Contridictory SCOTUS rulings

[Harpy Eagle]

Interesting point.
I don't know.
For the mail carrier - was Sundays always a part of the job description and he was just always given them off? If yes, then I would agree: tough shit. Is it, on the other hand, a new requirement? Then he might have a point.

The needs of an employer change over time. My wife was hired as Day Shift RN, and she is still made to work two weeks of night shifts every so often. Should she be able to get out of this due to some religious views about working after dark?

As for the web designer - if he/she doesn't want to design a web page for event/ behavior they disapprove of.
just go to another web designer and shut the **** up.

I agree 100%.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

there is definitely a difference between businesses that are corporations and businesses that are a person doing business.

why?

 

[MisterBeale]

I don't see a contradition.

In both cases, the court was protecting the first Amendment.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Strange ruling.....

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Not really sure which one this falls under.

Are they establishing religion by ruling in his favor......

Or are they stopping someone from prohibiting the free exercise thereof ?

Exactly, the 1st Amendment does not say anything about a private business.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I don't see a contradition.

In both cases, the court was protecting the first Amendment.

Please explain how this applies to a private business...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

 

[there4eyeM]

why?

I would refer you to the definition of a corporation.

 

[Ralph Norton]

My wife was hired as Day Shift RN, and she is still made to work two weeks of night shifts every so often. Should she be able to get out of this due to some religious views about working after dark?

Was she ALWAYS required to work some night shifts? Or was it always a possibility? Then "no".
Is it a new requirement? Then "maybe".
I would have to think about it some more and I probably won't.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I would refer you to the definition of a corporation.

Is this the same corporation that SCOTUS said has free speech rights just like a person?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Was she ALWAYS required to work some night shifts? Or was it always a possibility? Then "no".
Is it a new requirement? Then "maybe".
I would have to think about it some more and I probably won't.

It is a new thing due to them being short night shift nurses. It is just one example of how the needs of an employer change over time.

 

[Blaster]

Supreme Court solidifies protections for workers who ask for religious accommodations

The court made clear that businesses must cite more than minor costs to reject requests for religious accommodations at work.

www.politico.com

Supreme Court rules for web designer who refused to work on same-sex weddings

In a blow to LGBTQ rights, the court said creative businesses can refuse to sell certain products and services if they disagree with the message the customer wishes to convey.

www.nbcnews.com

So, two rulings.

1. A business can be forced to provide religious accommodations.

2. A business cannot be forced to preform work that goes against their religious views.

In one ruling the SCOTUS said it is not the Govt job to force a business to do something, and in the other ruling they said it is the Govt's job to force a business to do something.

Seems one of these contradicts the other one.

I am all for a business going "yep, I wont make that website/cake/etc" but I am also all for a business going "I don't give a **** about your religion, work the hours or find a new job"

You don't understand the constitution.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

You don't understand the constitution.

Please explain how this applies to a private business...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

 

[LordBrownTrout]

The needs of an employer change over time. My wife was hired as Day Shift RN, and she is still made to work two weeks of night shifts every so often. Should she be able to get out of this due to some religious views about working after dark?



I agree 100%.

Where does that happen? Lol. Most employers have no problem with reasonable accommodations.

 

[there4eyeM]

Is this the same corporation that SCOTUS said has free speech rights just like a person?

So far, so good.

 

[Blaster]

Please explain how this applies to a private business...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

You are wrong almost 80% of the time which is why most folks here laugh at you.

 

[MisterBeale]

Please explain how this applies to a private business...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Ah, you are correct. I apologize, I didn't look to close at the topic and wrote from the hip. Sorry.

The employment case was based on the Civil Rights Act;

Fact Sheet: Religious Discrimination

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion (or lack of religious belief) in hiring, firing, or any other terms and conditions of employment. The law also prohibits job segregation based on religion, such as...

www.eeoc.gov

"Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion (or lack of religious belief) in hiring, firing, or any other terms and conditions of employment. The law also prohibits job segregation based on religion, such as assigning an employee to a non-customer contact position because of actual or feared customer preference.

In addition, the Act requires employers to reasonably accommodate the religious beliefs and practices of applicants and employees, unless doing so would cause more than a minimal burden on the operation of the employer's business. A reasonable religious accommodation is any adjustment to the work environment that will allow the employee to practice his religion. Flexible scheduling, voluntary shift substitutions or swaps, job reassignments lateral transfers, and exceptions to dress or grooming rules are examples of accommodating an employee's religious beliefs.

Whether a particular accommodation would pose an undue hardship on the employer's business depends on the individual circumstances. For example, an accommodation may cause undue hardship if it is costly, compromises workplace safety, decreases workplace efficiency, infringes on the rights of other employees, or requires other employees to do more than their share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work. Undue hardship also may be shown if the request for an accommodation violates others' job rights established through a collective bargaining agreement or seniority system.. . . "


It is the second ruling that is based on having the government forcing folks into a thought control compliance. The First Amendment prohibits that sort of thing. From your link.

"The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place, where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court.

Gorsuch, who wrote a 2020 ruling that expanded LGBTQ rights in an employment context, said that public accommodation laws play a vital role in protecting individual civil rights.

"At the same time, this court has also recognized that no public accommodation law is immune from the demands of the Constitution. In particular, this court has held, public accommodations statutes can sweep too broadly when deployed to compel speech," he added."

 

[Rogue AI]

The needs of a business change over time. Why should the owner of the business be forced to give a **** about the religious activities of someone else?

Because businesses that are fully staffed by godless commies fail.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

I am all for a business going "yep, I wont make that website/cake/etc" but I am also all for a business going "I don't give a **** about your religion, work the hours or find a new job"

The biggest problem with the website ruling, in my opinion, is that the allegedly smart legal world (all the way around), ended up being too stupid to understand the first thing about the work and trade that was at question.

Web development has two major divisions: Content and design. Content refers to text, images, and things like that. Design is about placement, structure, and style. If Colorado's lawyers had properly understood and argued this distinction they would have likely been successful, and rightly so.

This distinction is already recognized under federal law, most notably applying to copyright protections. A web developer who creates a design enjoys copyright protections for that design. Those protections do not transfer to the content portion of the website. Similarly, where a person creates unique content to be featured on a website, they enjoy copyright protections over that content, but not to the website or webpage as a whole. For example, if a person writes an opinion essay to be published on a one page website, but contracts out the design of that site to a second person who is the exclusive creator of the site design, the first person has no copyright ownership over those aspects of the website that constitute design. They only hold copyrights over the content itself.

At the end of the day, the developer's complaint about allegedly being compelled to engage in speech against her religion fails when applied to the design side of building a website. The design of a wedding website cannot possibly be homosexual or heterosexual, as design is by definition universal. Any website can use a given design.

Only the content of a website can make the website about a given topic, whether that be about animal adoption, political advocacy, or the celebration of a same sex couple's marriage. Therefore, the developer's objections should only b able to persevere if Colorado's law compels the designer to be the one who creates content regarding a topic incompatible with her religion. And toward this end, it would be insufficient for the developer to complain about the use of content that is provided by the client.

A Colorado law, therefore, should not be found to violate the defendant's rights as long as the defendant is not required to herself produce content that proclaims or celebrates a same sex marriage. Nevertheless, the defendant can be obliged to: 1) incorporate content that is produced by the client or other parties that proclaims or celebrates a same sex union (notwithstanding other legal hurdles to using such material, such as violating copyright laws if such content were produced by a third party), or 2) to produce a website design and allow a client access to upload and define the site's content if delivering the developer's product in this way is how she normally delivers her product, or 3) hand over a design product to be used by a same sex couple to create their wedding website if delivering the developer's product in this way is how she normally delivers her product.

 

[task0778]

1. A business can be forced to provide religious accommodations.

Not so. A business has to show more than 'minor costs' as a reason to deny somebody a religious accommodation. So, a business can NOT be forced to accommodate if they can some sufficient reasons to support that decision.

2. A business cannot be forced to preform work that goes against their religious views.

Again, not so. From your link:

".... the court said creative businesses can refuse to sell certain products and services if they disagree with the message the customer wishes to convey." CREATIVE businesses and certain creative products and services can be denied, but not just anything or anything. My take is, and I could be mistaken, is that the basic service or product cannot be denied, like bake me a cake. BUT, the baker doesn't have to decorate the cake with a theme or message he/she does not agree with.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Where does that happen? Lol. Most employers have no problem with reasonable accommodations.

Read the ruling

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Not so. A business has to show more than 'minor costs' as a reason to deny somebody a religious accommodation. So, a business can NOT be forced to accommodate if they can some sufficient reasons to support that decision.

Why should they need to show anything? If a baker can go "no, I wont make that cake" why cant they also say 'no, you cant have Sunday off"