Thomas works in a non-military operation of a large oporation that does both non

Question

Thomas works in a non-military operation of a large oporation that does both non-military and military goods. This company discontinued the production of non-military goods and transfered Thomas to a plant that produced military goods. Thomas left his job and claimed it violated his religious principles in the manufacture of goods that will be used in destroying life. He argued that the transfer forced him to quit his job. He was denied unemployment compensation by the state because he has not been effectively "discharged" by the employer but had voluntarily terminated his employment. Did the states denial of unemployment benifits to Thomas violate the free exercise clause of the first amendment?

Explanation / Answer

Free excise clause of first amendment

We know that fist excise clause is the right of american citizen to believe any religioun and religious rituals. Under this act citizen are protected from the opinion, expression of opinion, and practice of religious rituals. Above question is concluded that Thomas are protected from the state of religious believes. But the state has denied the unemployment benefit because of the religious believes. So the state has violated Thomas's right. Initially he working in a Non military goods producing department. It give him job satisfaction. But finally the employer transfered him to Military goods producing department. Actually it is against Thomas religious believes.

This the cause of Thomas was left from his job. So the employer must produce compensation to him. Because he always protected from his religious believe. So state must contribute unemployment beneefit to the Thomas.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse T
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.