Court: Demanding a Social Security Number Isn’t Religious Discrimination

© Marty Haas - Fotolia

By Eric B. Meyer

Remember that blog post I had from July of last year, the one you contemplated getting tattooed on your back?

Yeah, you know the one — about the Fundamentalist Christian, who, upon filling out his new-employee paperwork, refused to provide a Social Security number because it would cause him to have the “Mark of the Beast.” He sought a religious accommodation, which the company refused to provide because obtaining a Social Security number is a federal requirement.

Well, the employee appealed the decision to a federal appellate court. How you think that one finally turned out?

No accommodation if it would violate federal law

In a published opinion (Yeager v. FirstEnergy Generation Corp.), the Cincinnati-based Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the “district court properly dismissed [the plaintiff’s] complaint for failure to set forth a viable legal claim.”

Specifically, it noted that “every circuit to consider the issue has applied one of the above two steps to hold that Title VII does not require an employer to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs if such accommodation would violate a federal statute.”

And since the IRS requires that employers collect and provide the Social Security numbers of their employees, the company did not have to accommodate the plaintiff’s sincerely held belief that providing a Social Security number would cause him to have the “Mark of the Beast.”

Article Continues Below

But, slow your roll there employers. There’s an important takeaway here beyond federal-statutory record-keeping requirements trumping the duty to accommodate.

Don’t casually dismiss accommodation requests

When an employee comes to you with a religious accommodation request, it’s best not to poo-poo the employee’s religious beliefs because they don’t conform to your idea of normal.

As Jon Hyman blogged about here earlier, one employer learned the hard way that, as long an employee’s beliefs are sincerely held, then the focus should be on whether there exists a reasonable accommodation for those beliefs.

This was originally published on Eric B. Meyer’s blog, The Employer Handbook.

You know that scientist in the action movie who has all the right answers if only the government would just pay attention? Eric B. Meyer, Esq. gets companies HR-compliant before the action sequence. Serving clients nationwide, Eric is a Partner at FisherBroyles, LLP, which is the largest full-service, cloud-based law firm in the world, with approximately 210 attorneys in 21 offices nationwide. Eric is also a volunteer EEOC mediator, a paid private mediator, and publisher of The Employer Handbook (, which is pretty much the best employment law blog ever. That, and he's been quoted in the British tabloids. #Bucketlist.


270 Comments on “Court: Demanding a Social Security Number Isn’t Religious Discrimination

  1. These people just try to find every reason under the sun to carve out special laws made solely for them, then they complain that Muslims are trying to make Sharia law. If somebody made him get assigned a social security number, he might have a case but those are issued at birth to you. You have the number whether you like it or not. The employer just needs you to divulge it to them.

    1. Wrong, you are not issued a SS number automatically at birth. You can apply for one at the hospital (Add it to the birth certificate that you are requesting a SS number)) at time of birth or you can wait if you want. Once the child hits 5 you cannot claim your child on your taxes, open a bank account in their name without a SS number. This was not the case years ago but our government passed the new Tax Reform Act of 1986. Just another way the government can keep track of people. So I guess in a way the government makes you get one, because without it you would not be able to have a job, get medical insurance, have a bank account, etc

      1. That’s all you got out of my comment? So you say you get one while still in the hospital. So what? You get one at birth. That’s not even the point of my comment.

      2. last i checked all legal citizens are issued a SS#, you dont “apply” for it your parents notifies the gov they had a kid and then the gov generates the number for you…if the parent does not, the DR will….

      3. You are a little misinformed yourself. True, a SS number is not issued automatically at birth. The parents have to request it when filling out the info for the birth certificate. However, neither can you wait until the child is 5 years. You cannot claim a child on your taxes at any age unless they have a social security number. That info comes from the social security’s own handbook about children and social security numbers.

      4. No the reason that Social Security numbers are required by age five is so people would stop claiming children they did not have.

    2. SSN is not issued at birth. The hospital provides the form and files it on your behalf if you choose to fill out said paperwork.

  2. “The second beast of Revelation 13 will cause ‘all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their foreheads, and that no one may buy or sell except one who has the mark or the name of the beast, or the number of his name’ (verses 16-17).
    ^ Apparently he’s never even read the book he’s so adamant about. When did they start marking your right hand or your forehead with your Social Security number? I wasn’t aware that Biblical scripture was open to that broad of interpretation. I guess it only is when you’re trying to get it to say what you want.

    1. This is what I say when people tell me something stupid like , ” oh you can’t mock other people religion” “Prove that what you just quoted actually is going to happen. Prove your book of mythology to be true. If you can’t then it has no place in intelligent conversation”

      1. Ever notice that everything bad they say is going to happen is in the future and just hasn’t happened yet. But they say it will any day now…just wait… it’s coming… yawn.

  3. Only Christians have “Sincerely held religious beliefs.”
    All other beliefs are frivolous and without merit.

  4. Here’s the problem, how can anyone judge if someone’s religious beliefs are “sincerely held”? There’s nothing tangible about it, all someone has to do is say they believe in something. Any scripture from any text can be bent to back up your belief.

    1. Should not matter if a belief is sincerely held. Is it a legitimate law that is in conflict with your religious belief? (legitimate among other things meaning a law that was not put in place just to discriminate against your religion). If the answer is yes, the law trumps your belief.

          1. SCOTUS doctrine, the law, and two hundred years of actions to the contrary say that neither of you have any knowledge of the law on conscientious objection.

          2. Religious control: It’s not about doing what’s right. It’s about doing what you are told.

          3. while we chose to believe that it is not practiced equally all over the US. sit in any court room and you can witness this.

        1. It’s not tyrannical government. Read the Majority Decision of Reynolds v United States. SCOTUS has declared that if your religious practices violate the law, then with very few exceptions you are accountable under the law.

          The example given in the majority Decision is “Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice?”

    2. It’s not just judged outright. There’s a process of tests through which such a question is put. Also, the parties in question can get expert witnesses, etc. if need be. It’s an easy search online and is taught in law classes.

    3. There are varying judicial requirements for that and it is very easy to determine that. Exemptions are only granted to members of an historic denomination with that as its doctrine.

    4. They can’t tell but when a government and religion are tied together like the middle east one needs to scutinize that person’s passport before they allow they entry. They should be made to reject the Government prior to entering especially with all that is going on today in this world. Most other religions are not tied to their country but that area is. I am not saying good people are only American’s but we have standards that other countries do not have and we need to maintain them. If a person is not willing to separate their faith from their country then why would they want to come here to live. We should not treat them to our safe shores if they don’t appreciate it. In this case the law should trump that kind of belief. If they don’t like it then go back to the country where they think that works. We have to maintain the safety of all of the citizens here. 911 happened once too many times and should have never happened here if we were doing what is right with security and passports.

  5. It is time to put a stop to these claims of “religious belief” when people are trying get out of following the law.
    Religion is nonsense. It is completely man-made and has NO basis in reality.
    The US is not a theocracy. Your religious beliefs are wholly irrelevant.
    Keep that crap to yourselves.

    1. Doesn’t matter if they are nonsense.

      If someone stands on the corner shutting the moon is made of green chesse since what is he saying is nonsense they don’t have a 1st Amendment right to say it? The obvious answer is “no” they still have the 1st Aemdnemt right to say it.

      Lastly, your use of the word theocracy is wrong.

      Having laws that say you must make reasonable accommodates of someone’s religious beliefs simply isn’t the same thing as having the country ruled by religious leaders.

        1. they are however entitled to protection from laws that oppress their right to practice their religion or follow their religion so long as those beliefs dont hurt other people….

          1. Using a social security number at work is not oppressing anyone’s right to practice their religion or follow their religion. They aren’t supposed to be doing that at work anyhow – they’re supposed to be doing their JOBS at work. They can still practice their religion and follow their religion to their hearts’ content once they’ve punched out for the day. If a given workplace is too distressing for their precious religious sensibilities, they should find a different place to work.

          2. oh i agree with that for sure, i think i just didnt understand your original post as you intended it be, that would be my bad

          3. Using a social security number at work is not oppressing anyone’s right to practice their religion or follow their religion.

            and the court ruled as such so what is your problem?

          4. Giving on person privileges that others don’t share IS hurting those who don’t receive special treatment. No citizen should get special treatment that is forbidden to others.

          5. um, yea, the privilege of religion and religious traditions and rules and laws, we are all entitled to them duh, just cause some chose not to have a religion doesn not give them any less of rights or “privilege”… maybe join a religion that they like that gives them the best set of rules and shit?

        2. No one is asking for their own set of laws.

          There is one set of laws. They include a requirement that employers give a reasonable accommodation to people’s religious beliefs. There are other groups that one has to make accommodations for them.

          If you don’t like the law you can work to repeal it. But to state there is two sets of laws is simply not true.

      1. The fact that their beliefs are nonsense does, indeed, matter for the continued existence of their religion. The more crazy their beliefs, the more important it is to keep those beliefs private – just look at Scientology and its “Xenu” nonsense. You’re supposed to only learn THAT once you’ve paid in some hundreds of thousands of dollars and risen through the ranks. By seeking a “Look at MEEEE!!” moment to gain more attention for themselves by way of their nonsensical beliefs, they drive ever more people away from their religion.

        The religious may win a battle, but they’re losing the war. Their own extinction is looming in front of them like a yawning open grave.

        1. Exactly! We can only hope their extinction comes sooner rather than later. Separation of church and state does not mean that those who hold supernatural beliefs should get special privileges that other citizens don’t receive.

          1. no such thing a separation of church and state, that was some guys idea, it was never made a rule or law….

      2. A great many people feel that “reasonable accommodation of my religious beliefs” means that “I get to impose my religion’s rules on the rest of you and you lot have to shut up and submit.” No amount of accommodation will be enough, you see, unless the rest of us agree to let them be the bosses of us.

        1. And the law accounts for that. A reasonable accommodation is one that a reasonable person would need or want.

          This the same standard used in a number of laws. For example all of th harassment laws are based on the idea of if a reasonable person would interpret the action as harassment then the action is against the law.

      3. They have every right to say anything they choose, and I support that right fully. They do not however, have the right to not have those beliefs challenged, or not ridiculed if they put them out in the public domain.

    2. Wow, way to be tolerant, understanding, and completely wrong. Just because you don’t believe in something doesn’t make it invalid. Some of us have dedicated great deals of time to our beliefs, and an employer should have no right to dictate their practice to us. And, just remember, its as offensive for you to try to force your atheism on me as it is for me to force my religios beliefs onto you.

      1. But that’s just it. Your employer can’t not do anything to make you stop believing in your god or to stop you from worshiping it. That is the extent of your religious freedom: To believe in and worship the god of your choice. No one should EVER have to change anything they do to accommodate YOUR religious beliefs. And we certainly shouldn’t be changing laws for religious beliefs. The laws apply to everyone. Religion doesn’t.

        1. SCOTUS disagrees. Recent SCOTUS doctrine says that exemption to those who are a member of an historic faith with that as doctrine MUST be granted exemption under its guidelines.

          A four thousand year old ethical and moral system has the same right for its values to be reflected in law as what you got off a leftist blog last week. The Constitution says so.

          1. i dont see where they said christianity, can you copy and paste it for me i must be blind

          2. Christianity’ values are rooted in Judaism That makes the whole system four thousand years old.

          3. But bigotry against non-believers, forcing others who disagree with you to follow your interpretation of your religion and fear of social security numbers are not things that should be granted exemptions.

            And I believe SCOTUS got it wrong on Hobby Lobby. this was not about people being free to exercise their religion, it was about them forcing their religion on their employees.

          4. agreed, it wasnt about religion at all it was about them telling their employees they cant use the health insurance they pay for the way the want.

            bigotry against non believers? only morons ware bigots, the rest of us couldnt care less what you believe so long as you let us believe what we want, none of us try to force our religion on yall, we only ask that you respect out right to practice ours and no a SS# is not the mark of the beast and the person in the story is clearly a rogue loon….

          5. You mean the same moral and ethical system that approved of slavery, the subordination of women, that sanctioned the murder of countless people since its inception? You can keep it

          6. “A four thousand year old ethical and moral system…” Even the most casual perusal of the history of religion shows that it is no guarantee of morality. Do you think religion invented morality? Morality is inherent to humanity. You don’t need religion to be a good person. And you don’t need religion reflected in law for a good society. Too many people are confusing religious freedom with religious control. Religious freedom is fine, believe whatever you want. Religious control is ending. That’s why you are seeing such backlash against stuff like this.

          7. Morality is a symptom of civilization. Religion is an invention to teach that morality. Therefore, religion is a symptom of civilzation, not the other way around.

          8. I do not agree. If morality is, in fact, inherent to humanity, then it predated civilization. Essentially, Neanderthals had morality, however vague and undefined it may have been. I also disagree as to the invention of religion for moral teaching. Religion was invented to answer unanswerable questions and to make sense of the world while humanity lacked knowledge. That is why enlightenment and knowledge continually challenge religious precepts (and religious control). The world is growing smarter. This does not bode well for archaic belief systems.

        2. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

          The exercise of religion can not be abridged even in the public space, including Congress itself. Every session of Congress is opened with a prayer. No one has to listen to it. Congress can’t pass a law forbidding it.

          Similarly anyone can pray in a school, but no one government agent (teachers) can compel anyone else to pray, or teach prayers, because of the establishment clause.

          Freedom is a complicated thing.

          1. Except it shouldn’t start with a prayer if the prayer is always Christian. That would be establishing a religion. If it alternated between Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Wiccan, Zoroastrian, Vudun, Native American of whatever variety, then it would be non-sectarian.

          2. Yes, Congress can pass a law forbidding opening a Congressional session with a prayer That has nothing to do with your religious rights but how they choose to run their business. You can still pray but they can forbid it from being an official act.

      2. Your imaginary god is not relevant to the real world and your filthy old book of campfire tales handed down from illiterate bronze age goatherders who routinely massacred each other over which
        one’s god had the biggest penis, is not useful.
        Unless, that is, one happens to run out of toilet paper.

        Morality is doing what is right no matter what you are told.
        Religion is doing what you are told no matter what is right.

          1. Patrick, can you quote to us what part of the bible we will find that comment? The main reason people are tired of you conservative Republicans is that if you have no real legitimate argument to prove Hank is wrong, your reaction is to call him a name. You had an opportunity to prove your point but instead you chose to call him a name.

        1. hey look your ignorance is showing, your views on my religion is whats not relevant, you can moan all you want about it, not gonna change my belief…..

        2. *ahem* Late IRON Age. They always want to push it back to claim even more tradition and venerability and whatnot, but it’s all far more recent than the religious wish to acknowledge.

        3. I like those last two sentences. That sums it all up pretty clearly. May some of us use them in other commentary?

          1. Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

      3. Chuck what is the difference? You say your employer should have no right to dictate their practice to you, and yet you are doing exactly that by dictating your religious practice to your employer. In addition, the employers request for a SS number is not his practice it is required by Federal Law. If an employer was not subject to a fine for refusing to supply employee SS numbers to the Feds they could care less. It’s just more paperwork for them.

        1. My comment had nothing to do with the article. It was merely in response to kkgators comment. If he was my boss, and I came to him asking for sundays off because of my church obligations, how willing do you expect him to be? If his response mirrors his comment above, can you argue he’s not trying to force his atheism on me? as an aside, I have had to sue an employer over wanting me to shave, even though he had no legal right to do so, and only wanted me to conform to their image standards. I won, btw.

          1. Are you in an at will work state chuck? I don’t think you are because your failure to comply with company rules would have led to your termination and you would not have won a law suit against that.

      4. Belief is not a valid method of verifying whether something is true or not. If I believe in Zeus or Osiris or Quetzacoatl, that does not make my religion any more valid than your belief in an ancient Isrealite deity. And how does one “force: atheism on anyone? Since I bet you don’t believe in those gods, we actually agree. I just believe in one less god than you do.

    3. SCOTUS and the Constitution say otherwise. Reach out and mess with the Bill of Rights and you don’t get your hand back.

      1. What turns out happening is that these institutions are simply issuing enough rope to the religious so they can more easily hang themselves. Do you think these strident objections of the religious to societal norms make their religion look more appealing? Are any of them growing? Nope and nope. The more of a fuss they make in demanding special accommodation for their silly delusions, the more they will cause prospective targets to stay well away from their insanity. And they cause their own membership to flee as well, particularly the young! So let them complain – and as loudly as possible! They’re hastening their own oblivion.

        1. I agree. Enlightenment and knowledge are the enemy of religion. It’s just a matter of time. I do wish I could see it in my own lifetime, though.

    4. It is time for you to keep quiet and let everyone to say what ever they want ,it is a free country and free speech .For you is okay to talk about homosexual deviated sex rights but when a christian is worry about government controlling him is not okay .

    5. Daddy told me I had the freedom to believe what I wanted as long as my beliefs didn’t infringe on other’s freedom. I try to live by that teaching.

    6. Even though we have a ruling of separation of church and state this government was built and formed on a belief in God. So we did begin with a theocracy. Our money, our meetings, and our pledge all were created with the intention that God would protect us. It was never defined what type of God or which one. Then since the founding of our country we created a document which put in rules from which we should operate with to protect all of the people who sought freedom from their oppressors and in many cases have bent over backwards to allow those people to enter in safety. But now we are at a state where people from other governments have acted as deceivers and they get in our country, act as though they are Citizens and make demands on our country based on the laws of our country to get to do what their government would expect them to do. How is it that we can’t make them separate their religion from the country they are claiming to run away from because they are not only an enemy for our country but the world at large. The US has become the melting pot for all of these so called terrorists. Many of the young men involved in all of tis maliciousness are claiming to have been American Citizens. What is our government doing to fight these people who operate against the country they pretend to pledge allegiance to. Why can’t we hold them accountable . We called it treason in the past and they were charged back then. This was before computer and all the modern teaching we have today to make things more efficient. Can we no longer protect and defend ourselves. Our country needs to know that there are people in it with morals and for that reason alone we do need to hear what and how others feel but if it’s against the laws and truly harms out people then let us prove it, punish, and move on.

  6. A reasonable course when drafting laws that would violate religious tenets would be to interview God. If he’s a no show then no worries…

      1. People of faith would not be abused, your word not mine, if they didn’t come up with crazy schemes and then sue if they don’t get their way. Religious freedom does not mean special laws.

    1. Whether it’s their “right” to shove their religion in your face, or just banning the sale of alcohol on Sundays…they control people’s lives in certain states.

    2. Not these days. They play the persecution card all they can. Makes them feel like they are suffering and that is the whole point of christianity

  7. in the USA we are all numbers when we are born first before we even get a name we are connected to a set of numbers, even until we die.To have a legal set of numbers such as social security numbers this tells people where we were born or what state we obtained this card(if you weren’t born a natural citizen here)This card when checked by a verifiable system as EVERIFY will tell an employer the information needed to hire or not hire the individual.When EVERIFY becomes a mandatory federal law that holds all employers accountable then the massive flow of illegals will cease to exist and if a employer tries to get around this their business license should be revoked for 1 year per illegal employee for 1st offense then 10 years revocation for each illegal hired the 2nd offense then permanently and federal prison time for any additional times after that

      1. at what price do you pay or put on enforcing our laws verses paying less for a head of lettuce picked by someone who disrespected our borders and laws to enter here illegally ?

        1. If you think that all illegals do is pick lettuce than you have no idea how much of our economy depends on them. Right or wrong they are a huge part of our economy. Your “solution” of closing businesses for one year per violation would destroy the economy. That is reality. Not to mention any business closed for one year is effectively out of business permanently. If you feel that destroying the American economy to punish illegals is a worthy goal, you are free to try and get politicians to support your idea. You will find few takers though.

          1. if you think rewarding some foreign invaders who have broken our laws of immigration are to become good trusted citizens then what message are you sending to all those who are waiting or those who came here legally through our immigration system? Was their time and money wasted? Should we not have borders that are secure just to make our economy stable?Since when is two wrongs ever going to become 1 right?As for revocation of business licenses that is the right way to deter any employer from thinking of even making it worth his while to hire an illegal

  8. If G-d would not forgive us for the sin of being numbered then it would be abominable. But he does , so carry on, business as usual 6th circuit. Seat of the snake.

  9. Had a guy come in and needed information about his account. I asked the account number – he did not know. I asked for his Social security number – he would not give it to me. I told him I could not help him then. He insisted, I asked again, and he said according to the government privacy act, he did not have to. I informed him that the 1974 Privacy Act applied only to the government, not a civilian organization. He still refused, so I referred him to my Regional manager who told him the same thing. He was still not happy. SO, I told him to just bring me in his latest bill then and until then, I had other things to do rather than argue with him. He left.

  10. “… it’s best not to poo-poo the employee’s religious beliefs because they don’t conform to your idea of normal.”

    That’s not what people do. People object because this “religious belief” allows them to get out of doing something everyone else has to do. If they can object to something because of religious belief, I shouldn’t have to “get religion” just to be treated the same.

    You are a citizen of this country. If the laws of this country and religion conflict, religion should come second. Or move to a country where they put religion first. I hear those are wonderful places to live.

    1. Ever hear of the first amendment. That would be the one where the federal
      government guarantees the right to freedom of religion among other things. The constitution of the United States supersedes any other laws period. America is a country where personal freedoms are put first.

      1. It guarantees one the freedom to believe in and worship the god of their choice. This crap about special laws and “I don’t have to do this because my god said so” is about religious control, not religious freedom. The law applies to everyone. Religion doesn’t.

        1. which laws are you referring to, mans laws or Gods laws. Which has been around longer? Social security started in 1935 supposedly to help the elderly. You had to apply for this benefit. In the 70s you still had to apply for this benefit, now its applied for at birth by the mother. MANDATORY? SO WHY WOULD YOU HAVE TO APPLY. Do you even know hat an SS-4 form is, read any government paperwork w-4 w-9 ss-4 etc do you even know what an OMB number is and do you know how to find out what it says and means. Every law written has its own section of definitions. Even a Law dictionary has 3 different definitions for the United States

          1. God’s laws? Sorry, I didn’t get which one of the many gods you meant. Plus, thanks to the anti-Establishment clause, none of those gods have any legal standing. Maybe you are referring to the badly misinterpreted rule from a long bygone era concerning numerology?

          2. Huck, you have not the slightest clue what you are talking about. Please buy a clue.

          3. “Which has been around longer?”
            Man’s law has certainly been around longer than any Christian Myth laws. Hammurabi wrote down the first set of written laws in 1754 B.C.

          4. “God’s laws” is a misnomer. It is a belief system, essentially an opinion. They don’t apply to everyone. Hence, they are not “laws”. The rest of your response, in regards to my comment, makes no sense so I will ignore it.

      2. This is scary. If one thinks about it. The past rules worked for this country because this country has always kept religion and politics separate. Now we are getting people entering the country where they don’t separate religion and politics. While they might not be saying they don’t believe in our country; they are saying that they have a right to do things people of this country can’t based on freedom of religion accept when they declare freedom of religion it also invites their former government to exist in this country because their church and state are not separated. If we want to keep this country free like we have in the past then we need to re-define separation of church and state and demand that people who are coming here longer than a visit declare their countries allegiance. We are just asking for trouble if we don’t have this made clear legally. It is only fair that they are not held accountable like our forefathers have done. They became legal citizens by learning our language, history and making a declaration of loyalty to this country. Otherwise I don’t see why we have to foot their bills or even care if they can’t find a place to live. they should not be allowed to enter here if they are wanting to destroy us. What kind of insanity is that? Politics of Obama or not we have a right in the country to live protected by our government. I have personally approved food stamps for foreigners because they have presented green cards and applied. How many other state employees had to do that as well. They can’t say on TV that that is not happening cause it did back in 1992-1996. for sure and I don’t know if the rules have changed since then. there is a lot happening without us knowing. We need to know just how far our government officials have gone. How many of us have read our constitution lately to know if they are making changes without our knowledge. They have already changed our Social Security Benefits to read that we are now getting benefits rather then what is normally due us and they are also telling all you younger people there isn’t enough for you to get it in the near future. Part of that is due to all the abortions and birth control producing less people – so less workers but part of it is also due to Presidents borrowing from the program and using it in other ways. That began with President Clinton. what else is changing???

        1. We have less to worry about from others coming into this country and expecting us to conform to their religion than those who were born here expecting everyone to conform to their choice of religion.

          Legal immigrants were removed from the food stamp program in 1996 and partially reinstated in 1998 and more fully reinstated in 2002. Illegal immigrants have never been able to draw food stamps.

          What do you mean that “changed our Social Security Benefits to read that we are now getting benefits rather then what is normally due us”? The last change in law affecting Social Security was in 1987. Since then the only major changes have been through cost of living adjustments.

          The Social Security Trust Fund has been invested in government securities since 1937 in accordance with the law that implemented Social Security. Once the funds are invested in government securities the money becomes a general obligation of the US Government just like every other debt of the government. Once the government borrows the money it is treated no different that any other money borrowed by the government.

          The Social Security Funds have not been used for anything other that paying Social Security benefits. For accounting purposes only the Social Security Funds are reported with the General Fund. This was started in the 1960s not under Clinton.

          The last change to the US Constitution was Amendment 27 in 1992. Feel free to read it any time you wish and are able, It is readily available on the internet.

          1. TWV I realize what the legal paperwork says but I also know that since we have direct deposit now I can’t read my check and they have changed the name of the program. I know we can’t tell because we no longer get to see the checks. Obama talks like this is a gift rather what it due to us. I also know that the people my age get supposedly a certain amount but it will be cut back in about 20 years because it is not growing in with dividends like is had in the past because we no longer have large groups of people paying into it. We have less workers then ever before. Clinton did use some of the Social Security Money during his 2nd year in office. Supposedly he borrowed from there but there was nothing to say whether he ever paid it back.; this opened the door to being able to dip into that program. I am retired and I did know that happened when Clinton was in office. Politicians can tell us anything but the documents say one thing and politicians seem to do what they want and find ways to make it look like they are doing us a favor. The only income I have is social security so I watch what they do with every pin of my money. when it’s under $1020 a month it is not hard to know what is happening. As far as religion that is a debateable subject in this country right now. Infact all of our freedoms are debatable right now. Just because a person has a so called green card does not mean they have legally obtained it. I was born and raised in Chicago and I know what Mafia politics have done in that area. I dated a Mayor son of a neighboring town. More goes on then the people realize.

          2. If we have fewer workers because of abortion and birth control, then the real problem is that these two items are not working very well. Ever tried to be an 18 year old high school graduate and get a job in this country? Or maybe a 55 year old man with an education? Or a 55 year old woman? Where have you been? There’s lots of workers available, but no jobs. Oh, and ALL of the presidents have borrowed money from the SS Trust fund and not paid it back, how do you think Bush financed his invasion of Iraq? Or Reagan? Overpopulation is a farce? I assume you’re referring to some other country, right? Like we have plenty of food and such to go around and no body goes hungry in this country. Boy, what a dream!

          3. Maybe you buy all that garbage Obama and the democrats spew but I have seen and lived in areas where each party has ruled and there are ghetto’s where the Democrats control and richness where the republicans dominate. Obama came from Illinois mafia country do not give me any crap that he has our heart at stake. His birth certificate doesn’t say Illinois either. His social security # is from Connecticut And he claims to be born in Hawaii. If you want to believe all their garbage that is your choice but with over 50 million lost through abortion you tell me we don’t have a worker shortage you only believe what the news spews. Step out of the country and hear what is really being reported. Obama has more of his father in him then American blood and all of you are dumb enough to believe him. how many more is he going to release from getmo before you understand where He is headed and taking this country. Freedom of speech is about to end, A lot of people don’t like his politics and that is why we now have more republicans in then Democrats. Personally I don’t like most politicians but one has a few more things to offer but not much.

          4. Midget, if you would quit believing all the garbage the right-wingnuts spew you might not come out as being so ignorant.

            Of course President Obama’s birth certificate doesn’t say he was born in Illinois because he was born in Hawaii.

            If there is such a shortage of workers why do so many have such a hard time finding a job and why is the pay so low for those who have a job?

          5. The Presidents don’t borrow money from SS. The Congress is the only power with controls over the budget and spending from anywhere. The President can not borrow money from SS or anywhere.

          6. If you would quit listening to all the conspiracy theories and actually checked into some factual information you wouldn’t have to be so confused.

            Clinton nor any other President has taken any money from Social Security to pay towards the national debt or anything else.

            What do you think you could tell from a check that you can’t tell from looking at the deposit made into your bank account?

            There is a lot that goes on in the government but there is less illegal or improper things done than people claim. Not everyone is out to get you. Calm down and get the facts before going off the deep end.

        2. I have read the U. S. Constitution many times, and I can say for sure that since the 27th amendment was ratified, no change has been made to that Constitution.

        3. Kept religion and politics separate? What about all the laws that had to be weeded out like the Blue laws and things like Sunday closure laws? Oh, and the laws and their interpretation that permitted spousal abuse and rape? Even this whole ballyhoo about marriage equality comes from the government setting up laws that directly put it into the practice of religion. Did you realize that any and all sex acts were illegal in this country unless the people involved had a government license to have sex? And even with the license, it could only be done certain ways? And these laws were based on religion? It’s about time we finally got religion and politics separate!

          1. I am not questioning whether we should keep politics and religion separate; but rather what I am saying is that there are people coming to our country demanding that we honor their view under the premise that it is about religion while bringing their politics with them and not separating it when they get here and asking us to accept their beliefs under the guise of religion. I worked child protection and other agencies I have seen much more of what goes in our communities than the average person. Many people have no idea what goes on even in a small town setting because many people are able to keep things under their hat.

      3. “Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices…

        So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances.”

        Majority Decision, Reynolds v United States (1878)

      4. No so. When those freedom impinge the freedom of the populace at large the government has the right to curtail individuals rights.

    2. try telling that to the amish that don’t have to pay taxes. they sure expect us to get out of the way of their horse and buggy on OUR road though.

      1. The Amish DO pay taxes. They pay property taxes, they pay income taxes when they hold a job, they (obviously) pay sales taxes and any state and local taxes levied on them. They also pay school taxes wherever they live although they do not use the local schools, they educate their own children. What they DON’T pay is social security taxes for the simple reason that they DON’T collect social security, they take care of their own elderly. A lot more that we can say.

        1. Actually, not everyone that lives in this country pays taxes. They may pay them on purchases that they make, but the “money” they use was given to them and not taxed, the public housing they live in is given to them, and then at the end of the year they are given the “earned income credit” even thought they didn’t “earn” a thing. Free money is not earned. So the end result is a net negative as far as them paying taxes.
          And I’m not referring to the Amish.

          1. Oh, and that money they were given? It usually doesn’t even bring them up to the poverty guidelines set by the government. Let’s see, the disabled, who have to try and get by on $800 a month? The Section 8 housing that makes it possible to maybe find a place to live that won’t take up more than they get? Oh, but you have to be able to get a place that qualifies, many can’t, Section 8 housing goes to dependent children first. Oh, and don’t even start in on what used to be called Aid to Families with Dependent Children, that’s gone now, so…. what were you talking about? Oh, the tax break for the earned income credit. Well, I’ll tell you, you try to live on what most of the people you think you’re complaining about have to. Good luck! Me, I’d rather work any day, but wait, maybe you’d like to get rid of the dependent deductions, then people with children would pay more taxes, right? Oh, and about the $108 a month to feed yourself on. Sounds pretty good, of course, you have to have at least a minimal kitchen since hot food isn’t covered.

          2. Yup, people are ignorant when it comes those living off disability and in subsidized housing. In their minds it’s a 24/7 party in a deluxe penthouse suite.

          3. Actually, everyone who lives in or visits this country pays some taxes.

            If a person does not earn a thing, they cannot get the earned income credit.

            No you are not referring to the Amish, you are just making up crap as you post.

          4. You are full to the rim. The illegals take advantage of the E.I.C. at an amazingly unbelievable rate. Keep living in fantasy world.

          5. It seems that you are the one living in the fantasy world. Or you are just lying to make yourself feel more powerful.

            Your lies are not working, they just make you seem angry and ignorant.

          6. Continue to believe what you believe. As your wallet gets emptied to support third world leeches. It’s your decision.

      1. what kind of moronic comment was that? What is the matter with you? Mental illness or just stupidity?

  11. The Borg will not allow dissension in ranks for collecting labor fees or else the whole ponzi scheme will implode.

  12. Felony to force disclosure of the social security number, title 42 USC, 408, subsection 8: “discloses, uses, or compels the disclosure of the social security number of any person in violation of the laws of the United States; shall be guilty of a felony and upon conviction thereof shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both”.

    1. You said it, by not disclosing his number to his employer that is a direct violation of the laws of the United States. So this religious guy should be charged with a felony for violating the law. Now I would love to see that.

      1. You are misinterpreting title 42 USC, 408, subsection 8. The employer is required to request a SSN, but the employee is NOT required to disclose it.

    2. It’s not a felony for an employer to force you to disclose your SSN for forms relating to taxes, which every employer in the country is required to make people fill out.

      1. It is a felony if the employer forces an employee to disclose his SSN. The employer is required to request a SSN, but the employee is NOT required to disclose it.

  13. Someday we will finally figure out whether religion is the cause of insanity, or the result of it…then a cure for both might be found.

  14. When religious people obviously have such a problem with the way their place of employment is being run, why don’t they do the decent thing and quit instead of insisting that the place of employment must be rearranged and changed just to suit their religious idiocy?

    1. um you cant quit a job you dont have, which is what the story was about, way to be on topic but miss the target lol

  15. So with the millions of illegals, that have never had a SSAN, how is that issue handled. Wait for it–They are assigned a tax-payer EIN, and still the government gets to nibble their paychecks for their labors. The Feds are going to get their money. As to Social Security, the fund is going broke, just as I reach retirement age. Go figure. The fund was raided by the Feds, and money put into the General Fund, with the promise of payback when the time came. This was done to make the budget seem to have a surplus, and not be spending more than taken in. Well now is the time to pay the piper.
    Oh, and no, I had to go and get my SSAN, prior to being hired for my first job. They did not used to issue them at birth. Just saying.
    So if the SSAN is such an issue, let this man get that Taxpayer EIN, and pay his taxes. Maybe he would get lucky and get the 666-66-6666 number. Would that not frost his cheereo’s. Mark of the Beast indeed.

    1. We as modern, intelligent people have decided to organize certain things by numbers because it’s easier and more accurate. We find a few unfortunately deluded individuals who seem mathematically impaired, who scream incoherently about “Lucifer! Devil! Sataaaaan!! BEEEEEEAST!!!!” and then expect the rest of us to bend over backwards to facilitate their delusion.

      Here’s a suggestion: Why don’t THEY go ahead and do the bending (as their religions usually order them to) the very same way they are demanding that others do so? Why not accommodate US the way they are demanding that we accommodate THEM? Why are they always demanding and never bending??

  16. Let me get this straight. It is illegal to refuse employment and you can’t ask for proof of citizen ship if they are criminals crossing the boarder. Since this is the case you shouldn’t be allowed to ask anyone period. The same law should apply to all. And no I’m not religious. Religion makes about as much sense as the way we enforce out immigration laws.

    1. It’s not illegal to ask for proof of citizenship. It’s required. An SSN -is- proof. It’s just easily faked.
      Also, Illegal immigration is a misnomer, as it’s not classified as a crime, it’s an administrative infraction (statutes relating to paperwork that fine you if you screw stuff up or are missing it.)

  17. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. “Teacher,” they said, “we know that you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren’t swayed by others, because you pay no attention to who they are.Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar or not?”

    Then Jesus said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”

  18. Ok that’s just strange. I’m a Christian, and went to a Christian university, and I memorized my SSN quickly because we had to put it on so many forms at registration! Earlier, when I didn’t have to use it much at all, I had to get the card and see what it was 🙂

      1. Leo – – If the SSN# can’t be used for ID then what is it good for anyway. I think there is a differentiation between and ID and a number that is used by the government to identify you and the things you do with the government. Granted it is some form of an ID with the government but if the government can’t use it to identify your transactions with it, the number would have no use at all. Then we would need something else to tie our transactions to the government.

        1. The SSN is -only- supposed to be used by the social security administration (or agents on their behalf, like employers doing tax records). But the gov’t does nothing to stop companies from demanding it for other things because no one complains to them about it.

      2. Didn’t the state of Georgia use the social security number as the driver license number up until about 15 years ago?

  19. Am so eager for the first group demanding the right to practice Human Sacrifice to drag it all the way to the Supreme Court, bleating about religious Freedoms and their religious rights.

  20. duh, a SS# identifies you to the gov and the IRS so you can be taxed, its has nothing to do with your religion, if you think its the mark of the beast then youe mentally ill and need to be examined by a DR ASAP, i can understand the chip they wanted to do, but, a piece of paper? nah….

    1. That’s what the man believed. It is also ILLEGAL to use your SS number as identification, and that law hasn’t been changed in eighty years. Personally, I disagree with him, and so did the courts.

      1. you mean illegal to be used as ID for anything other then gov services or agencies right? cause its a valid form of id for voting and whne going to get foodstamps and what not.

  21. So……..
    Halakha Law [Jewish] = Good
    Mosaic Law [Christian] = Good
    but Sharia Law [Muslim] = Bad

    ……And ALL THREE are derived from the exact same Abrahamic Laws [old Testament/Torah/Etc.] and virtually indistinguishable from each other when each individual “law” is compared.


    Religion is not only blatantly hypocritical, it is incredibly stupid and counter productive to a modern civilized society and the advancement of all mankind into the future.

    If you believe in a “higher power” that guides and protects you, then you are admitting that you are nothing more than a *child* that needs to be watched after by a *parent* and therefore should have NO SAY as to what happens in an adult world.

    1. Can’t fix ignorant. Jewish and Christian laws, none of which are called by the names you use, do not produce the massacres and evil of radical Islam.

      Every advance in our society in the direction of compassion, justice and equality happened in Christian countries who were heavily influenced by the Christian values system. You’re rehashing ancient Marxist hysteria and eighteenth century atheist hostility

      1. Got it. the unerring word of god is full of errors so you feel you are more enlightened by being able to pick and choose what your god demands of you even though his very words command you, the Christian, to do the exact same thing that he commands Islam to do.

        You just choose to ignore the parts where your infallible god tells you to kill women, children, and unbelievers.

        Yeah, I can see the common sense and complete lack of hypocrisy your side purports. ::facepalm::

      2. No, moral and ethical advances started coming when the church was suppressed and the enlightenment took over. I think a basic course in Western Civilization would do you good.

        1. Since my professional field is history and sociology of religion, and since my education i nthat field was at highly ranked secular liberal universities, I’d say you need a tiny bit of education.

          1. Either you are not being truthful about your background or you failed to learn what you were being taught.

      3. You missed a word… I’ll fix it.
        “Christian laws, none of which are called by the names you use, do not produce the massacres and evil of radical Islam… anymore.”

  22. One of the real issues that the Federal courts do not wish to tackle is the use of the SSN as an ID Number for the Citizenry. Under the Law (unless someone has changed it) the SSN was never to be used as an ID number for citizens. Period end of discussion. We have all seen where Healthcare Providers and many others (including the US Military in direct violation of Federal Law) have used your SSN as an ID number, placing you and your financial security at great risk.

    The IRS uses your SSN as your ID Number. The IRS also readily acknowledges that there are many users of the same SSN. ObamaCare Uses your SSN as your Personal ID Number- illegally, the only Agency that is supposed to use your SSN as an ID number is the Social Security administration. That is the LAW (again unless its been changed by an act of Congress which hasn’t happened.).

    There are TIDs Taxpayer ID Numbers which the IRS does Issue to Alien workers (legal aliens) and othe types of Taxpayer ID numbers which the IRS issues to tax exempt Organizations, etc. Time for the Federal Courts to stop aiding and abetting Obama Lawlessness and stick to the LAW!

    1. Absolutely correct. It is still illegal to use your SS number as an ID number. The government has disregarded this.

    2. The use of the SSN has expanded substantially since its inception in 1936. Created merely to keep track of the earnings history of U.S. workers for Social Security entitlement and benefit computation purposes, it has become a number assigned at birth and used by many government agencies to identify individuals and by private industry to track an individual’s financial history.

      Starting in 2004 laws and regulations have been pushed to restrict the use of the SSN but there are still many authorized uses beyond the original intent.

    1. That would explain why people active in a community of faith in the US are slightly above average in education and income, are far happier, live longer, are far more generous with their time and money, and have a lot fewer social problems of every sort. You confuse happiness and good health with stupidity.
      You must be sick and miserable.

  23. This story reminds me of another government that required a number…except they would tattoo the series of digits on your arm.

  24. The key is reasonable accommodation. Not all exemptions are granted. SCOTUS says that exemption MUST be granted under its guidelines, which includes the exemption being a doctrine of an historically recognized faith that the plaintiff is a member of. The exemption cannot create a serious danger to society, and if an accommodation can be found, the accommodation will prevail rather than the exemption.

    The Lee case of some years ago created such an uproar that the RFRA was passed and its provisions are now the SCOTUS guidelines, since they ruled the law constitutional. We have granted conscientious objection from all sorts of laws over the last century. Madison even wanted to put a specific section in the First Amendment guaranteeing exemption for members of the peace churches from military service, but was convinced it was unnecessary because no decent person would even think of compelling people to violate their faith.

    You really want to end conscientious objection exemptions for religious reasons? Then you must remove all Amish children from their homes and charge their parents with a crime, failure to have their children follow the compulsory education laws. In time of war, you must jail all conscientious objectors to war, which includes millions of people in the US. Why not? Woodrow Wilson did.. You must compel self employed Amish to pay SS even though they refuse to collect the benefits. You must overturn many other exemptions and common sense actions which preserve personal freedom and the right to religious expression. If you do, the country will divide. One of my ancestors came here to fight in the Union navy during the Civil War because he was pro freedom and anti slavery. He won the Congressional Medal of Honor About half of the rest came to escape religious persecution as Mennonites and Moravians. If you even try to extinguish religious freedom in this country, you will permanently divide America and make us two hostile nations, and if you try to enforce your bigotry and treasonous disregard for our traditional freedoms and Constitution by force, you will start a massive refusal t cooperate with the government and possible civil war. Since 1860, all my family has left the peace religions and joined other Protestant churches. We have fought in most war since the French Indian War. we fought them for freedom, especially religious freedom and freedom of expression. We will fight to defend our freedoms. You won’t fight to take them away.

  25. Religious accommodation requests … truly the mark of the beast. All because the Roberts Supreme Court has chosen to umbrella religious freedom under and within the Constitution. This is on a par with this Supreme Court’s decision identify and distinguish between human US citizens and Corporate US citizens, ie both have rights covered by the Constitution, as well as the Court’s rulings that huge piles of anonymous monies driving politics amount to little more than the exercise of free speech. What kind of ideology is driving these horrible decisions?

    1. Congress voted UNANIMOUSLY for the RFRA. SCOTUS is merely applying it There were hundreds of exemptions long before the Roberts court and the RFRA. Learn some history.

  26. I like how you said “Yeah, you know the one — about the Fundamentalist Christian…”, instead of “Yeah, you know the one — about the employee…”. I thought this was a website for HR, why are you using targeted language that could discriminate against certain kinds of people? Start inserting Fundamentalist Chrisitina with any other descripter like, ‘black’ or ‘homosexual’, it sounds kind of insensitive and bigoted.

  27. Just a minor point. I think this man is wrong. I have no trouble with writing down my SS number for all sorts of people. However, the law as it was written and still stands says that no one can demand your SS number for ID. Look it up.

    1. Employers are required to obtain your SSN by federal law, for tax reporting purposes. It’s not an ID thing, it’s a tax thing.

      1. Fine. I agree that the plaintiff had no case. However, that’s only one of the thousands of other instances where we use SS numbers as ID.

    2. The law regarding the use of the SSN has changed many times and has been required for identification for several programs.

  28. An employer and the IRS and banks are the ONLY legal entities to require SSN. All other s are for identification purposes- and at the bottom of MY original SS card it states. NOT FOR IDENTIFICATION PURPOSES.

  29. All employers ask for SS number when applying for a job. This is nothing new. I know I have had to supply the number so that employers can take out SS funds from paychecks and they also need that number for their portion of the premium that they also pay into. The number has nothing to do with religion. I don’t get it except that this person obviously has either the wrong information about it or is just a person who is off the wall. No one asks what religion you practice or if you don’t. This is never asked in interviews.

  30. Any ‘fundamentalist’ that wont provide their SSN to an EMPLOYER- doesnt deserve a job. The y should go back and re-read the scriptures or find someone who CAN read them.

    1. No darling, Anxiety Disorder has absolutely nothing to do with fundamentalism. I speak from personal experience as I have Anxiety Disorder but I have never been a fundamentalist… I’m not even christian, jewish or islamic.

  31. Unless your Social Security number is 666-66-6666, I don’t see how giving your Social Security number would give you the “mark of the beast”. This employer really dodged a bullet, though. If the applicant had not refused to give a Social Security number, this poor unsuspecting employer might have actually hired the “fundamentalist Christian” and then had to deal with this kind of nonsense every day.

    1. Eh, if they did that kind of thing every day after being hired, they’d likely get fired for harassment. Thank whatever god you like that courts have ruled repeatedly that harassment isn’t protected speech with respect to employment standards (you can’t generally be locked up for it, but you can sure as hell be kicked out of any place)

  32. I understand my third great grandma would go to the street corner and kick herself in the axx I guess you might think she was a bit religious? I think it is horriible to self punish yourself just try to stay rightous.

  33. There is a simple solution, work off the books and under the table for cash and avoid any means the government can use to track the money (no banks and such) and then you never have to ever use a SSN. But if the government requires it you must give it.

    1. Please, these nutbags already take a tax exemption for the money they throw at these churches,now you want them to get off tax free?

  34. Also a business owner who was allowing people who wanted with pay to take off for 2 hours Good Friday and someone else said those people aren’t even Catholic….so there you go that was too funny.

    1. Seems reasonable to me. With no caveat that they had to go to Good Friday Mass or some other church service, it’s perfectly allowed to do that (just as a VAST number of companies give Christmas off while paying for it, even if the employees aren’t Christian.
      Two paid hours off for a Holiday is a little odd, but paid time off for religious holidays in general has been the norm since the idea of paid holidays was a thing.

  35. The mark in the forehead is hold thinking in you mind that is contrary to the Word of God and the mark in the hand is doing the bidding of organized religions or contributing money to them. It is easy to tell if someone is sealed with the mark. Just give them the word test. They will take their own reasoning over the revealed truth and you know right quick here they stand.

  36. Mark of the Beast will come and is not going to be on social security or driver license will be on hands or foreheads .The way things goes makes every christian to be cautious its looks like our rights are taken away easily by liberals and persecution is already here .

    1. So funny how not being able to make everyone else cow-tow to your bronze-age superstitions is “taking away your rights,” and being expected to function as genuine citizens in our secular nation of laws is “persecution.”

      1. What is so funny to you, in Europe already start putting chips on hands and foreheads to people and even here to who ever wants it .

      2. I guess its easy to dismiss a particular type of persecution if you are not suffering from it. Does one have to be non-religious now to be a “genuine” citizen?

          1. 666 is the number of the beast’s name. There are also references to the “number of your name” i.e. an individual number associated with an individual, and the mark of the beast.

  37. We already are controlled by the state with our driver license ,with our social security ,our banks ,with our cell phones that they know everything about us and off course about our health . Pretty soon we are not going to be able to use paper money witch is going to be a disaster for all of us , what will be next is the chip.

  38. I am not seriously counseling assault, but someone should tattoo 666 on his forehead and maybe he will recognize that their are more serious problems in the world than SS numbers.

  39. It is time we stop treating religious beliefs as anything more than what they are. Antiquated myths that have no place in a modern society. If you want to believe that nonsense, fine. There should be no laws against that obviously. But no one else has to have the slightest respect for them, nor should others be prohibited from holding them in the contempt they deserve. “Mark of the Beast”. I mean really?

    1. So if we don’t agree with your Nazi way then we can say the same thing and we are the majority , it is time to put an end to all those Nazis who are a danger to our modern society .How do you feel about that smarty pants ?

      1. Uh oh, Godwin’s law on the first comment. And by the way, you are in no way the majority, just a very small, very vocal minority that does not represent the majority of Americans who identify as Christians.

      2. You do realize the majority of Nazis were devout Christians, right? And that the Vatican, as an independent country, was founded by Hitler’s buddy Mussolini? You’re arguing from an insanely weak position.
        I find Saxonsdad’s ultra-cynical view of religion excessive and a bit crude, but you’re doing a fine job validating it.

    2. The Constitution defends freedom of religious expression and practice. The courts and the law have granted conscientious objection under its guidelines since before there was a republic. You are ignorant of history and in violation of the Constitution.

      1. How is he ‘In Violation of the Constitution’? The constitution doesn’t require citizens to respect things or not hold people or ideas in contempt. The first amendment lets anyone be a total ass to anyone they want as long as it doesn’t cause harm or violate laws.
        A single person in fact can’t violate the constitution in any way unless they have some ability to make, pass, enforce, or adjudicate laws.

  40. We had a religious loon try and sue my wife’s small business because we demanded her SS#. She wrote a letter stating so. Took it to a lawyer and he said we can wipe our orifices with it. Hopefully in front of her as she had zero claim against a sole proprietor. He said we could fire her even for being ugly…which we did.

  41. All laws should simply ignore religion. Religion is a disease which damages rational thought and a free society.

  42. My Ex-wife’s religious beliefs demanded she lie on the couch, eat bon-bons, and watch TV. Too bad they didn’t forbid devorse.

  43. A social security number is for the Social Security Administration it is not ID it is not the business of the IRS or any law enforcement agency peroid

  44. The fact that the company probably had to pay lawyers tens of thousands of dollars to defend against this bogus claim is the real crime. That’s money the company can’t invest in growing the business or hiring more people. Only the lawyers win. Loser pays would work wonders to end this kind of BS

    1. Actually illegals can get an ITIN, and the IRS won’t turn them in. It is much easier for an illegal to pay taxes than it is for some religious minorities.

  45. I have no problem with this person refusing. HOWEVER, if you wish to receive certain benefits, such as a job, social security, any public benefits, etc., it is required. Feel free to refuse. You won’t get the job or benefits. Your choice.

    1. A job is not a benefit. Being able to work to make money to buy food is not a benefit. They existed long before SS.

      Welfare, social security, unemployment, all benefits, and yes, I can agree on that.

    1. Under SCOTUS guidelines and the Constitution, they would be banned from human sacrifice because it creates a serious danger to society.

      Next fantasy, please?

      1. Well…Breatharians sincerely believe people can survive on air and light. I don’t think any live long enough while holding to that belief to become a fundamentalist danger to others though.

    2. Actually, most didn’t. The cult of Quetzalcouatl, the most historically dominant, expressly forbade it. Claiming the Aztecs believed in human sacrifice is about like saying the US as a whole denies Jesus because there are a lot of non-Christians (who are still collectively a minority).

  46. The courts and laws have granted conscientious religious exemption for the entire history of the Republic and before. There are guidelines and restrictions on such exemptions and they must meet SCOTUS guidelines. That’s the law, that’s the Constitution and that’s SCOTUS doctrine.

    Those of you who say there should be no conscientious objection under those guidelines are in violation of the law, the Constitution and all SCOTUS doctrine.

    However, let’s say you are correct. Then you must expel members of various religious groups from the military and many civilian jobs for wearing the yarmulke or other religious headgear when other people can’t wear a hat. You must arrest every Amish parent and remove all Amish children to foster care because that’s what we do when parents refuse to send children to schools that are state approved and have a mandatory age for attendance several years longer than the Amish do. That’s a quarter of a million peopleYou must charge the Amish. You must compel people who are self employed and have a faith based refusal to either pay or accept SS. You must jail all conscientious objectors, hundreds of thousands or more every time we have a draft. Is that what you have in mind? Then you will permanently divide the country, create massive civil disobedience, and if you use violence or force to promote your treasonous ideas, you will start a civil war, which you will lose. About half my ancestors came to escape religious persecution. Another half came because life was better here. One came because he wanted to fight slavery, and won a Congressional Medal of Honor for doing so. We fought for freedom, including religious freedom, and if you think we’re just going to go aw gee and whine about it, learn to live with serious disappointment. You are attacking the most important freedom, the First Amendment, and every American tradition.

  47. While the plaintiff was obviously wrong in this case, the history of exemption on grounds of religious conscience is the rule in all of American history.

  48. ‘Specifically, it noted that “every circuit to consider the issue has applied one of the above two steps to hold that Title VII does not require an employer to reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs if such accommodation would violate a federal statute.”’

    Wait. Isn’t that exactly the opposite of the SCOTUS Hobby Lobby ruling?

    1. The key words here are reasonably accommodate. This case was decided on that basis. This is a lower court, and though their decision is almost certainly correct, the statement you quote is in violation of RFRA and current SCOTUS guidelines. One of them is that the plaintiff be a member of an historic denomination with that as doctrine. He did not meet that criteria. SCOTUS says conscientious objection must be granted if no reasonable accommodation can be reached or if the exemption would constitute a major danger to society. There are other less vital requirements, but those are the two this man did not meet. Hobby Lobby was decided on RFRA, the Constitution, and SCOTUS doctrine.

      1. Considering that Hobby Lobby was 5-4 and Justice Ginsburg gave a scathing dissent, I think your analysis is less rock solid than you think.

        1. His analysis is quite solid. A bad SCOTUS ruling is every bit as legally binding as a good one. The matter of Hobby Lobby was a shaky determination of what counts as reasonable accommodation. The same principal still holds. And its pretty hard to reasonably accommodate an unwillingness to offer proper tax documentation (especially when it’s just a string of ‘random’ numbers). The fact that 4 devout Catholics and a devout Yes-Man( who is also catholic, but more notable a Yes-Men) sided with a Catholic company is beyond ethically dubious, but still legal, in determining what is and is not reasonable. The SCOTUS could rule that the employer must accommodate his inexplicable refusal to offer needed tax info, it would just be bizarre for it to either get that far or for them to decide there’s a reasonable way to accommodate that.

  49. F’ em then. If they are that religious, they can seek employment elsewhere.

    Mark of the beast. Laughable, at best. The beast is the one taxing you to death.

  50. Part of the First Amendment says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,…” Since no religion can be recognized as, “The Official Religion,” all religions are treated equally. If any religion takes an action that renders itself superior or exercises supremacy over any other religion, that is a violation of the latter religion’s beliefs. As long as religions treat each other equally, freedom of religion is protected. The rest of the religion section of the first amendment says, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” refers to the freedom of conscience. The freedom of conscience is defined in several state constitutions as, “The right of an individual to worship God, without coercion, in any manner that that individual pleases. All ten amendments of the Bill of Rights are summaries of what some original states said in their state constitutions or their ratification certificates. In the Constitutional Convention, Ben Franklin was purported to have said, ” I am amazed that we have created a secular nation whose primary responsibility is to protect everyone’s freedom of religion. This is the America that the forefathers created. They created it this way because the Anglican Church was actively oppressing people because they did not believe in the Anglican religion. The Anglicans were tearing down other people’s church buildings and fining members of these other churches for not professing a belief in the Anglican Church. If a person did not go to an Anglican Church on Sunday, he or she was fined 50 pounds for not attending church.
    From 1783 to at least 1819, we actually had complete separation of Church and State. During that time, religion actually increased its influence on the people. More new religions were created. More people went to churches of their own choosing. More Church buildings were being built, and everyone respected everyone else’s beliefs, even though they didn’t believe in them. Complete separation of Church and State worked very well for the country, and it can do the same thing again. All we have o do is to do it.

  51. Since it used for tax purposes I don’t have any problems with a job application. I do have doubts when used for everything else.

  52. Ah, rational bigotry the last acceptable form of hatred. yes get your fill you can :make general claims, treat people of different beliefs like they are less than and claim that it is really they that are wrong because they believe in “GOD”. It’s the same as any other from of bigotry…you guys know that the freedom of speech thing protects you as well as the “religious nuts” right? So some numb nut wanted to go to court over something foolish So what? that what we have courts for. But if it wasn’t for the basic principles in the bill of rights we would not have the protections that allow you to function as free peoples. How is a guy not wanting to put his SSN number down shoving his beliefs in “your” faces? you sound just like the people that say that gay marriage is shoving the gay “agenda” in peoples faces, i mean gay marriage was illegal right? that was the law right? but somewhere along the way the principles elaborated in the bill of rights “accommodated” them. As it does with all of us. we are not subservient to the government and people need to test the governments boundaries often and with vigor.

  53. Here we go again with another religious thing again. Now we or some one will pay for the court costs again.

  54. What’s entirely funny about this case is that employers do not need Social Security numbers from their employees. Had this fellow cared to do any research (or just read the I-9 form) he could have avoided this mess.

    However, employers will fight you on not giving you SS# because they don’t know how to handle that situation. A passport is the only ID needed when filling out the I-9. Or one could use their driver’s license AND birth certificate. Either is easy and doesn’t require divulging an SS#.

    1. This comment confuses the issue. Yes, you can get hired without giving a Social Security number, but you can’t get paid by your employer unless you supply one. Employers and employees both pay into the Social Security Trust Fund in the form of a tax on wages. The employee gets a credit to their account so that, at some future date, they can draw Social Security benefits. None of that can happen without the employee supplying their Social Security number to their employer.

      So yes, you don’t need to give a Social Security number to get hired, but for all practical purposes, you can’t really work and get paid without supplying one. And, that’s the purpose of the number — to identify you in the Social Security system for benefits, and to credit your account when you pay into it. Why wouldn’t an employee want to give their employer their Social Security number so that can happen? And, an employer can’t pay you without it. Any discussion around supplying a Social Security number to your potential employer is incomplete without mentioning all of that.

      1. Actually you can get paid. It is possible the employer could get fined for not supplying a TIN, however if the failure was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect, that fine is waived.

        IRS publication 15 (Employer’s Tax Guide), Section 4, Employee’s Social Security Number, page 13 makes reference to IRS publication1586 for reasonable cause regulations and requirements for missing and incorrect TINs. Publication 1586, Part III: Reasonable Cause, on page 4 notes that, “The penalty may be waived by showing the failure (s) was due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect.”

        Even social security says that firing someone for a missing or mismatched TIN can violate the law.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *