Contridictory SCOTUS rulings

[MinTrut]

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.

Numerous protections apply.

The Christian must accommodate the Jew, the Jew the Muslim, the Muslim the Buddhist & so on.

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

See above.

Numerous & overlapping protections apply.

 

[MinTrut]

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.

No; this is an absurd argument.

But I do disagree with the Court on the cake thing; if you bake cakes with messages on them, bake the frickin' cake.

I get the Court's reasoning in holding religion sacrosanct, but disagree with it cakewise.

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

She and you would have my full support if this is a core Wiccan value, but while every effort should be made to accommodate her, she works in a life/death profession, so may not encounter the same flexibility that a hardware store (for instance) would likely be able to offer.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Numerous protections apply.

The Christian must accommodate the Jew, the Jew the Muslim, the Muslim the Buddhist & so on.

See above.

Numerous & overlapping protections apply.

Yes, I understand that is how they ruled. I do not agree with it, is that ok? Or are we no longer allowed to disagree with the SCOTUS?

 

[toobfreak]

Contridictory SCOTUS rulings​

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

Sorry, wrong, buttercup. The SC ruled that a person's right to practice their religion is protected (which they shouldn't have to rule on as it is already enumerated in the Constitution), but that right does not extend to usurping the rights of others. But concomitantly, not only does a business have the right to conduct its reasonable business practices as it sees fit, but no one has the right to force their views or beliefs onto others, especially if found offensive.

So while a business should make reasonable accomodations to allow for employees to practice their faith, if you want to be gay, that is your choice, not a religion but a behavior, but don't expect the whole world to bend over and kiss your ass for it.

 

[MinTrut]

Yes, I understand that is how they ruled.

Good.

I do not agree with it, is that ok?

Fine with me.

Or are we no longer allowed to disagree with the SCOTUS?

NOW you're either trolling or being dense.

You posited that the rulings contradicted one another; this is the topic.

The topic is not whether you have the right to disagree with their rulings, or find them contradictory.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The SC ruled that a person's right to practice their religion is protected (which they shouldn't have to rule on as it is already enumerated in the Constitution),

Yes, the Constitution protects a person's right to practice their religion from the Government. That is the only thing the 1st applies to. That is why private entities do not have to allow free speech on their property if they do not wish to

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You posited that the rulings contradicted one another; this is the topic.

The topic is not whether you have the right to disagree with their rulings, or find them contradictory.

I disagree, I find them to be contradictory.

You have your view, I have mine.

I doubt we will change each others mind

 

[Couchpotato]

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"

One was based on freedom of religion the other on freedom of expression.

The only reason anyone is talking about these cases is because they involve Christianity.

If someone walked int a Muslim baker and wanted them to bake a cake of Muhammad and they refused the court would have voted 9-0 in favor of the baker.

If the post office told a Jewish man he couldn’t wear his yarmulke no one would question it.

 

[Blaster]

If your religion interferes with your job, get a different job.

My company accomodates people of faith.

 

[struth]

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.

True, but the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does, and it has been held to be Constitutional. So, you know...there is that.

 

[fncceo]

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.

If Congress passes a law that says a private person can restrict the religious observances of another, they are, by proxy, violating the 1st Amendment.

Basically, outsourcing a violation of The Constitution.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

If Congress passes a law that says a private person can restrict the religious observances of another, they are, by proxy, violating the 1st Amendment.

Basically, outsourcing a violation of The Constitution.

No such law is necessary as it is the default position. What Congress had to do was pass a law saying they could not since the Constitution does not forbid it.

 

[struth]

No such law is necessary as it is the default position. What Congress had to do was pass a law saying they could not since the Constitution does not forbid it.

what's your point? they did, and the law they passed is Constitutional...unless you are trying to argue that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is illegal and should be overturned....is that what you are saying?

 

[MinTrut]

I disagree, I find them to be contradictory.

But they're not.

You can disagree with them, but you don't seem to understand what they were based on.

You have your view, I have mine.

Yes.

I doubt we will change each others mind

Concur.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

But they're not.

You can disagree with them, but you don't seem to understand what they were based on.

Yes, I understand that is your opinion.

I just happen to disagree with it.

 

[struth]

Yes, I understand that is your opinion.

I just happen to disagree with it.

it’s not his opinion…it’s fact. They don’t contradict one another at all

you can disagee with that fact, but that just means you are wrong

 

[OKTexas]

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?

If you can show there would be a substantial cost to you, they don't.

.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

If you can show there would be a substantial cost to you, they don't.

.

Why should that be necessary. Why should someone have to do that and not just say "I do not give a fuck about your religion, do the job or find a different job"?

 

[dblack]

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"

That's how Roberts' rolls. He goes both ways dontcha know.

 

[OKTexas]

Why should that be necessary. Why should someone have to do that and not just say "I do not give a fuck about your religion, do the job or find a different job"?

Because federal and most State laws says you can't do that, put on your big boy pants and deal with it.

.