I think they might even be used to attack certain forms of mainstream Christianity - because “Christianity” and even “mainstream Christianity” covers a lot of groups who have very different beliefs and rules and practices. And I wonder how long it’s going to take before an employee of a bakery claims their religious beliefs prevent them from baking a cake for a same-sex couple while the owner says their religious belief as a member of a Christian denomination that performs same-sex marriages requires that the bakery provide the cake and business reasons require the objecting employee to bake it. I’m 99% sure that in that case ( unlike others) the owner’s religious beliefs will matter not at all.
I mean, to be clear, this is just some random professor opining in a stupid magazine for poopyheads, it’s not even being argued in an actual court, much less successfully. So for now I’d call it just one more example of fascists seeing how far they can get away with saying the quiet part out loud.
Individual post offices aren’t that big, and an employee not working on a Sunday or Saturday or whatever could have a real impact on that post office.
Perhaps. I’m certainly no expert on postal staffing; are postal workers really only capable of working in one particular office? And certainly everyone is getting a couple days off a week anyway, so is it that burdensome to have one guy’s day always be Sunday? I don’t know the answers to these questions, and maybe I would change my opinion about the Court’s ruling if I did, but my point is that these are the kind of very specific questions that need to be asked in order to determine if a particular request for accommodation is reasonable.
The right to religious accommodations in the workplace isn’t rooted directly in the First Amendment, it’s rooted in the same civil rights laws that keep you from being fired for having a natural hairstyle or wearing a Pride flag lapel pin.
I was quoting another poster misinterpreting the First amendment. Please don’t put words in my mouth.
That’s going to depend a lot - where I live, there’s a post office every 2-5 miles so there are plenty of post offices where a particular person can work but that isn’t the case everywhere.
It might not be burdensome for one guy to always be off Sunday - but many carriers work six days a week and I am sure there are union contract provisions regarding who gets to choose schedules and routes and vacation first . Not to mention that there are situations ( which can occur at the post office ) where giving one person every Sunday off means no one else gets any Sundays off. And it might not be a tiny fraction - if you give priority to those who claim they have a religious belief that prohibits work on Sunday, how do you prevent people from claiming such a belief when they really just want Sunday off? That may not be a problem in a city with hundreds of carriers o and still be a problem in a post office with only five or ten employees.
Thank you for your post, but I’m really not interested in delving into the details of this particular case. I will point out, though, that the right to religious accommodations has been well established for many years under current civil rights laws, and I’m not aware of any crisis caused by a flood of frivolous applications. And for cripes sake, yes, maybe the guy who works in the big post office gets the accommodation and the guy in the tiny post office doesn’t, because their circumstances are different and nobody is advocating that everybody’s claim has to be accepted without question. I’m not sure why this is such a hard concept for people to grasp.
Sorry, I misunderstood you. It sounded as though you were saying that these rules were derived from Court rulings which you disagreed with, rather than from statutory law.
So a private company can fire you simply for being Jewish?
Of course not. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 establishes that private employers cannot discriminate on the basis of religion. Of course that doesn’t apply to very, very small business with fewer than 15 employees.
What does that have to do with the 1st Amendment.
Or what Odesio said.
I thought it fell under religious protection under the 1st Amendment. Secret about me: I’m not a constitutional lawyer.
Agreed!
From Google: “In March 2020, 75 percent of Americans reported that they attended a religious service at least once a year. That number dropped to about 66 percent by spring of 2022. Over the same timeline, the percentage of Americans said they “never” attended church rose from 25 percent to 33 percent.”
One out of every three Americans have never even attended a church much less have religious “convictions” of any kind. For them to be denied needed goods and services because of some individual’s religious convictions is absurd!
Just pointing out that that drop could easily be attributed to Covid.
Maybe it’s just because the context has gotten lost, but I don’t understand your point. Accommodations for religious convictions are absurd because a lot of people aren’t religious? Are accommodations for disabilities absurd because a lot of people aren’t handicapped?
This is an apple and oranges kind of comparison, and I think you know that. The former is based on feelings and personal beliefs. The latter is based on physical or mental defects of which a person has no control.
If I were trying to reason by analogy, that would be relevant. But that’s not what I was doing. I was trying to understand and clarify your point. I was applying what looked like your argument to another instance. It’s the same logic, so if you don’t agree with the conclusion, there must be something wrong with the argument (which may or may not be the argument you were trying to make—as I said, I didn’t understand).
My position is simple.
The government’s POV should be that religion does not exist. It is merely a figment of some misguided minority’s imagination. No different than Bigfoot.
Consequently:
No law may contain an exception for something religious. No law may be passed which has any religion’s teachings as its justification. People are free to behave as ethical humans to each other. Laws can enforce ethical behavior upon everyone equally. People are free to believe whatever nonsense they want. But they are not free to act on their nonsense in the public sphere.
So if businesses just start posting, “Jews need not apply,” the government should ignore that, because its discriminating over something that doesn’t exist?
Nope. I said everyone is required to behave ethically to everyone else. Discriminating is unethical. Everyone means everyone.