
Robert L. Mason (RLM)
RLMDEAF blog
Saturday, September 1, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I am aware of these situtations.
ReplyDeleten fact the civil rights prevailed in several cases in this type of scenario, every one when civil rights of victims collided with the well meaning pharmacists and doctors.
If I remember, interpreter ethic codes in some areas spell out the obligations and expectations. Lucky so far as I am not aware of any such case where the law was used.
If there is, please specify such case