Contridictory SCOTUS rulings

[dudmuck]

You don't understand the constitution.

 

[blackhawk]

Interesting point.
I don't know.
For the mail carrier - was Sundays always a part of the job description and he was just always given them off? If yes, then I would agree: tough shit. Is it, on the other hand, a new requirement? Then he might have a point.
As for the web designer - if he/she doesn't want to design a web page for event/ behavior they disapprove of,
just go to another web designer and shut the fuck up.

Exactly rather it is the web designer a baker or florist there are plenty in these fields who will be happy to take your money and give what you want.

 

[SweetSue92]

Supreme Court solidifies protections for workers who ask for religious accommodations

The court made clear that businesses must cite more than minor costs to reject requests for religious accommodations at work.

www.politico.com

Supreme Court rules for web designer who refused to work on same-sex weddings

In a blow to LGBTQ rights, the court said creative businesses can refuse to sell certain products and services if they disagree with the message the customer wishes to convey.

www.nbcnews.com

So, two rulings.

1. A business can be forced to provide religious accommodations.

2. A business cannot be forced to preform work that goes against their religious views.

In one ruling the SCOTUS said it is not the Govt job to force a business to do something, and in the other ruling they said it is the Govt's job to force a business to do something.

Seems one of these contradicts the other one.

I am all for a business going "yep, I wont make that website/cake/etc" but I am also all for a business going "I don't give a fuck about your religion, work the hours or find a new job"

Mac, it's the govt JOB to protect the First Amendment--freedom of religion. That's a fundamental function.

 

[OKTexas]

Supreme Court solidifies protections for workers who ask for religious accommodations

The court made clear that businesses must cite more than minor costs to reject requests for religious accommodations at work.

www.politico.com

Supreme Court rules for web designer who refused to work on same-sex weddings

In a blow to LGBTQ rights, the court said creative businesses can refuse to sell certain products and services if they disagree with the message the customer wishes to convey.

www.nbcnews.com

So, two rulings.

1. A business can be forced to provide religious accommodations.

2. A business cannot be forced to preform work that goes against their religious views.

In one ruling the SCOTUS said it is not the Govt job to force a business to do something, and in the other ruling they said it is the Govt's job to force a business to do something.

Seems one of these contradicts the other one.

I am all for a business going "yep, I wont make that website/cake/etc" but I am also all for a business going "I don't give a fuck about your religion, work the hours or find a new job"

The major difference I see is the first case was a unanimous decision, and religious accommodations can span a wide variety of things. Like allowing muslims time to pray or a Sikh to wear a turban in a police uniform, to allowing time off for traditional religious services and observances. Basically all the ruling said is there has to be more than a minimal cost for a business to justify refusing an accommodation.

That is completely different from requiring a business to develop unique creative content for a cause they firmly disagree with. Kind of like telling a faghadist t-shirt printing business they have to create anti-fag shirts.

Hope that helps cure your deliberate ignorance.

.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

, it's the govt JOB to protect the First Amendment--freedom of religion. That's a fundamental function.

Holy fuck, how can you be a school teacher and have never read the 1st amendment?

The First Amendment protects religion from the government, not the other way around. The 1st does not apply to private citizens. No where in the 1st does it say I cannot establish a religion or prohibiting its free exercise of one.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The major difference I see is the first case was a unanimous decision, and religious accommodations can span a wide variety of things. Like allowing muslims time to pray or a Sikh to wear a turban in a police uniform, to allowing time off for traditional religious services and observances. Basically all the ruling said is there has to be more than a minimal cost for a business to justify refusing an accommodation.

Yes, I know what the ruling says, I do not agree it is the Govt's place to force those things upon an private employer. If your religion interferes with your job, get a different job. Why should the Govt force me to give a fuck about your religion if you happen to be my employee?

 

[struth]

Supreme Court solidifies protections for workers who ask for religious accommodations

The court made clear that businesses must cite more than minor costs to reject requests for religious accommodations at work.

www.politico.com

Supreme Court rules for web designer who refused to work on same-sex weddings

In a blow to LGBTQ rights, the court said creative businesses can refuse to sell certain products and services if they disagree with the message the customer wishes to convey.

www.nbcnews.com

So, two rulings.

1. A business can be forced to provide religious accommodations.

2. A business cannot be forced to preform work that goes against their religious views.

In one ruling the SCOTUS said it is not the Govt job to force a business to do something, and in the other ruling they said it is the Govt's job to force a business to do something.

Seems one of these contradicts the other one.

I am all for a business going "yep, I wont make that website/cake/etc" but I am also all for a business going "I don't give a fuck about your religion, work the hours or find a new job"

if you took the time to read the opinions instead of headlines from your propaganda it you’d know they don’t contradict one another at all

 

[fncceo]

Feel free to show me the part of the Constitution that says a business owner must give in to the whims of their employees religions views.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

If Congress were allowed to pass a law prohibiting or restricting a person's free exercise of their religion, even by a third party, they would be in violation of the 1st Amendment.

 

[SweetSue92]

Holy fuck, how can you be a school teacher and have never read the 1st amendment?

The First Amendment protects religion from the government, not the other way around. The 1st does not apply to private citizens. No where in the 1st does it say I cannot establish a religion or prohibiting its free exercise of one.

Congress has already stuck it's nose, head, and pretty much entire body into labor law. They regulate entirely too much, so now we are at the point where they have to regulate employers forcing people to work on religious holidays.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

If Congress were allowed to pass a law prohibiting or restricting a person's free exercise of their religion, even by a third party, they would be in violation of the 1st Amendment.

No such law is necessary, as the 1st in no way says that a private business should be forced to give a fuck about their employee's religious needs.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Congress has already stuck it's nose, head, and pretty much entire body into labor law. They regulate entirely too much, so now we are at the point where they have to regulate employers forcing people to work on religious holidays.

So, your view now is that since they do it so damn much, why does it matter if they do it more.

And you pretend to have libertarian leanings!

 

[SweetSue92]

So, your view now is that since they do it so damn much, why does it matter if they do it more.

And you pretend to have libertarian leanings!

No, if they regulate down to what kind of gloves custodians use to clean up kid's vomit....maybe they could do some things actually in the Bill of Rights. You know, like look out for our very basic freedoms.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

No, if they regulate down to what kind of gloves custodians use to clean up kid's vomit....maybe they could do some things actually in the Bill of Rights. You know, like look out for our very basic freedoms.

What if recognizing another religion a valid is against the deeply held religious beliefs of the owner? Should they still be forced to give a fuck about your religion?

Your employer is not there to offer you and basic freedoms, unless you work for the Govt I suppose, they are there to provide you a livelihood. If you do not like their rules, find a different job. Nobody has the right to a specific job.

 

[MinTrut]

Supreme Court solidifies protections for workers who ask for religious accommodations

The court made clear that businesses must cite more than minor costs to reject requests for religious accommodations at work.

www.politico.com

Supreme Court rules for web designer who refused to work on same-sex weddings

In a blow to LGBTQ rights, the court said creative businesses can refuse to sell certain products and services if they disagree with the message the customer wishes to convey.

www.nbcnews.com

So, two rulings.

1. A business can be forced to provide religious accommodations.

2. A business cannot be forced to preform work that goes against their religious views.

In one ruling the SCOTUS said it is not the Govt job to force a business to do something, and in the other ruling they said it is the Govt's job to force a business to do something.

Seems one of these contradicts the other one.

I am all for a business going "yep, I wont make that website/cake/etc" but I am also all for a business going "I don't give a fuck about your religion, work the hours or find a new job"

I can't tell if you're being serious or trolling, but I'll assume the former, as at your best, you can be an excellent poster.

There is no contradiction.

In both cases, the Court has held that religious freedom is a core value, and must be respected.

 

[SweetSue92]

What if recognizing another religion a valid is against the deeply held religious beliefs of the owner? Should they still be forced to give a fuck about your religion?

Your employer is not there to offer you and basic freedoms, unless you work for the Govt I suppose, they are there to provide you a livelihood. If you do not like their rules, find a different job. Nobody has the right to a specific job.

Well it seems as though you've lost this one, yes? Why are you arguing with me about it? It went to the highest court in the land and they decided that an employer has to accommodate REASONABLE requests. So whatever: cope and seethe

 

[SweetSue92]

I can't tell if you're being serious or trolling, but I'll assume the former, as at your best, you can be an excellent poster.

There is no contradiction.

In both cases, the Court has held that religious freedom is a core value, and must be respected.

He used to be more reasonable, but lately is just a mid-level rent troll...and the rent goes down daily.

 

[MinTrut]

The needs of an employer change over time. My wife was hired as Day Shift RN, and she is still made to work two weeks of night shifts every so often. Should she be able to get out of this due to some religious views about working after dark?

Every effort should be made to accommodate her, yes.

 

[MinTrut]

What if recognizing another religion a valid is against the deeply held religious beliefs of the owner? Should they still be forced to give a fuck about your religion?

They needn't GAF, but they must make every reasonable effort to accommodate.

Your employer is not there to offer you and basic freedoms, unless you work for the Govt I suppose, they are there to provide you a livelihood. If you do not like their rules, find a different job. Nobody has the right to a specific job.

Holy crap.

You REALLY don't get how basic protections work...

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Every effort should be made to accommodate her, yes.

I just do not agree. The 1st does not apply to a private employer. There is nothing in the 1st amendment that gives the Govt the power to make an employer give a fuck about an employees religion.

I can't tell if you're being serious or trolling, but I'll assume the former, as at your best, you can be an excellent poster.

There is no contradiction.

In both cases, the Court has held that religious freedom is a core value, and must be respected.

I am dead serious. I do not think the 1st amendment applies to private entities.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

They needn't GAF, but they must make every reasonable effort to accommodate.

And by forcing them to make every reasonable effort to accommodate they are being forced to give a fuck just as much as the baker would be if they were forced to make the cake they do not wish to make.

But hey, I think I am going to have my wife switch to Wiccan and demand every full moon off.