Supreme Court backs religious freedom over restrictions!

[Tommy Callahan]

1 minute ago, Big Blitz said:

Omg

 

 

When she was being nominated. She responded to a question about Black Israelites and said they were just a small group of healthy eaters.

 

What happened to individuals Reeping the rewards of their good choices, and learning from the bad ones?

 

 

 

 

[KDIGGZ]

13 minutes ago, Chris farley said:

And as soon as the ruling came out. twitter was full of voices saying, "expand the courts", "there are ways around this ruling to maintain diversity."

 

LMAO

 

this is a very good ruling and a long time coming.

 

as good as the FDA finally removing aspartame from the market.

And the irony is that this was negatively impacting ASIAN Americans more than any other group. Don't they want to stop Asian hate? I thought that was a thing

[B-Man]

 

 

6  -  3  ruling

 

That means they will have to 'expand' to at least 13.

 

🤔

 

 

.

[B-Man]

 

 

Supreme Court hands religious freedom win to postal worker who refused to work on Sunday

Gerald Groff, a Christian mailman, said USPS should have accommodated his religious beliefs about work on Sundays

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled unanimously for a postal worker in Pennsylvania in an important religious liberty dispute, over how far employers should go to accommodate faith-based requests in the workplace.

 

Gerald Groff, a Christian mail carrier, from Pennsylvania, asked the court to decide if U.S. Postal Service could require him to deliver Amazon packages on Sundays, which he observes as the Sabbath. His attorney, Aaron Streett, argued in April that the court should revisit a 50-year-old precedent that established a test to determine when employers should make accommodations for their employees' religious practices.

 

In ruling for the government worker, the high court overturned its 1977 precedent that said employers had to "reasonably accommodate" an employee's religious beliefs and practices, so long as it did not create an "undue hardship" on the business.

 

 

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-hands-religious-freedom-win-postal-worker-refused-work-sunday

[boyst]

2 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Supreme Court hands religious freedom win to postal worker who refused to work on Sunday

Gerald Groff, a Christian mailman, said USPS should have accommodated his religious beliefs about work on Sundays

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled unanimously for a postal worker in Pennsylvania in an important religious liberty dispute, over how far employers should go to accommodate faith-based requests in the workplace.

 

Gerald Groff, a Christian mail carrier, from Pennsylvania, asked the court to decide if U.S. Postal Service could require him to deliver Amazon packages on Sundays, which he observes as the Sabbath. His attorney, Aaron Streett, argued in April that the court should revisit a 50-year-old precedent that established a test to determine when employers should make accommodations for their employees' religious practices.

 

In ruling for the government worker, the high court overturned its 1977 precedent that said employers had to "reasonably accommodate" an employee's religious beliefs and practices, so long as it did not create an "undue hardship" on the business.

 

 

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-hands-religious-freedom-win-postal-worker-refused-work-sunday

This could have a negative effect. Any religion, including the fictitious church of Satan (designed to mock religion but very real in their ability to organize). 

 

7th day Adventist not working on Saturday. Islamic folks not working during the fasting. Jews during Hanuka. There are many layers to this that could and SHOULD come into effect if all religions are equal. 

[Tommy Callahan]

6 minutes ago, boyst said:

7th day Adventist not working on Saturday. Islamic folks not working during the fasting. Jews during Hanuka. There are many layers to this that could and SHOULD come into effect if all religions are equal. 

OK. 

[The Frankish Reich]

12 minutes ago, boyst said:

This could have a negative effect. Any religion, including the fictitious church of Satan (designed to mock religion but very real in their ability to organize). 

 

7th day Adventist not working on Saturday. Islamic folks not working during the fasting. Jews during Hanuka. There are many layers to this that could and SHOULD come into effect if all religions are equal. 

Look, I don't disagree with how the Court handled this case under the law.

But you do make a good point: the Supreme Court here decided that negative impacts on other workers don't matter. So let's say I work on an assembly line. To operate properly you need 5 employees on duty at all times. The company has 10 employees; 5 of them are Orthodox Jews (this is an interesting assembly line ...). The Orthodox Jews cannot work on Saturdays. We bid, based on seniority, on work schedules. Everyone wants Saturday off. Guess what? If I'm one of the non-Jewish employees, I guess I'm working every Saturday.

So ... correct under the law, but maybe the law is a little too protective of religious rights?

[boyst]

1 minute ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Look, I don't disagree with how the Court handled this case under the law.

But you do make a good point: the Supreme Court here decided that negative impacts on other workers don't matter. So let's say I work on an assembly line. To operate properly you need 5 employees on duty at all times. The company has 10 employees; 5 of them are Orthodox Jews (this is an interesting assembly line ...). The Orthodox Jews cannot work on Saturdays. We bid, based on seniority, on work schedules. Everyone wants Saturday off. Guess what? If I'm one of the non-Jewish employees, I guess I'm working every Saturday.

So ... correct under the law, but maybe the law is a little too protective of religious rights?

I can't argue it is too protective.

 

I will argue that there is too much government in everyday life. The business should find a process in which they can operate to this condition.

 

Further, could/would a business then say Sunday work is a standard? Traditionally Sunday is not a workday across the board.

 

 

While this country should be tolerable of all religions, respect each communities rights there comes a point in which it could be too much or too far.  I'm not prepared to argue that or even ponder it. 

[The Frankish Reich]

31 minutes ago, boyst said:

While this country should be tolerable of all religions, respect each communities rights there comes a point in which it could be too much or too far.

I agree. In the thread about the affirmative action case, someone quoted Justice Thomas: there is no such thing as a policy that favors one race that doesn't disfavor some other race or races. 

 

The same thing applies here. The employer in the religious freedom case argued that favoring one set of workers (Christians who honor Sunday as a day of rest) necessarily means that some other workers (those that don't) have to work on what is traditionally a non-work day. A day that is also a day off for their families from work/school. The Supreme Court said "too bad, so sad." The law says you can make that religious Christian work on Sunday if giving him the day off causes a severe burden on the employer, but not on other employees. That's kind of what Justice Thomas was getting at - it's a law/policy that makes us feel good ("honor each individual's religious beliefs" - who could argue with that?) but we shouldn't pretend that it doesn't cost someone else.

 

I will note that the religion case is based on a federal statute, not directly on the constitution, so that's different. And Congress can rewrite a statute. They won't. But they should. The pendulum has swung too far in the direction of protecting the religious and against the interests of the nonreligious.

[boyst]

6 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

I agree. In the thread about the affirmative action case, someone quoted Justice Thomas: there is no such thing as a policy that favors one race that doesn't disfavor some other race or races. 

 

The same thing applies here. The employer in the religious freedom case argued that favoring one set of workers (Christians who honor Sunday as a day of rest) necessarily means that some other workers (those that don't) have to work on what is traditionally a non-work day. A day that is also a day off for their families from work/school. The Supreme Court said "too bad, so sad." The law says you can make that religious Christian work on Sunday if giving him the day off causes a severe burden on the employer, but not on other employees. That's kind of what Justice Thomas was getting at - it's a law/policy that makes us feel good ("honor each individual's religious beliefs" - who could argue with that?) but we shouldn't pretend that it doesn't cost someone else.

 

I will note that the religion case is based on a federal statute, not directly on the constitution, so that's different. And Congress can rewrite a statute. They won't. But they should. The pendulum has swung too far in the direction of protecting the religious and against the interests of the nonreligious.

Re the latter

 

That is starting to ripple over to other arguments we notice. That the double standard is exposed to protect those that are not status quo. 

 

I believe many would be disappointed to find out this verdict endorses companies to shut down for Ramadan.

[The Frankish Reich]

1 minute ago, boyst said:

I believe many would be disappointed to find out this verdict endorses companies to shut down for Ramadan.

Not purely theoretical.

Back in the Bush 43 years, Immigration raided a bunch of meat packing plants. They found thousands of illegal Mexican and Guatemalan workers. All were fired.

Guess what the company did? They started recruiting in African refugee communities. All those jobs were filled by Somali (Muslim) refugees.

Setting aside whether these raids were wise from a policy perspective ... you now have lines composed almost entirely of observant Muslims, all with the same religious restrictions ....

 

[boyst]

3 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Not purely theoretical.

Back in the Bush 43 years, Immigration raided a bunch of meat packing plants. They found thousands of illegal Mexican and Guatemalan workers. All were fired.

Guess what the company did? They started recruiting in African refugee communities. All those jobs were filled by Somali (Muslim) refugees.

Setting aside whether these raids were wise from a policy perspective ... you now have lines composed almost entirely of observant Muslims, all with the same religious restrictions ....

 

i've noticed this when i take in cattle for harvest.

 

the skill of cutting meat is quite interesting - and some of these dudes look rough af and half dead.

[B-Man]

 

 

Freedom.

 

 

 

 

.

[Tommy Callahan]

1 minute ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Freedom.

 

 

 

 

.

And now the goal post get moved and we are told private companies cannot do as they want.

 

 

[The Frankish Reich]

1 minute ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Freedom.

 

 

 

 

.

We're getting something that sounds kind of ... sensible?

The Supreme Court is drawing a blurry line, but at least a line.

- I own an auto repair shop: state laws banning discrimination are fine. There's no "speech" or artistic expression in fixing a car.

- I am a florist. Gay couple wants me to do a special arrangement celebrating their marriage, with some kind of "expression" (those creepy bride/groom figures, but with two grooms). You can't make me create "art" celebrating something I disagree with.

- I am a florist. Gay couple comes in, says they want a floral arrangement for their daughter's graduation. No artistic expression celebrating the gay relationship there; just celebrating the graduation. Make the damn arrangement.

 

 

[boyst]

2 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

We're getting something that sounds kind of ... sensible?

The Supreme Court is drawing a blurry line, but at least a line.

- I own an auto repair shop: state laws banning discrimination are fine. There's no "speech" or artistic expression in fixing a car.

- I am a florist. Gay couple wants me to do a special arrangement celebrating their marriage, with some kind of "expression" (those creepy bride/groom figures, but with two grooms). You can't make me create "art" celebrating something I disagree with.

- I am a florist. Gay couple comes in, says they want a floral arrangement for their daughter's graduation. No artistic expression celebrating the gay relationship there; just celebrating the graduation. Make the damn arrangement.

 

 

If you're both of those you're clearly good with your hands 

[The Frankish Reich]

1 minute ago, boyst said:

If you're both of those you're clearly good with your hands 

Good thing I didn't get to my 3rd hypothetical, in which I'm a landscape architect ...

[boyst]

Just now, The Frankish Reich said:

Good thing I didn't get to my 3rd hypothetical, in which I'm a landscape architect ...

Never trust a man in trades with clean hands.

[Tenhigh]

58 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Good thing I didn't get to my 3rd hypothetical, in which I'm a landscape architect ...

Hey, my kid is going to school for that!

[The Frankish Reich]

3 minutes ago, Tenhigh said:

Hey, my kid is going to school for that!

Well, if your kid refuses to make one of those topiary things with two persons of the same sex holding hands, I guess we'll have another test case!

(I kind of wish I'd gone down that path ... landscape architect, that is)

[Tenhigh]

1 hour ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Well, if your kid refuses to make one of those topiary things with two persons of the same sex holding hands, I guess we'll have another test case!

(I kind of wish I'd gone down that path ... landscape architect, that is)

Knowing my teen, he probably would instead make a hot dog and an doughnut to @#$@ the people off. 

[B-Man]

 

Sigh.

 

 

Fetterman claims Supreme Court purposely ruled during Pride Month to hurt gay people

 

We knew today would provide a plethora of additions to the bad tweet pile, but it feels like leftists are working overtime.

 

 

 

Isn’t it required for you to understand the constitution of the United States?

 

Didn’t you take the oath to protect it?

 

 

 

 

 

https://twitchy.com/justmindy/2023/06/30/john-fetterman-last-day-of-pride-month-supreme-court-made-up-case-n2384998

[The Frankish Reich]

10 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

Sigh.

 

 

Fetterman claims Supreme Court purposely ruled during Pride Month to hurt gay people

 

We knew today would provide a plethora of additions to the bad tweet pile, but it feels like leftists are working overtime.

 

 

 

Isn’t it required for you to understand the constitution of the United States?

 

Didn’t you take the oath to protect it?

 

 

 

 

 

https://twitchy.com/justmindy/2023/06/30/john-fetterman-last-day-of-pride-month-supreme-court-made-up-case-n2384998

OK, now that's a stupid hot take.

I mean, the Supreme Court term has ended on June 30 since forever. If they had issued it in May he would've said "they just wanted to spoil everyone's upcoming Pride Month.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

[Tommy Callahan]

1 minute ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

another summer of rage?

[B-Man]

 

Justice Neil Gorsuch has an absolute banger closing in 303 CREATIVE LLC v. ELENIS:

 

"The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands."

 

 

[The Frankish Reich]

22 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

Correct.

It's annoying when the media (and here we go: both sides! depends on who won/lost an individual case) consistently misrepresent what they really said.

[B-Man]

 

 

Same dodge that the Left tried with the bakery.

 

He did not refuse to bake for Gays, he did not wish to be involved in a gay ceremony.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Kemp]

18 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

 

Same dodge that the Left tried with the bakery.

 

He did not refuse to bake for Gays, he did not wish to be involved in a gay ceremony.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wondering who said these things?

Can someone point me to where anyone has said parents can't instill values into their children?

[BillStime]

18 hours ago, B-Man said:

He did not refuse to bake for Gays, he did not wish to be involved in a gay ceremony.

[B-Man]

 

 

JOHN HINDERAKER: Supreme Court Defends Freedom of Speech. 

 

“Justice Gorsuch devotes the final seven pages of his opinion to dissecting the dissent by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/06/supreme-court-defends-freedom-of-speech.php

[BillStime]

The irony of fabricating an entire “case” for religious “freedom.”

 

This party is corrupt AF.

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

From the Gorsuch opinion for the majority:

 

Like many States, Colorado has a law forbidding businesses from engaging in discrimination when they sell goods and services to the public. Laws along these lines have done much to secure the civil rights of all Americans. But in this particular case Colorado does not just seek to ensure the sale of goods or services on equal terms. It seeks to use its law to compel an individual to create speech she does not believe. The question we face is whether that course violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

 

Ms. Smith... has never created expressions that contradict her own views for anyone—whether that means generating works that encourage violence, demean another person, or defy her religious beliefs by, say, promoting atheism.... Ms. Smith does not wish to do otherwise now, but she worries... that, if she enters the wedding website business, the State will force her to convey messages inconsistent with her belief that marriage should be reserved to unions between one man and one woman....

 

Today, however, the dissent abandons what this Court’s cases have recognized time and time again: A commitment to speech for only some messages and some persons is no commitment at all. By approving a government’s effort to “[e]liminat[e]” disfavored “ideas,”  today’s dissent is emblematic of an unfortunate tendency by some to defend First Amendment values only when they find the speaker’s message sympathetic. But “[i]f liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

 

In this case, Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance. In the past, other States in Barnette, Hurley, and Dale have similarly tested the First Amendment’s boundaries by seeking to compel speech they thought vital at the time. But, as this Court has long held, the opportunity to think for ourselves and to express those thoughts freely is among our most cherished liberties and part of what keeps our Republic strong. Of course, abiding the Constitution’s commitment to the freedom of speech means all of us will encounter ideas we consider “unattractive,” , “misguided, or even hurtful,”  But tolerance, not coercion, is our Nation’s answer. The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands.

 

 

https://althouse.blogspot.com/2023/06/the-court-holds-that-first-amendment.html#more

[B-Man]

 

AMERICAN HEROES THEN AND NOW:

 

If you’re not familiar with web site designer Lori Smith and postal carrier Gerald Groff, you should be because we all owe them thanks for having the guts and courage to stand up and fight the good fight all the way to the Supreme Court.

 

https://lc.org/newsroom/details/070323-uncompromising-faith-of-americas-founders-is-alive-today

[BillStime]

On 7/2/2023 at 11:56 AM, B-Man said:

 

 

 

From the Gorsuch opinion for the majority:

 

Like many States, Colorado has a law forbidding businesses from engaging in discrimination when they sell goods and services to the public. Laws along these lines have done much to secure the civil rights of all Americans. But in this particular case Colorado does not just seek to ensure the sale of goods or services on equal terms. It seeks to use its law to compel an individual to create speech she does not believe. The question we face is whether that course violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

 

Ms. Smith... has never created expressions that contradict her own views for anyone—whether that means generating works that encourage violence, demean another person, or defy her religious beliefs by, say, promoting atheism.... Ms. Smith does not wish to do otherwise now, but she worries... that, if she enters the wedding website business, the State will force her to convey messages inconsistent with her belief that marriage should be reserved to unions between one man and one woman....

 

Today, however, the dissent abandons what this Court’s cases have recognized time and time again: A commitment to speech for only some messages and some persons is no commitment at all. By approving a government’s effort to “[e]liminat[e]” disfavored “ideas,”  today’s dissent is emblematic of an unfortunate tendency by some to defend First Amendment values only when they find the speaker’s message sympathetic. But “[i]f liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

 

In this case, Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance. In the past, other States in Barnette, Hurley, and Dale have similarly tested the First Amendment’s boundaries by seeking to compel speech they thought vital at the time. But, as this Court has long held, the opportunity to think for ourselves and to express those thoughts freely is among our most cherished liberties and part of what keeps our Republic strong. Of course, abiding the Constitution’s commitment to the freedom of speech means all of us will encounter ideas we consider “unattractive,” , “misguided, or even hurtful,”  But tolerance, not coercion, is our Nation’s answer. The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands.

 

 

https://althouse.blogspot.com/2023/06/the-court-holds-that-first-amendment.html#more

What a bunch of bulllshit

 

 

[B-Man]

 

WILL THE SUPREME COURT DISMANTLE THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE?

 

As I have written more than once, the government we live under is not the one described in the Constitution. The ubiquitous and powerful arm of our government, found nowhere in the Constitution, is the Fourth Branch, the plethora of federal agencies, the administrative state.

 

The administrative state has assumed much of the power that the Constitution assigns to the legislative and executive branches, a development that has progressed now for more than a century without serious challenge.

 

Do we finally have a Supreme Court willing to take on the unelected Fourth Branch and restore a government that looks more like the one that is outlined in the Constitution?

 

That is a lot to hope for. But next term, the Court has agreed to hear SEC v. Jarkesy, a case that raises one of the fundamental issues spotlighted by Professor Philip Hamburger in his seminal book Is Administrative Law Unlawful?–the combination of investigative and judicial powers in federal agencies. 
 

The fundamental constitutional problem is that the SEC combines enforcement and judicial power, acting as prosecutor, judge and jury. This constitutional danger was underscored last month by the SEC’s disclosure that its enforcement staff had improperly gained access to information intended for commission officials who were adjudicating cases. This included information about Mr. Jarkesy.

The Fifth Circuit ruled in Mr. Jarkesy’s favor last May. The case gives the Supreme Court an opportunity to continue the process of whittling the administrative state down to size. And, who knows, perhaps one day restoring the government that the Founders thought they were founding.

 

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2023/07/will-the-supreme-court-dismantle-the-administrative-state.php

[B-Man]

 

 

Supreme Court Delivered on Workplace Religious Accommodation. It's Up to Employers to Respond

by Michael Ross

 

With major rulings on affirmative action, student loan “forgiveness,” and free speech, it’s safe to say the most recent term at the U.S. Supreme Court ended with a bang. But among the fireworks at the high court, it would be easy to underestimate the importance of the court’s unanimous ruling in Groff v. DeJoy. That ruling requires employers to provide stronger religious accommodations in the workplace for employees of all faiths under a federal law known as Title VII. 

 

In 2012, Gerald Groff was hired by the United States Postal Service as a mail carrier—a position which, at the time, did not conflict with his religious conviction that he take Sundays off for worship and rest. The next year, however, the USPS began to occasionally deliver mail on Sundays, and it wasn’t long before Groff reached a crossroads between the demands of his job and his deeply held religious convictions.

Groff did everything he could to walk the line between his faith and work, including transferring to a small rural post office that didn’t deliver mail on Sundays. But when that location also started making Sunday deliveries, Groff received “progressive discipline,” eventually prompting him to submit his resignation in 2019.

Why was Groff chased from his employment? Because the USPS considered it overly burdensome to accommodate his religious views.

 

https://townhall.com/columnists/michaelross/2023/07/10/supreme-court-delivered-on-workplace-religious-accommodation-its-up-to-employers-to-respond-n2625496

 

 

.

[BillStime]

Here we go - the license to discriminate has been administered.

 

 

[JaCrispy]

3 hours ago, BillStime said:

Here we go - the license to discriminate has been administered.

 

 

Hmmm…this will be an interesting one…

[BillStime]

11 minutes ago, JaCrispy said:

Hmmm…this will be an interesting one…

The court opened up Pandoras box and it will backfire on everyone.