SCOTUS Stupidity

[Dekster]

This has nothing to do with the First Amendment – the Free Exercise Clause concerns solely the relationship between government and those governed, not between or among private persons and private entities; in this case between a private employer and employee.

This case concerns the provision of the CRA prohibiting employers from discriminating against employees because of their religion – such as employers refusing to hire Jewish employees or firing an employee because he’s a Muslim.

But the courts have recognized a limit to the extent an employee must accommodate an employee’s religious beliefs, such as placing an undue burden on the ability of a business to function, and appropriately so.

Unfortunately this conservative Court, obsessed with subjecting private employers to the tyranny of religious dogma, will likely rule in favor of Goff, hidden behind the façade of ‘religious liberty.’

The United State Postal Service is owned by the United States Government and is not a "private employer" by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Dekster]

Look for yet another bad decision from the Supremes:

Supreme Court showdown over Sabbath could change workplaces across US

A former U.S. postal worker is asking the Supreme Court to require employers to be more accommodating of religiously observant workers

abcnews.go.com

The idea that an employer should be required to accommodate the religious practices of employees is ridiculous, and as a law is a direct violation of the First Amendment. It's part of the inversion - decimation - of individual rights. We're moving away from equal rights, that apply to everyone, to special rights for special people - identity politics.

If this were Walmart, I would agree. It is not. It is a government owned entity.

 

[dblack]

If this were Walmart, I would agree. It is not. It is a government owned entity.

That's a hair to split, I suppose, and I sort of agree - but the general assumption is that the ruling will apply to private businesses as well. That's overreach.

 

[TNHarley]

Slow it down. We have no idea how they will rule on this.

 

[struth]

Look for yet another bad decision from the Supremes:

Supreme Court showdown over Sabbath could change workplaces across US

A former U.S. postal worker is asking the Supreme Court to require employers to be more accommodating of religiously observant workers

abcnews.go.com

The idea that an employer should be required to accommodate the religious practices of employees is ridiculous, and as a law is a direct violation of the First Amendment. It's part of the inversion - decimation - of individual rights. We're moving away from equal rights, that apply to everyone, to special rights for special people - identity politics.

No its not, and in fact it's settled Federal law, as your article highlights.

Federal law requires employers to accommodate the religious beliefs of workers unless it would impose an "undue hardship" on business -- a standard the Supreme Court interpreted 46 years ago to mean anything more than a "de minimis cost."

The only issue in this case is if accomadating the man, and making him work on Sundays, was an unreasonable cost. Interesting, as the article highlights, for years it wasn't an issue...the mail doesn't run on Sundays....that was until the USPS contracted with Bezos, and now they have to deliver for Amazon.

 

[dblack]

No its not, and in fact it's settled Federal law, as your article highlights.

Federal law requires employers to accommodate the religious beliefs of workers unless it would impose an "undue hardship" on business -- a standard the Supreme Court interpreted 46 years ago to mean anything more than a "de minimis cost."

We're all aware of what the law is. The discussion is about whether it should be a law.

The only issue in this case is if accomadating the man, and making him work on Sundays, was an unreasonable cost.

No, there are plenty of other issues. In particular, whether the government has any business forcing us to "accommodate" others against our will. This is a flawed approach to civil liberties which actually undermines equal rights.

Interesting, as the article highlights, for years it wasn't an issue...the mail doesn't run on Sundays....that was until the USPS contracted with Bezos, and now they have to deliver for Amazon.

Why do you find that interesting?

 

[struth]

We're all aware of what the law is. The discussion is about whether it should be a law.

No, there are plenty of other issues. In particular, whether the government has any business forcing us to "accommodate" others against our will. This is a flawed approach to civil liberties which actually undermines equal rights.

Why do you find that interesting?

1) why shouldn't it be the law?
2) yes the Govt has business in making sure people's civil rights aren't violated. As the article highlights the Civil Rights Act makes it illegal to discriminate against people based on their race, gender, national orgin, or creed (religion)
3) I just find it interesting how the USPS changed their practices for one company....and that of course started the issue....moreover, how it didn't become an issue for over a year.

 

[dblack]

1) why shouldn't it be the law?

Because it violates fundamental liberty and equal protection.

2) yes the Govt has business in making sure people's civil rights aren't violated. As the article highlights the Civil Rights Act makes it illegal to discriminate against people based on their race, gender, national orgin, or creed (religion)

The Civil Rights Act was the beginning of the problem. It set bad precedent. It was a mistake.

3) I just find it interesting how the USPS changed their practices for one company....and that of course started the issue....moreover, how it didn't become an issue for over a year.

Ok. Not sure what's interesting about that.

 

[dblack]

Slow it down. We have no idea how they will rule on this.

We can discuss it. I think that's still allowed.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And?

And an arm of the federal government is insisting that this man surrender a religious rite to accommodate their new demands. That is a constitutional violation.

Or maybe it's just a lot of people don't understand the faith. Catholics (and perhaps many or all Christian faiths) hold Sunday's as somewhat sacred. My mother refuses to do any house or yard work on Sunday because Catholic faith considers Sunday the Lord's day. When possible, she attends church every Sunday. When she can't, she has some channel she found that has Catholic services on television. That's how sacred Sunday is to her and people of her faith.

In fact years ago, cities had laws forbidding the sale of alcohol on Sunday; of course that was when we were more religious. Nobody worked. Even corner stores were closed. One tenants of mine are very religious. They belong to the Baptist church. They all dress up on Sunday for mass and leave around 10:00 am as a family. It's a beautiful site. They don't return home until dinner time as their church holds all kinds of functions afterwards. They dedicate that day to God.

It's correct we as a society don't value Sundays anymore. It's just another day. Stores are all open, you can buy beer or wine anywhere, and if you have a project around the house, you tend to those projects. But what about people that still hold Sundays as sacred like we did years ago? Can the PO just force you to go against a religious ritual you've been practicing all your life like my mother and sister?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

What, you don't want to hear the call to prayer three to five times a day?

Hell no. Those speakers would be broken within a week of that annoying shit

 

[dblack]

And an arm of the federal government is insisting that this man surrender a religious rite to accommodate their new demands. That is a constitutional violation.

But that has no bearing on the case. The law applies private employers as well. Do you think they should be forced to make such accommodations?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Ahhh, yeah, govt must allow it. This is the bed that govt made. Private business can't be forced to do this.

 

[dblack]

Private business can't be forced to do this.

Legally, they can. This case could be an opportunity for Court to push back on the identity politics crap.

But I'm not holding my breath. They'll cop out and twiddle over whether the accommodation is an "undue hardship" for the company.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Legally, they can. This case could be an opportunity for Court to push back on the identity politics crap. But I'm not holding my breath.

A court forced a bakery to bake a cake for a person. So legally, I guess there's precedent but it doesn't make it right. Id suspect the govt will allow this guy to take off on Sunday but not apply it to private business.

 

[dblack]

A court forced a bakery to bake a cake for a person. So legally, I guess there's precedent but it doesn't make it right. Id suspect the govt will allow this guy to take off on Sunday but not apply it to private business.

That would be a great result - but I seriously doubt they'll be so decisive. They'll find some narrow excuse, for this particular case, and steer around anything that will actually set precedent.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

But that has no bearing on the case. The law applies private employers as well. Do you think they should be forced to make such accommodations?

Not if the employee agreed to them. But that's not what we're talking about in this case. A man took a job that already did accommodate his religious values because the PO was closed every Sunday. But after dedicating years of service to the PO, they decided the rules changed. Now you have to work on Sunday. I'm sure if this guy knew that was down the road, he would have never taken the job in the first place.

Like I said I was raised in this environment so I totally understand. My parents sent me to a private Catholic school in my primary years. Believe or not, I was even an altar boy at our church. My father was not so religious and worked on Sunday's doing side jobs. That was his business until he dragged my ass with him to work with him at the age of 12, and my mother was not happy about it because she didn't think it was right to get me to work on Sunday's. But my father was a bricklayer and up north, laid off all winter. So he had to work every nice day possible.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Can the PO just force you to go against a religious ritual you've been practicing all your life like my mother and sister?

They cannot. He is free to go about his religious rituals, just not while an employee of the PO

 

[1srelluc]

Hell no. Those speakers would be broken within a week of that annoying shit

Crank it up to 11 and break the knob off.

 

[struth]

Because it violates fundamental liberty and equal protection.

The Civil Rights Act was the beginning of the problem. It set bad precedent. It was a mistake.

Ok. Not sure what's interesting about that.

1) how? It's not saying they have to respect one faith over another, just make reasonable accomdations for ALL faiths
2) why do you feel that way? Why do you think it's ok to discriminate against people based on their race, national orgin, or creed?
3) I wasn't asking if you felt it was interesting....