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)