SCOTUS Stupidity

[Ava]

When I hired new employees, I sat with them and WE reviewed the JOB description they were applying for. "IF" they agreed to the job description, they were expected to work by those rules and regulations. ( Just as we posters/members do here at USMB to avoid repercussions ). We also paid employees more per hour than mandated by the government.

Applicants were asking for the job and accepted those conditions by signing the application form and agreeing to the job description. IF they started working and began making changes to the job description, for any reason, they were then talked to, twice, and let go if they continued working on their terms. Once you make an exception for one employee, most others will find ways to expect exceptions, which then renders the owner/s working for the employees and closing their doors because of it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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

Then that's the reason for the lawsuit. You can't work here unless you are willing to sacrifice your holy day. If fruit vendor refuses to do business with black people, they can just find another fruit stand to buy their products from, right?

 

[dblack]

1) how?

Forcing people to serve others against their will.

It's not saying they have to respect one faith over another, just make reasonable accomdations for ALL faiths

Well, you mean only religions recognized by the state, right? Which hilariously has the government doing exactly what the founders feared: endorsing some religions while rejecting others.

2) why do you feel that way?

Because I think equal rights are more important than "equity".

Why do you think it's ok to discriminate against people based on their race, national orgin, or creed?

Not at all. Bigots suck.

But trying to make it a legal issue is a mistake. It's one of the biggest reasons our country is mired in a destructive culture war, while we slide into the shitter as a nation.

3) I wasn't asking if you felt it was interesting....

Yeah. It was just comment. It seemed like you were trying allude to some point. But I guess not.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When I hired new employees, I sat with them and WE reviewed the JOB description they were applying for. "IF" they agreed to the job description, they were expected to work by those rules and regulations. ( Just as we posters/members do here at USMB to avoid repercussions ). We also paid employees more per hour than mandated by the government.

Applicants were asking for the job and accepted those conditions by signing the application form and agreeing to the job description. IF they started working and began making changes to the job description, for any reason, they were then talked to, twice, and let go if they continued working on their terms. Once you make an exception for one employee, most others will find ways to expect exceptions, which then renders the owner/s working for the employees and closing their doors because of it.

Did any of your term changes violate constitutional rights?

 

[Ava]

Did any of your term changes violate constitutional rights?

Not to my knowledge or memory. We operated by the rule of law in all ways to our knowledge and the applicants either excepted or refused the jobs they were seeking. All cards were on the table at all times. We liked going by the rules rather than around them. Everyone benefited and knew what to expect.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Then that's the reason for the lawsuit. You can't work here unless you are willing to sacrifice your holy day. If fruit vendor refuses to do business with black people, they can just find another fruit stand to buy their products from, right?

Apples and oranges.

Though, I would say yes, but the law sees it differently.

 

[struth]

Forcing people to serve others against their will.

Well, you mean only religions recognized by the state, right? Which hilariously has the government doing exactly what the founders feared: endorsing some religions while rejecting others.

Because I think equal rights are more important than "equity".

Not at all. Bigots suck.

But trying to make it a legal issue is a mistake. It's one of the biggest reasons our country is mired in a destructive culture war, while we slide into the shitter as a nation.

Yeah. It was just comment. It seemed like you were trying allude to some point. But I guess not.

1) who's forcing anyone to serve someone?
2) what religions are recognized by the State?
3) who's rights aren't being treated equally by this?
4) agreed they do suck
5) bigotry is a legal issue...people can't be denied equal protection under the law because of their race, creed or national origin. I think if we allow bigotry like that to flow we end up a worse nation
6) yes it was just a comment. I do think it makes his case stronger, in that it wasn' an unreasonable before, heck even for a year afterwards....

 

[struth]

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

The Civil Rights Act says that's illegal. Employers, including the Federal Govt, can not discriminate against people based on their religious beliefs.

i am not shocked to see so many dembots on this thread protesting it, they fought long and hard against Civil Rights for decades.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The Civil Rights Act says that's illegal. Employers, including the Federal Govt, can not discriminate against people based on their religious beliefs.

i am not shocked to see so many dembots on this thread protesting it, they fought long and hard against Civil Rights for decades.

They are not discriminating against anyone. Everyone is getting treated the same. He is asking for special privilege others do not get.

But I am not surprised to find out all you big government loving fools think this is something the Govt should be forcing employers to do.

In your world there is no problem the Govt is not the answer to

 

[struth]

They are not discriminating against anyone. Everyone is getting treated the same. He is asking for special privilege others do not get.

But I am not surprised to find out all you big government loving fools think this is something the Govt should be forcing employers to do.

In your world there is no problem the Govt is not the answer to

No he didn't...every person of faith that has the same pratices has a right to have their employer make accomadatoins for their faith, and they can't be fired for their religious beliefs.

The only question is, was it unreasonable for the Federal Govt to allow him to go to church on Sunday

 

[Harpy Eagle]

No he didn't...every person of faith that has the same pratices has a right to have their employer make accomadatoins for their faith, and they can't be fired for their religious beliefs.

Nope. Time off to attend church is not part of a religious accommodation. I suppose next you will argue that a bartender should be allowed to not serve booze if if it against their religion .

The only question is, was it unreasonable for the Federal Govt to allow him to go to church on Sunday

If that is his day to work, then yes it would be as if fucks over those that are not going to church that day.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

So you oppose the part of the first amendment that interferes with his "free practice thereof" huh?

Going to work is not a religious free practice.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Nope. Time off to attend church is not part of a religious accommodation. I suppose next you will argue that a bartender should be allowed to not serve booze if if it against their religion .

 

[dblack]

i am not shocked to see so many dembots on this thread protesting it, they fought long and hard against Civil Rights for decades.

And I'm not shocked to see Trumpsters all-in on the social engineering. Long as it scores them points in the fucking culture war!

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Not to my knowledge or memory. We operated by the rule of law in all ways to our knowledge and the applicants either excepted or refused the jobs they were seeking. All cards were on the table at all times. We liked going by the rules rather than around them. Everyone benefited and knew what to expect.

Okay, but that's not the case here. He accepted a job at the PO with the idea that the PO never works on Sunday. If they did from the beginning, he probably wouldn't have taken the job because of his religious creed.

So they changed his contract (yes, a verbal agreement is a contract) to now you have to work on your holy day, and he then tried to work with the PO to assure he could still attend church and work the rest of the Sunday. Going by the OP, it seems they didn't even make an effort to work with him. Amazon says you have to work on Sunday and screw your religious values. Government should value Amazon over religious rites.

 

[dblack]

1) who's forcing anyone to serve someone?

If you're doing to do that thing where you pretend that laws aren't force, I don't see much point in discussing it.

2) what religions are recognized by the State?

Not all of them. For example. My religion is snow skiing. For me it's the ultimate spiritual activity and gives my life meaning. But I'm willing to bet that doesn't require my employer to give me time off for powder days. That might seem specious, but it's not. It's a valid point. The government would reject my religion.

And you're going to say, for "reasons", that my faith is not really a religion. Which is my point. These laws put government in a position where they must decide whether a given belief system is a "religion" or not.

3) who's rights aren't being treated equally by this?

See above. Why should people who follow state-approved religions get "rights" the rest of us don't have?

4) agreed they do suck
5) bigotry is a legal issue...people can't be denied equal protection under the law because of their race, creed or national origin.

Which has exactly nothing to do with employment.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Not all of them. For example. My religion is snow skiing. For me it's the ultimate spiritual activity and gives my life meaning. But I'm willing to bet that doesn't require my employer to give me time off for powder days. That might seem specious, but it's not. It's a valid point. The government would reject my religion.

The dumbest analogy of the week. No religion requires you to go snow skying, however Sunday being the Lords day is a Christian tradition that goes back centuries.

 

[dblack]

The dumbest analogy of the week. No religion requires you to go snow skying ...

Wrong. Mine does. Why don't I get the same rights as Christians?

 

[struth]

Nope. Time off to attend church is not part of a religious accommodation. I suppose next you will argue that a bartender should be allowed to not serve booze if if it against their religion .



If that is his day to work, then yes it would be as if fucks over those that are not going to church that day.

hahah letting someone go to church isn’t a religious accommodation? haha

what does a bartender serving booze have to do with it? if the bartender wants time off to go to church sunday morning, the bar should accommodate, a couple hours on sunday morning shouldn’t be unreasonlencost on the bar

 

[struth]

And I'm not shocked to see Trumpsters all-in on the social engineering. Long as it scores them points in the fucking culture war!

yes trumpeters are all in on civil rights