SCOTUS Stupidity

[Harpy Eagle]

That's not what the IRS says:

Certain characteristics are generally attributed to churches. These attributes of a church have been developed by the IRS and by court decisions. They include:

• 
  Distinct legal existence
  
• 
  Recognized creed and form of worship
  
• 
  Definite and distinct ecclesiastical government
  
• 
  Formal code of doctrine and discipline
  
• 
  Distinct religious history
  
• 
  Membership not associated with any other church or denomination
  
• 
  Organization of ordained ministers
  
• 
  Ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed courses of study
  
• 
  Literature of its own
  
• 
  Established places of worship
  
• 
  Regular congregations
  
• 
  Regular religious services
  
• 
  Sunday schools for the religious instruction of the young
  
• 
  Schools for the preparation of its members
  

The IRS generally uses a combination of these characteristics, together with other facts and circumstances, to determine whether an organization is considered a church for federal tax purposes.

"Churches" Defined | Internal Revenue Service

Discussion of the difference between churches and religious orgnaizations.

www.irs.gov

These are all recognized by the Govt as religions.

Heathenry

Humanism

Paganism

Wicca

 

[dblack]

These are all recognized by the Govt as religions.

Heathenry

Humanism

Paganism

Wicca

Why is government "recognizing" religions? What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is the Court confused about? We've turned the First Amendment upside down.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Why is government "recognizing" religions? What part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is the Court confused about? We've turned the First Amendment upside down.

Book keeping purposes.

 

[berg80]

I don't know what part of "Congress shall pass no law ..." they don't get.

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."

 

[ThisIsMe]

Well, it's not up to the two of us, but yeah - that's the what the Constitution says.

The notion that Constitutional rights require a business, or anyone else for that matter, to cater to your wishes is nonsense. Freedom of Speech, for example, doesn't require newspapers or websites to publish my bloviating. The Second Amendment doesn't demand that gun companies provide me with a gun. And Freedom of Religion doesn't require that anyone accommodate my religious practices. In all these cases, the right in question just means the federal government can't pass laws limiting said freedom: the feds can't silence speech they don't like, they can't ban guns and they can't regulate religion. But it doesn't mean that anyone must empower you to use these rights, or otherwise accommodate your ambitions.

Ahh ok, so what you’re saying then is, businesses can discriminate. If a businesss doesn’t have to make accommodations for any protected rights then:

Boss: “sorry bill, but, I had to fire john yesterday because he is about to go into surgery and I can’t afford to lose the production, so, until I can hire someone to replace him, I need you to cancel your honeymoon and fill in.

Tina, hey, I’m going to have to lower your pay, until your production can equal what Dave and Alex can produce, I just can’t see you getting the same pay as them.

Kal and mike, I know you wanted time off to celebrate Juneteenth, but I need you here, so, I can’t approve you taking a day off for that. Same with you, Paul, you were wanting to take some time off to attend some pride events, unfortunately, im not going to be able to approve that, no flexibility.

Also Paul, we’re going to need you to stop using the women’s bathroom, some of the women are complaining, so you’ll have to use the men’s bathroom from now on.

Ravi, having you stop production in order to pray 5 times a day for 10 minutes each is going to have to stop, it’s not fair to anyone else that you can take a break throughout the day.

Greg and Dave, someone saw you two have been holding hands and giving each other small kisses in areas where others can see, they complained about the public display of affection, so, I’ll need you to stop doing that.

Jaya, our policy does not allow people to wear any kind of hat while inside and on the production floor, so I’ll need you to not wear your hijab while in the production area.

Kara, I see you are getting along in your pregnancy, just let me know when you are going to need to start missing work so I can let you go and hire someone to replace you so production doesn’t suffer.

George, there has been some complaints about you wearing blm attire. Not everyone agrees with how they spread their message, so I’ll need you to stop wearing anything with blm on it. In fact, for everyone, political slogans, logos…basicallly, any political attire and such, is a divisive thing, so, from now on, no political attire will be allowed, this includes any bumper stickers or window stickers on your vehicles, will not be allowed. If it’s on this property, it will be forbidden. This includes any discussion of politics, it will not be allowed here”.

—————-

Hmm, who else can I offend with our ability to not have to make accommodations for people’s rights.

In fact, with some of those, one could argue that a business can refuse to hire women, if they can’t equal production, or if they have plans of starting a family. Why should he hire them if they are going to end up having to miss work at some point due to having a baby.

What about trans people? If they require special accommodations, like using the bathroom of their chosen gender, well, that’s an accommodation, so, he can just not hire trans people.

I know all of my examples are not perfect, but you get the point. If we are saying businesses don’t have to make accommodations for people’s cotus rights, then, that could open a whole can of worms for other people’s rights.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Fine, that's all I said. If a woman who just had a baby isn't back at work in a week, fire the bitch. Right? If you have to get a surgery done, you're fired for taking too much time off of work. And let's get rid of minimum wage and time and a half laws while we're at it. 12 hour shifts with no breaks and it's up to your supervisor whether you can use the rest room facilities or not.

Wow, I swear I didn’t read your post before I wrote mine, but we kinda said the same things..lol

 

[dblack]

Book keeping purposes.

They're making a list, and checking it twice...

 

[dblack]

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."

That was a mistake. Now we're seeing why.

 

[dblack]

Ahh ok, so what you’re saying then is, businesses can discriminate.

I'm saying our approach to racism and bigotry is flawed. It creates "thought crime" and gives government far too much power to dictate personal decisions.

I know all of my examples are not perfect, but you get the point.

I didn't read them, but yeah. I get the point. You're pitching the socialist line that tells us we are all hapless nitwits with no way to defend ourselves against the evil capitalists. Our only hope is the omni-benevolent state.

If we are saying businesses don’t have to make accommodations for people’s cotus rights, then, that could open a whole can of worms for other people’s rights

Maybe it will prompt us to have little more clarity on rights. "Civil rights" are the opposite of, and directly conflict with, civil liberties. They aren't protected freedoms, they are demands of accommodation.

Tasking government with enforcing such demands fundamentally changes the role of the state. It drives identity politics and undermines equal protection. No longer do we get universal, equal rights for all. We get state assigned privilege based on identity and circumstance.

Our error becomes more obvious with each political cycle. We now have a government more concerned with stamping out unpopular biases than protecting the nation from criminals and foreign enemies.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wow, I swear I didn’t read your post before I wrote mine, but we kinda said the same things..lol

Goes to show you brilliant minds think alike.