Similar logic to how Orthodox Jews are fighting Florida’s anti-abortion laws - our religion demands we save the mother from harm.
I guess it depends on whether this Court’s religious fervor will out-compete its disdain for the poor and downtrodden (drug addicts and poor pregnant women). My guess will be that, in these cases, they will rule against the poor and downtrodden.
I guess they won’t consider HWJR (How Would Jesus Rule?)
Hahaha! Definitely not.
It’ll probably be decided more along the lines of HWJBR:
How would Jim Bakker rule?
Fair or not, that’s the way the law is written. It specifically mentions religion as something employers may not discriminate against, and it defines religion as all beliefs and practices that can be reasonably accommodated. There is no corresponding requirement to offer reasonable accommodations to employees in the general case.
And to be honest I don’t think it’s practical to enforce a law generally requiring employers to be reasonable or rational to their employees. Religion is given special status alongside race and sex (same statute btw) because it is a fundamental component of the personal identities of a shrinking plurality in this country, and it has historically been grounds for persecution.
~Max
I see this as totally different from the employment situation in the OP. The peyote case would probably control, or I think there was another major case involving animal sacrifices. In essence if the government acts for neutral reasons rather than arbitrarily/capriciously, it doesn’t violate the due process clause. Taken to the extreme, religion is no defense for murder.
Congress’s decision to force private employers to offer religious accomodations, on the other hand, is based on their wide reaching power to regulate commerce among the several states. Inasmuch as Sam may want to complain about the law preferring Christianity over secularism, the only (losing) argument I see is that Title VII establishes sabbatarianism in violation of the First Amendment. But this would surely fail as Title VII accommodations do not establish sabbatarianism at the local business, let alone at the federal level.
~Max
On that note, does the court have an obligation to honour a believe derived from mental illness, regardless whether it’s a lone believer or a whole multitude? What if, say, the belief had to do with a group like QAnon or the Proud Boys? What makes “religious” belief systems so special as opposed to other kinds of belief systems? If I honestly believe I am the Second Coming, are you required to honour my beliefs no matter how outlandish they are? I think there is something inherently dangerous about many religious beliefs, especially when those beliefs negatively impact others.
The courts reserve the right to determine religious versus secular belief. See for example Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 216–17 (1972)
A way of life, however virtuous and admirable, may not be interposed as a barrier to reasonable state regulation of education if it is based on purely secular considerations; to have the protection of the Religion Clauses, the claims must be rooted in religious belief. Although a determination of what is a “religious” belief or practice entitled to constitutional protection may present a most delicate question, the very concept of ordered liberty precludes allowing every person to make his own standards on matters of conduct in which society as a whole has important interests. Thus, if the Amish asserted their claims because of their subjective evaluation and rejection of the contemporary secular values accepted by the majority, much as Thoreau rejected the social values of his time and isolated himself at Walden Pond, their claims would not rest on a religious basis. Thoreau’s choice was philosophical and personal rather than religious, and such belief does not rise to the demands of the Religion Clauses.
Giving no weight to such secular considerations, however, we see that the record in this case abundantly supports the claim that the traditional way of life of the Amish is not merely a matter of personal preference, but one of deep religious conviction, shared by an organized group, and intimately related to daily living…
Although note that case was based on “religion” as defined in the First Amendment, which is materially different than “religion” as defined in nondiscrimination statutes.
~Max
That is the justifcation given but I don’t think it holds water.
I have personal ethical and moral standards and practices that are not religious in nature and yet I hold them every bit as strongly. Why are they not a “fundemental component” of my personal identity worthy of protection?
God will protect me.
I’m happy you mentioned “moral and ethical standards and practices” because I think they are comparable to religious standards and practices in a way that a desire to play golf on Sunday mornings is not. But I can’t think of any reasonable accommodations that would need to be made for ethical and moral practices. Most of the religious beliefs that need accommodation don’t have an ethical equivalent - for example, there’s no ethical requirement to abstain from work on certain days or dress in a certain way. The ones that are equivalent will often not need to be accommodated - you might be a vegan for ethical reasons but a belief that you should not touch meat isn’t going to require accommodation at a butcher shop just like a religious requirement not to touch pork doesn’t need to be accommodated at a pork store.
The religious accommodations requirement helps to protect against religious discrimination, such as an employer mandating “All employees must do X” specifically as a way of weeding out people whose religion forbids them from doing X.
Among the examples given of religious accommodations is one accommodating atheists:
Source:
I’m not by any means against reasonable accommodations on religious grounds. I am against elevating such request from a religious standpoint, over those from a non-religious standpoint. To me they are equal and deserve equal consideration.
Even though i consider myself a Christian in my beliefs, I consider this Religious Right bullshit. “Freedom of Religion” means I have a right to believe what I want, it doesn’t mean that you have to give up your rights to accommodate my beliefs.
“The job requires working on Sunday. Can you do this? No? Well, I’m afraid I’ll have to get someone who can.”
You may be right, but what complicates matters in my mind is if he took the job with the understanding that it wouldn’t involve working on Sundays, and they changed the conditions later.
Chick-Fil-A and Hobby Lobby have been mentioned as places you can work if you want to be sure you don’t have to work on Sundays. What if one of those companies were sold to a new owner, who decided to open on Sundays and require all employees to work then?
I’d call it “tough luck”, but it also presents an opportunity for one to show true courage by quitting that job rather than violating one’s PERSONAL beliefs. The key issue to me is “personal”. Entire companies cannot be held captive to the beliefs of individuals. The very idea is absurd to me.
I tend to agree. But the US constitution gives religious beliefs special protection, and the US congress has codified that into laws to protect various religious beliefs. So that’s the rules of the game in the US.
Well said there @puzzlegal. But expanding a bit.
The “rules” in the US include “religion is special”. With an undertone in deed, if not in written law, that xian beliefs are “more special than the rest”.
What is under considerable ferment and court action by the theocratists now, is “just how special”. At a time much of the country is far more secular than in our parents’ era the dwindling number of reactionaries are packing the courts and trying to turn the clock back to the 1800s if not earlier.
The Constitution allows individuals to believe as they choose. It does not make others responsible for implementing those beliefs.