Gorsuch v. Sotomayor on Free Speech: The Colorado Ruling

[Harpy Eagle]

Unless it causes substantial harm to the business.

You keep missing an important part of the equation.

It should not matter if if causes any harm at all. What right does the Govt have to force some baker to give someone Sunday off? Why should an employer be forced to give a shit about your religion?

 

[buckeye]

Why should an employer be forced to give a shit about your religion?

So an employer can demand that a female conservative Jew or Muslim should dress more modernly? Remove their headdress? Wear pants to work? That an Amish employee drive a truck?

 

[fncceo]

We are rapidly returning to the 1950s

AWESOME !

 

[Harpy Eagle]

So an employer can demand that a female conservative Jew or Muslim should dress more modernly? Remove their headdress? Wear pants to work?

They should follow the dress code like every other employee.

That an Amish employee drive a truck?

If that is what the employer needs, yep. They do not like it, they can get a different job.

My wife is an RN, she was hired to work the day shift, 7:30 am to 8:00 pm. Now she has to work 2 weeks of night every couple of months due to the needs of her employer. She can either do it or find a different job.

 

[meaner gene]

So an employer can demand that a female conservative Jew or Muslim should dress more modernly? Remove their headdress? Wear pants to work? That an Amish employee drive a truck?

Wouldn't that depend on their job description?
If an Amish applies to Ryder, they can make him driver a truck.
If a muslim applies to be a waitress at Hooters, they can make her wear the Hooters outfit.

Any business can function as a private entity and serve a select clientele. But if you enter into a business licensed as a public accommodation, you have to accommodate the public.

 

[buckeye]

My wife is an RN, she was hired to work the day shift, 7:30 am to 8:00 pm. Now she has to work 2 weeks of night every couple of months due to the needs of her employer. She can either do it or find a different job.

That has nothing to do with her religion. It is what it is. You don't seem to understand that a person's religious belief is protected by the Bill of Rights.

They should follow the dress code like every other employee.

And if that company changed the dress code many years into that person's employment and it conflicts with her sincere religious belief now we know that this is illegal if it doesn't cause the employer substantial harm.

You cannot force a person against their true religious objections. Did you also believe it was just fine to force people to take the covid non vaccine?

 

[meaner gene]

That has nothing to do with her religion. It is what it is. You don't seem to understand that a person's religious belief is protected by the Bill of Rights.


And if that company changed the dress code many years into that person's employment and it conflicts with her sincere religious belief now we know that this is illegal if it doesn't cause the employer substantial harm.

You cannot force a person against their true religious objections. Did you also believe it was just fine to force people to take the covid non vaccine?

They allowed those from recognized religions that religious objection, as that's a tenet of their church. It's people claiming non-orthodox interpretations of their religion.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

That has nothing to do with her religion. It is what it is. You don't seem to understand that a person's religious belief is protected by the Bill of Rights.

It is protected against the Govt, not against private employers. Read the1st and tell me where it mentions anyone but the government.

And if that company changed the dress code many years into that person's employment and it conflicts with her sincere religious belief now we know that this is illegal if it doesn't cause the employer substantial harm.

Yes, it is illegal, but it should not be. It is no different than the government forcing a baker to bake a cake they do not wish to bake.

You cannot force a person against their true religious objections. Did you also believe it was just fine to force people to take the covid non vaccine?

Correct, you cannot force them. If they do not wish to do so, they can get a different job. Nobody has a right to a specific job. I was against the Govt forcing people to get the COVID vaccine, but not against private employers making it a condition of employment. Don't like it, get a different job.

 

[meaner gene]

Correct, you cannot force them. If they do not wish to do so, they can get a different job. Nobody has a right to a specific job. I was against the Govt forcing people to get the COVID vaccine, but not against private employers making it a condition of employment. Don't like it, get a different job.

This is where high school guidance counselors play an important role. To make sure somebody doesn't chose a vocation that is incomparable with either their abilities or their religious beliefs.

 

[buckeye]

Correct, you cannot force them. If they do not wish to do so, they can get a different job. Nobody has a right to a specific job. I was against the Govt forcing people to get the COVID vaccine, but not against private employers making it a condition of employment. Don't like it, get a different job.

For clarity, most private companies only mandated it when the federal govt forced them to with extreme penalty if they didn't obey.

It is protected against the Govt, not against private employers. Read the1st and tell me where it mentions anyone but the government.

Baloney. It's about rights held by citizens. It doesn't have to mention all possible abusers to establish a citizen's rights. What courts do is decide how a company's right and an employee's rights coexist.

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.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

Thanks. There is nothing in this that would stop a business from prohibiting the free exercise or religion, or the freedom of speech or the right to assemble and in fact every business does this every single day.

 

[buckeye]

Thanks. There is nothing in this that would stop a business from prohibiting the free exercise or religion, or the freedom of speech or the right to assemble and in fact every business does this every single day.

Obviously there is since it's been used as justification for the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, etc. in courts for a very, very long time. As I said, courts regularly weigh opposing rights of groups, companies and individuals.

 

[buckeye]

The Supreme Court has issued several notable unanimous decisions this term, and on Thursday the Justices delivered a resounding 9-0 blow for the rights of religiously observant workers.

Groff v. DeJoy concerned whether the U.S. Postal Service was required to make accommodations for an evangelical Christian mail carrier who refused to work on Sundays. When Gerald Groff began working for USPS, Sunday shifts weren’t part of the job. But that changed when USPS signed a deal to deliver Amazon parcels.

After receiving “progressive discipline” for not working Sundays, Mr. Groff resigned. He sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which requires that employers “reasonably accommodate . . . an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice” unless the employer is “unable” to do so “without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.”

Title VII doesn’t define “undue hardship.” But lower courts cited a line from the Court’s Hardison precedent (1977), which describes it as a “more than a de minimis cost.” If an accommodation would violate a collective-bargaining agreement or impose more than a “de minimis cost” on co-workers, lower courts held that an employer is not required to offer an accommodation.

Not so, the Court says. Justice Samuel Alito explains for the Court that lower courts have misconstrued Hardison. “A single, but oft-quoted, sentence in the opinion of the Court, if taken literally, suggested that even a pittance might be too much for an employer to be forced to endure,” he writes. “It is doubtful that [this line] was meant to take on that large role.”

Hardison stated “three times that an accommodation is not required when it entails ‘substantial’ ‘costs’ or ‘expenditures,’” Justice Alito notes. “This formulation suggests that an employer may be required to bear costs and make expenditures that are not ‘substantial.’” There’s a big difference between costs that are more than de minimis and substantial.

An “undue hardship,” Justice Alito concludes, is “shown when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business,” which is a fact-specific inquiry. He also stresses that employers must consider several reasonable options, not merely one.

The Court’s decision clears up its Hardison confusion and provides welcome guidance to lower courts. Here’s to another High Court victory for religious pluralism.

Opinion | A 9-0 Supreme Court Victory for Religious Rights

In Groff v. DeJoy, the Justices rule that employers must give more leeway for religiously observant workers.

www.wsj.com

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Same Sex Marriage is legal in this country (for now)
If you request a service (cake, invitations, web site, reception hall) that is available to others but denied to you then it is a public accommodations issue.

They are not demanding pictures of them having sexual relations. Just a statement that Julie and Lisa are getting married

Like I said before the cake thing needs clarification... although I think the two people were singling out the baker for aforementioned reasons which makes them assholes.
But as for the website developer - same thing, the guy mostly made websites for churches.
These idiots most certainly singled him out to cause trouble... assholes.
At any rate, the SCOTUS is 100% correct because a website is speech. Waay different than just baking a cake.

 

[rightwinger]

At any rate, the SCOTUS is 100% correct because a website is speech. Waay different than just baking a cake.

This decision will have ramifications well beyond cakes and websites

 

[iamwhatiseem]

This decision will have ramifications well beyond cakes and websites

Already has because of ignorance.
On Twitter someone posted up a sign in a business window - "No service for Trump suporters".
Obviously they have no clue as to law, as well as all of the other people who are making this about something it is not.

 

[rightwinger]

Already has because of ignorance.
On Twitter someone posted up a sign in a business window - "No service for Trump suporters".
Obviously they have no clue as to law, as well as all of the other people who are making this about something it is not.

The court needed to draw a line

Instead, they left the door open for any kind of bias justified under religion

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The court needed to draw a line

Instead, they left the door open for any kind of bias justified under religion

I am not bothered by that.
Religions have special privileges. Even though I am not religious, I don't want those special privileges taken away.
Nor do I see it that wide open.
I could be wrong, but from what I understand, this was specific to do with religious beliefs and speech. An example I gave earlier was this...
Locally we have a BBQ joint that is owned by seriously religious people (Christian).
Condition 1 - A person walks in they know is an atheist, gay and transgender. They refuse to serve them based on their religious beliefs. - They are NOT protected by this ruling. As the customer is not infringing on their beliefs by simply eating dinner.
Condition 2 - A person walks in they know is an atheist, gay and transgender. Added to that, they demand the servers call them by their preferred pronouns and allow them to use women's restrooms as a condition of their patronage. They refuse to serve them. - They are protected by this ruling based on the customer is infringing on their beliefs by requesting they take part in their beliefs that is against their religion.

 

[SweetSue92]

Except when it comes to talking about race or racism, or talking about families with same sex parents, or promoting diversity.

So in your estimation, "free speech" would be me explaining the life and death of Jesus Christ to my public school students, and why they should be born again believers?

Yes?

I bet you hate that idea, since a classroom of kids is an underage, captive audience. Well, a business owner, by the dissent's opinion, would be a "captive" speech creator to any request that came through the door.

 

[SweetSue92]

I am not bothered by that.
Religions have special privileges. Even though I am not religious, I don't want those special privileges taken away.
Nor do I see it that wide open.
I could be wrong, but from what I understand, this was specific to do with religious beliefs and speech. An example I gave earlier was this...
Locally we have a BBQ joint that is owned by seriously religious people (Christian).
Condition 1 - A person walks in they know is an atheist, gay and transgender. They refuse to serve them based on their religious beliefs. - They are NOT protected by this ruling. As the customer is not infringing on their beliefs by simply eating dinner.
Condition 2 - A person walks in they know is an atheist, gay and transgender. Added to that, they demand the servers call them by their preferred pronouns and allow them to use women's restrooms as a condition of their patronage. They refuse to serve them. - They are protected by this ruling based on the customer is infringing on their beliefs by requesting they take part in their beliefs that is against their religion.

100% this

The folks in this thread are either too stupid to understand this or are being willfully obtuse.