DKTanker Posted July 1, 2023 Posted July 1, 2023 On 6/29/2023 at 7:38 PM, Rick said: On another Supreme Court ruling, the justices in a unanimous ruling ruled that the U.S. Post Office acted unfairly to a Christian worker. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-christian-postal-worker-refused-work-sundays-rcna84868 His case will now return to lower courts for further litigation on whether he prevails under the new standard. This is one ruling I don't agree with in the least as it is a declarative endorsement statement to religions. I find it objectionable the same way I find many other religious exemptions not afforded to others. Why should I have to hold a sincere belief in a system to be afforded relief? Who exactly determines the exact nature of sincere belief, the High Priests of SCOTUS? Why should I not be able to stake out a day, perhaps Monday, as a day of rest and force my employer to comply with my demand? The same holds true for cakes and website designs. Why should I have to prove anything to anybody? Why can't I just say no? My business, my choice? What next, religious borrowers refusing to pay interest on loans because their religion finds usury of any amount a sin, and SCOTUS upholding their demand? The first amendment was supposed to ensure the state is neutral with regards to religion, not grant favorable status that is not afforded to all others. In other words, we should all have freedom of, and from, association, or none of us should.
Murph Posted July 1, 2023 Posted July 1, 2023 6 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said: What happens when they use it as an excuse to stack the court? They have been trying that for years now.
Ivanhoe Posted July 1, 2023 Posted July 1, 2023 4 hours ago, urbanoid said: I believe that 'Erica Marsh' is a parody account. Or... its supposed to be a parody account, but like the Babylon Bee, its just a few months ahead of the news cycle.
Tim Sielbeck Posted July 1, 2023 Posted July 1, 2023 4 hours ago, DKTanker said: This is one ruling I don't agree with in the least as it is a declarative endorsement statement to religions. I find it objectionable the same way I find many other religious exemptions not afforded to others. Why should I have to hold a sincere belief in a system to be afforded relief? Who exactly determines the exact nature of sincere belief, the High Priests of SCOTUS? Why should I not be able to stake out a day, perhaps Monday, as a day of rest and force my employer to comply with my demand? The same holds true for cakes and website designs. Why should I have to prove anything to anybody? Why can't I just say no? My business, my choice? What next, religious borrowers refusing to pay interest on loans because their religion finds usury of any amount a sin, and SCOTUS upholding their demand? The first amendment was supposed to ensure the state is neutral with regards to religion, not grant favorable status that is not afforded to all others. In other words, we should all have freedom of, and from, association, or none of us should. Because it violates the "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." part of the 1st Amendment. The job requires a person to work five out of seven days. The job has shifts on ALL seven days. The employer cannot require a person to work on a day which is the only recognized day, for that person, of religious observances when there is the ability top make an accommodation. An employer cannot require a person to not freely exercise their religion because it's more convenient to the employer.
Mikel2 Posted July 1, 2023 Posted July 1, 2023 21 hours ago, Rick said: abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-rules-website-designer-case-involving-free/story?id=99239572 In a 6-3 decision involving The First Amendment freedom, the Supreme Court ruled that a Colorado graphic designer who wants to make wedding websites does not have to create them for same-sex marriages. You may remember Colorado loosing a very similar case a few years ago involving a Christian baker. The will find new ways to harass that baker until the day he dies.
urbanoid Posted July 1, 2023 Author Posted July 1, 2023 19 minutes ago, Mikel2 said: The will find new ways to harass that baker until the day he dies. Unless there's a clear ruling that he can tell them to fuck off and there's nothing they can do about it. I wonder how fast it would happen if black bakers were asked to make KKK cakes or the Jewish ones the swastika cakes?
DKTanker Posted July 1, 2023 Posted July 1, 2023 58 minutes ago, Tim Sielbeck said: Because it violates the "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." part of the 1st Amendment. The job requires a person to work five out of seven days. The job has shifts on ALL seven days. The employer cannot require a person to work on a day which is the only recognized day, for that person, of religious observances when there is the ability top make an accommodation. An employer cannot require a person to not freely exercise their religion because it's more convenient to the employer. Wrong. Absolutely, wrong. The employer is not the state, if you want to practice your religion feel free to find employment that allows you to do as you please. But, let us concede that a postal worker is a state employee under no obligation to work for the state. The very act of making accommodations, by law, is the state granting the establishment of religion. The part of the 1st amendment you conveniently omitted. And you still haven't answered why I have to become a member of a state approved religion (and yes, they have to be state approved religions, try asserting your "rights" using the reason of belonging to the Tim sect of the Sielbeck religion) to be granted accommodations not granted to the religious free.
DKTanker Posted July 1, 2023 Posted July 1, 2023 30 minutes ago, urbanoid said: Unless there's a clear ruling that he can tell them to fuck off and there's nothing they can do about it. I wonder how fast it would happen if black bakers were asked to make KKK cakes or the Jewish ones the swastika cakes? See, this is why there should be no religious exemption, this should be based solely upon freedom of, and freedom from, association. If SCOTUS would write their rulings thusly then they wouldn't have to take it one case at a time.
Mikel2 Posted July 1, 2023 Posted July 1, 2023 3 hours ago, DKTanker said: See, this is why there should be no religious exemption, this should be based solely upon freedom of, and freedom from, association. If SCOTUS would write their rulings thusly then they wouldn't have to take it one case at a time. No person should be forced into a transaction with another. Period.
Murph Posted July 1, 2023 Posted July 1, 2023 Demonrats devestated they cannot keep being overtly racist. News at 11.
urbanoid Posted July 1, 2023 Author Posted July 1, 2023 4 hours ago, DKTanker said: See, this is why there should be no religious exemption, this should be based solely upon freedom of, and freedom from, association. If SCOTUS would write their rulings thusly then they wouldn't have to take it one case at a time. I agree, reliigious exemption paves way for absolutely ridiculous things, including with 'religions' made up the 5 minutes before someone doesn't want to do something.
Tim Sielbeck Posted July 1, 2023 Posted July 1, 2023 (edited) 4 hours ago, DKTanker said: Wrong. Absolutely, wrong. The employer is not the state,... In this specific case the employer IS the state. United States Postal Service. Edited July 1, 2023 by Tim Sielbeck
Tim Sielbeck Posted July 2, 2023 Posted July 2, 2023 4 hours ago, DKTanker said: But, let us concede that a postal worker is a state employee under no obligation to work for the state. The very act of making accommodations, by law, is the state granting the establishment of religion. The part of the 1st amendment you conveniently omitted. States recognizing that "religions" exist is not the state creating a state religion, something you fail to recognize. The state attempted to, in this case, prevent the worker from exercising her constitutional right to exercise her religion by CHANGING her work schedule to conflict with her right to freely exercise her religion when other accommodations were available to them. I agree with you that people don't have the right to force a private company to make accommodations for their religious beliefs, nor do I think private companies should be forced to grant employees perks because of their religious beliefs. Neither do I think a company should be able to force an employee to comply with changes to company operations, from the inception of the employee/employer relationship, when there are accommodations could be made just because it is convenient for the company. Contracts are two way streets.
Tim Sielbeck Posted July 2, 2023 Posted July 2, 2023 5 hours ago, DKTanker said: The part of the 1st amendment you conveniently omitted. I didn't omit it, I just pointed out the part you omitted.
Tim Sielbeck Posted July 2, 2023 Posted July 2, 2023 5 hours ago, DKTanker said: And you still haven't answered why I have to become a member of a state approved religion (and yes, they have to be state approved religions, try asserting your "rights" using the reason of belonging to the Tim sect of the Sielbeck religion) to be granted accommodations not granted to the religious free. Nobody ever said you have to join a religion, state recognized or not. Notice I didn't say approved. A person is under no obligation to explain why they need/want a religious accommodation by explaining their religion.
DKTanker Posted July 2, 2023 Posted July 2, 2023 56 minutes ago, Tim Sielbeck said: States recognizing that "religions" exist is not the state creating a state religion, something you fail to recognize. The state attempted to, in this case, prevent the worker from exercising her constitutional right to exercise her religion by CHANGING her work schedule to conflict with her right to freely exercise her religion when other accommodations were available to them. I agree with you that people don't have the right to force a private company to make accommodations for their religious beliefs, nor do I think private companies should be forced to grant employees perks because of their religious beliefs. Neither do I think a company should be able to force an employee to comply with changes to company operations, from the inception of the employee/employer relationship, when there are accommodations could be made just because it is convenient for the company. Contracts are two way streets. The state creates religions when they grant the existence and the approval of one while denying the existence of another. You might remember I referenced the Tim sect of the Sielbeck religion. The constitution makes no mention of "established" religion or of any litmus test religions must meet to be granted special dispensation. IMO, SCOTUS erred when they granted a constitutional right of religious exemption. You know it is interesting that SCOTUS also says that even if a military member has been drafted into indentured servitude, military members are not allowed to stop participating in day to day activities simply because of "freedom of religion." "Soldier, you have guard duty on Sunday." "Nope, can't do it, Sarge, Sunday is my religions day of rest." "Well then, Soldier, I'll have Snuffy take your relief on Sunday, you can take his on Saturday." "Can't do it, Sarge. My religion says Saturday's are for Bud Light." As for contracts, individual employees of the USPS do not have contracts at the employee level. They do have collective bargaining unit contracts, but as far as I know those contracts don't grant special dispensation to particular religions or religious sects. What they do have is language stating that entry level part time jobs are subject to work one or more days of the week, to include Sundays. She was scheduled to work Sunday to assist delivering packages, USPS delivers packages seven days a week and by contract, utilizes entry level part time carriers. Question, who should be scheduled to work Sundays in her stead? Why are her Sundays more important than somebody else's Sundays?* And keep in mind, there are contractual obligations at play. *Just so we're clear, SCOTUS has in this case, as with many others, deemed those of religion are of a higher class of citizenship than their neighbors who aren't particularly religious or of a religion not found acceptable by the State.
Tim Sielbeck Posted July 2, 2023 Posted July 2, 2023 1 hour ago, DKTanker said: The state creates religions when they grant the existence and the approval of one while denying the existence of another. You might remember I referenced the Tim sect of the Sielbeck religion. The constitution makes no mention of "established" religion or of any litmus test religions must meet to be granted special dispensation. IMO, SCOTUS erred when they granted a constitutional right of religious exemption. You know it is interesting that SCOTUS also says that even if a military member has been drafted into indentured servitude, military members are not allowed to stop participating in day to day activities simply because of "freedom of religion." "Soldier, you have guard duty on Sunday." "Nope, can't do it, Sarge, Sunday is my religions day of rest." "Well then, Soldier, I'll have Snuffy take your relief on Sunday, you can take his on Saturday." "Can't do it, Sarge. My religion says Saturday's are for Bud Light." As for contracts, individual employees of the USPS do not have contracts at the employee level. They do have collective bargaining unit contracts, but as far as I know those contracts don't grant special dispensation to particular religions or religious sects. What they do have is language stating that entry level part time jobs are subject to work one or more days of the week, to include Sundays. She was scheduled to work Sunday to assist delivering packages, USPS delivers packages seven days a week and by contract, utilizes entry level part time carriers. Question, who should be scheduled to work Sundays in her stead? Why are her Sundays more important than somebody else's Sundays?* And keep in mind, there are contractual obligations at play. *Just so we're clear, SCOTUS has in this case, as with many others, deemed those of religion are of a higher class of citizenship than their neighbors who aren't particularly religious or of a religion not found acceptable by the State. I'm sorry, but no. States DO NOT create religions, people do. States can RECOGNIZE that religions exist but IS NOT the same as creating, or requiring the participation in, of a religion. You're right that "The constitution makes no mention of "established" religion..." which is why your religion, and practice of your religion, is not the business of any entity public or private. But you're wrong in that SCOTUS granted a religious exemption. I refer you to this video: https://youtu.be/Y75uiOw_R9Y. They only remanded it to the lower court for trial. Your example of the military is fallacious because of the nature of the contract enter upon by both parties. Forgive me for not taking your word what is included in a contract a postal employee agrees to. And I errored, it was a he, not a she. Who should work in his place? Someone who doesn't mind working Sundays. His Sundays are his day for his religious observances. Other people may, or may not, hold the same beliefs. So the importance of Sundays depends on the person. Were the contractual obligations when he signed the contract the same when this became an issue or did the needs of the USPS change and they wanted him to change with their needs? Sorry, again, but no. The right to practice ones religious beliefs as one sees fit does not make the practitioners of any religion a higher class of citizen than those who don't practice a religion. That's like saying one who owns arms is a higher class of citizen than those who don't. Recognizing the rights of people doesn't make those people a higher class of citizen than the people who don't exercise those rights.
Rick Posted July 2, 2023 Posted July 2, 2023 16 hours ago, DKTanker said: Wrong. Absolutely, wrong. The employer is not the state, if you want to practice your religion feel free to find employment that allows you to do as you please. But, let us concede that a postal worker is a state employee under no obligation to work for the state. The very act of making accommodations, by law, is the state granting the establishment of religion. The part of the 1st amendment you conveniently omitted. And you still haven't answered why I have to become a member of a state approved religion (and yes, they have to be state approved religions, try asserting your "rights" using the reason of belonging to the Tim sect of the Sielbeck religion) to be granted accommodations not granted to the religious free. The reason why the Supreme Court voted the way it did, page six onward sums it up. https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2023/06/Supreme-Court-Postal-Worker-Sunday-Work-Opinion.pdf For the rest of your post: 1. "The employer is not the state, In this case it was. if you want to practice your religion feel free to find employment that allows you to do as you please." Would be an interesting job interview. But as Tim S. stated this would violate the First Amendment. You do not like the reasoning but it is the law. 2. " The very act of making accommodations, by law, is the state granting the establishment of religion. The part of the 1st amendment you conveniently omitted." No. The 'establishment of religion" means that the government cannot have an official church such as England had. I think we are all historically aware of what happens when the state tries to be God. 3. "...why I have to become a member of a state approved religion (and yes, they have to be state approved religions, try asserting your "rights" using the reason of belonging to the Tim sect of the Sielbeck religion). There are no state approved religions in the U.S. Period. You cannot make up a church or religion to get your way. This ruse would be recognized as such by a court, and to by honest, by just about any adult in the U.S.
sunday Posted July 2, 2023 Posted July 2, 2023 11 minutes ago, Rick said: 3. "...why I have to become a member of a state approved religion (and yes, they have to be state approved religions, try asserting your "rights" using the reason of belonging to the Tim sect of the Sielbeck religion). There are no state approved religions in the U.S. Period. You cannot make up a church or religion to get your way. This ruse would be recognized as such by a court, and to by honest, by just about any adult in the U.S. If that is true, then I wonder how those satanic denominations got the same recognition, if not more, than religions that already existed before the United States.
urbanoid Posted July 2, 2023 Author Posted July 2, 2023 I'd rather not give the state the power to declare which religion is 'real'/recognized/whatever.
Rick Posted July 2, 2023 Posted July 2, 2023 Legally, and more important, morally, I would repeat the last two sentences of my post. I cannot remember a case before any court to get ruling such as your posting. I am not aware of any "satanic denominations" that existed in the U.S. from June 21, 1788 onward when the Constitution was ratified.
Rick Posted July 2, 2023 Posted July 2, 2023 4 minutes ago, urbanoid said: I'd rather not give the state the power to declare which religion is 'real'/recognized/whatever. In the U.S., I am witnessing the government being god. And it will only get worse, much worse, before it is reversed and gets permanently perfect.
sunday Posted July 2, 2023 Posted July 2, 2023 Well, then explain this: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/satanists-are-in-the-army-now-1099392.html Quote A GROUP of American conservative religious organisations is demanding that Christians boycott the US Army and all of its works until the military ends support for its latest denominations: witches and satanists. The Army has decided to allow other religions to practice their beliefs on US bases, including the adherents of Wicca, or witchcraft. A handbook for Army chaplains also includes the Church of Satan among groups allowed to worship. "An Army that sponsors satanic rituals is unworthy of representing the United States of America," said Paul Weyrich, president of the Free Congress Foundation, a right wing group. The Military Pagan Network (MPN) hit back by saying that the Constitution specifically rules out discrimination based on religion. John Machate of MPN said: "All religions are, and should be, permitted free practice on military bases, within reasonable limits." https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/11/01/midshipmen-finally-get-a-satanic-temple-room/ Quote ANNAPOLIS, Md. (AP) — The U.S. Naval Academy is providing a room on campus for midshipmen interested in The Satanic Temple to discuss the group. Cmdr. Alana Garas, an academy spokeswoman, said Thursday the group has been provided a space to meet after a request was made by midshipmen.
sunday Posted July 2, 2023 Posted July 2, 2023 Those, at least, absurdities, could explain some trends https://www.rt.com/news/579053-us-veterans-discourage-military-enlistment/ Quote The US military’s recruiting woes have reportedly intensified as current and former troops increasingly advise their family members against enlistment, weakening a tradition of multi-generation service that has historically been the nation’s primary source of new soldiers. Veterans have soured on recommending that loved ones follow in their footsteps in the face of a tight labor market and rising concerns over low pay, debilitating injuries, suicides, and indecisive wars, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday. The recruiting crisis also comes amid controversy over the Pentagon’s prioritization of left-wing issues, such as transgenderism and critical race theory. Diminishing enthusiasm for enlistment among veterans is a troubling trend for the Pentagon because the vast majority of new troops come from military families. In fact, nearly 80% of US Army recruits have family members who have served in the military.
Rick Posted July 2, 2023 Posted July 2, 2023 8 minutes ago, sunday said: Well, then explain this: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/satanists-are-in-the-army-now-1099392.html https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2019/11/01/midshipmen-finally-get-a-satanic-temple-room/ I cannot, other than the continuing earthly influence of satan. I can see a future, immoral court ruling that state that all "religions" are justified and must be recognized as such. Thus evil and immorality will flourish until it is later put to a permanent end.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now