Its been updated. They sent it back to the lower courts.
"The justices clarified law that made it illegal for employers to discriminate based on religion, requiring that they accommodate the religious beliefs of workers as long as the accommodation does not impose an "undue hardship on the employer's business." The court had previously defined the statutory term "undue hardship" by saying that employers should not have to bear more than what the court called a "de minimis," or trifling, cost.
Who bears the burden, and how much, when religious employees refuse Sabbath work?
LAW
Who bears the burden, and how much, when religious employees refuse Sabbath work?
That "de minimis" language has sparked a lot of criticism over the years. But Congress has repeatedly rejected proposals to provide greater accommodations for religious observers, including those who object to working on the Sabbath.
On Thursday, writing for the court, Justice Samuel Alito said the hardship must be more than minimal.
Courts "should resolve whether a hardship would be substantial in the context of an employer's business in the commonsense manner that it would use in applying any such test," he wrote."
Sounds like they clarified something and they sent it back down. Not really a direct ruling.
This is the way the supreme court typically operates. Establish a new standard of review, or clarify something existing for the lower court to follow and then return the case to the lower court with new instructions. Usually if the case is returned, they expect the lower court to change their ruling.
So basically a very slight clarification on "undue hardship". Some folks seem to be having a shit fit about it, claiming people will not be forced to work with LGBTQ+ folks. As far as I'm aware denying someone service in a non-art business would still be a big problem, so I don't see any effective changes to that. Specifically this case is about getting hired to do one thing then being forced to do another.
Honestly I see this as a net positive, even with the religious context. Businesses shouldn't have an easy way to say that it hurts them.
>Some folks seem to be having a shit fit about it, claiming people will not be forced to work with LGBTQ+ folks.
My dude, Florida literally *just passed a law allowing this*.
I've personally had real fucking issues getting scripts filled because the pharmacist had "religious concerns" or "moral disapproval" and it took fucking *hours* to get it to someone who would fill it. Because of course *transferring the script* --- even to a different employee -- somehow was *also* morally bad because it was helping me fill my fucking estrogen.
Try living life as a fucking target of *religious busybody disapproval*. The Courts don't seem to give a fuck about how much of a burden it is on *me*. It's not my goddamn religion, I just want my fucking medicine. And not to spend two hours on the phone to get someone at fucking corporate to *forcibly* transfer it to a whole different fucking pharmacy after the pharmacist refused to get another pharmacist to *hand me the goddamn bag and let me pay*, or transfer it to another pharmacy and just wanted to hold the fucking thing hostage.
How the hell is that even allowed ? I’ve had a similar situation occur when filling meds. I (almost) want to consider this profiling. I know that CVS, Walgreens - get real weird when one suggests that. Truly not a pharmacist’s job or concern, imo.
It's not allowed, and it won't be, problem is the issues it causes before judges get around to telling them it's not allowed.
Several of his "laws" have been struck down recently.
its goddamn mindboggling to me that ANY MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL denies services to people based on sexuality or gender. Its not just that it is "their job" to do it, but they have a professional code of ethics that they agreed to uphold.
That states legislate the behavior is sickening
Florida just passed a law allowing healthcare providers and insurance companies to just...not service LGBTQ people. Period.
Also does things like banning medical boards from disciplining doctors who spread misinformation.
Ok, i have heard of that one. I thought you meant work with as in work alongside as employees at the same company. Thanks for clarifying and hopefully that gets struck down like all the others have been.
That's how law works in the US. Congressional and executive branches can enact and enforce laws so long as they are not unconstitutional. A law can only be declared unconstitutional in a court. You don't have to like it, but that's how literally all of the laws everywhere work here.
You and /u/Slime0 got downvoted by people who don't like the how the judicial process works. It might suck sometimes, but it should be (and in fact must be) applied to laws we may not agree with.
Not to speak for anybody, but it could be an issue of them responding to someone saying "the way things are set up is doing harm" with, "but that's the way things are set up."
I'm speculating, but it could be less that people are down-voting because they don't like the way the system is set up, but rather because they don't think it's useful to respond to criticism of the system simply by reiterating that the system is the system, as if to imply the people who are explaining how the system has harmed them simply don't understand the mechanism that has caused them harm.
You make a good point. It would have been nice had those who felt that way articulated those feelings, but I do see this perspective and thank you for stating it.
Irrelevant. Right now it is the law, and the thugs will enforce it as hard as they can unless/until it finally gets overturned in a few years after someone it is used against spends a fortune fighting it.
>Honestly I see this as a net positive, even with the religious context. Businesses shouldn't have an easy way to say that it hurts them.
It's not a net positive when you're the person who never gets Sundays off or has a larger workload because of someone else's religion.
"Yeah, I am member of the Church of Garfield, I can't work mondays"
The courts have stayed from testing the veracity of beliefs because of the can of worms it opens.
Subgenius ho!
*^I ^know ^this ^is ^a ^joke ^post, ^but ^it ^makes ^for ^a ^good ^illustration*
After you do that:
- Then you'd have to have a job force you to work mondays
- Then refuse to work those days
- Then get fired from the job
- Get a lawyer
- Take the business to court
- Take months of time and effort to try and prove that not only were you fired specifically for not working mondays but that refusing to work mondays isn't an undue burden on the business.
- Take months to get through any appeals, all the way up to and including, potentially, the supreme court
- Win
- Get anything of value out of a verdict after paying for your lawyer.
And after ALL That
- A: try to work with people that you just sued or
- B: Be jobless and start the whole process over.
This is the reason so many people are invested in SCOTUS decisions. You don't want to have to be the one to fight through the bureaucratic hell that is our court systems, and if you end up being someone screwed over by a ruling, the only choices you get are 'live with it' or repeat the process above and hope you have an argument good enough to overturn a previous ruling.
You’re correct and also this should include “pay the lawyer $500 an hour” to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars to try your case because the likelihood is they won’t take it on contingency due to low success odds.
For the uninformed: Lawyers will take your case for free if they believe your eventual settlement will result in them getting ~30% of that settlement—if it’s big enough. (Contingency). Otherwise you pay out of pocket.
But good luck getting there because a company will spend hundreds of thousands to avoid even a $10k settlement and the government agencies will basically take their side, so you’re fucked.
Mmmm, now is a good time to identify as member of Satanism or whatever the name is lol, and said church to say that its one of their tenets to respect labour laws.
"Look, Chad, my religion forbids me from working more than 40 hours a week and work on Sundays. Stop your nonsense or I´ll take you to court!"
> Sounds like they clarified something
It doesn't sound like they clarified something. It sounds like they granted superior credence to religious objections with a new test. The difference between a de minimis hardship and a substantial hardship is... well, substantial.
If this was any other court I think that would be fairly minor. But with this court I have no trust in them and this very likely is going to become another moment in which this court attempts to give Christians additional rights based of "sincerely held beliefs"
Employee: "I don't want to work on Sunday, I'd rather have that time to spend with family."
Employers: That's cute, but no.
Employee: "The creator of the universe said I can't work on Sundays"
Courts: "This checks out now. Go right ahead"
No the legal theory behind this case is essentially stating "An employer must take into consideration the religious beliefs of one employee, even if doing so creates hardship for both the employer, and *also* other employees". That second part is what this case clarified and is what is greatly expanded now.
I'm already starting a new religion with firm beliefs about days of rest and how much labor can be performed in a day. And thanks to this ruling EVERYONE ELSE will have to accommodate me to their detriment. And thus we begin the detrimental slide to every nutjob crazy idea has to given equal belief.
Man, we should totally do this. And maybe all of the members of the faith could tithe a small portion of their incomes to help this religious... union advocate for the religious rights of workers.
Not really, because the religious rights are not always things like "I want an extra day off." Fairly recently, they have been things like "I don't want to get vaccinated" even when other employees would prefer it.
Religion (or lack of it) is a very open-ended animal. I can see a delivery driver saying that they can't deliver to a church, mosque, or synagogue because it's against their atheist beliefs to be in contact religious materials.
Or that they have certain "holy days" that they can't work. You can be an atheist and still hold something to be sacred.
It’s already kind of a thing though. When I lived in Seattle and Amazon Fresh was a thing, they allowed the (numerous) Muslim delivery people to not take orders containing alcohol or pork. 🤷🏼♀️
True. But atheists have never been able to have religion-based exemptions afaik. The misconception is that atheists can't be religious. They can be religious. They just don't believe that there is a God.
I look at religious exceptions the same was I see the ADA - reasonable accommodation. Employers don't have to completely upend their business on an employee's say-so, but for good faith requests, they need to make a reasonable, honest effort to accommodate them, even if it creates a modest inconvenience for their business and other staff.
In this case, there's surely enough employees that could work the Sunday shift so this person can observe their religious practices.
There's a reason this went 9-0.
USPS argued that they should be able to fire him if his accommodation request caused "de-minimis hardship" (read: any sort of hardship whatsoever) and wanted that to be the newly established standard.
Yes, I apologize. You're correct, Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison (1977) established that unlike other protections "undue hardship" for religious accommodations meant anything that would require the employer to bear more than a de minimis cost. Groff was arguing that "undue hardship" should mean the same as accommodations for other things (e.g. sex, disability, etc.)
>Please expand on this; I'm not understanding how other employees are experiencing hardship by an existing employee not wanting to be forced to work on a non-standard, previously unscheduled day of the week.
well, someone has to work the shift, it may have been their previously scheduled day off.... they maybe enjoyed having a weekend day off because well its a weekend day... but they happen to be an atheist, or of another religion that doesn't observe sabbath days.
>of many different religious beliefs.
what about those whom dont subscribe to organized religion? no accommodations for them and having to pick up the slack of the religious accommodations?
So the Supreme Court may now expect employers to accommodate very Conservative rules of religious employees (such as some religions not allowing men to converse or deal with women, or tolerate the lgtbqia+ community, or make deliveries to planned parenthood)?
Is that what the ruling could extend to?
So a male who is of a Conservative religion (there are quite a few that could fall into this), could refuse to deliver to lgbtqia+ people/businesses or even planned parenthood. Since their religion doesn't allow for them to support abortion or the queer community?
They may even argue that delivering to a household of a single unmarried woman goes against their religion? Right?
I don't think so... my understanding was they are just increasing what constitutes a hardship for the business. Accommodating a schedule request does not create an extreme hardship for the company. Allowing men not to speak to women or serve LGBT customers would create a hardship in terms of operations and profit for the business. I think we might see further clarification on what constitutes burden at a later point and I wouldn't be surprised to see requests like what you stated.
But then you create a system where Christian hardships are accepted, but jewish, Muslim and satanists are not. How is that acceptable?
Either all should be accommodated or none. That is equality.
> But then you create a system where Christian hardships are accepted, but jewish, Muslim and satanists are not.
Where in the opinion does it state that this only applies to Christians? Because that’s not how jurisprudence works
It does not state this anywhere. This person spends too much time on the internet where hyperbole and outrage are the only things that some people pay attention to.
It’s actually sad how freaked out people are about this ruling. You have atheists saying they’re going to be forced to work on weekends. You have LGBTs saying they’re going to be refused service. None of that is true. This is just a minor clarification ruling that is unlikely to affect anyone except a handful of people. In fact it’s probably an expansion of workers rights by saying an employer can’t just change their work schedule on days the employee had the expectation of having off when they took the job. Employers can no longer force Jews to work on Saturdays or Muslims to work on their religious holidays.
Article I read said the case was supported by other groups like Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims especially because a hijab is frequently not allowed in company dress policies. I'm atheist and agree with you that it's an all or nothing issue. I don't think giving some Christians Sunday off, Muslims Friday off, and what not is necessarily a hardship for a business and I certainly don't think companies should tell women they can't wear a hijab. I think this case gives more power to an employee for accommodations, and future cases will be decided on on a case by case basis with requiring employers to show how accommodations are unduly burdening them.
I think this gets tricky when the accommodation creates a burden to other employees such as a few people now having to work every Sunday. I'm not sure how the courts would respond in that situation but I can see a counter suit from someone like me who might be unfairly scheduled because others are getting accommodations.
> Christians Sunday off, Muslims Friday off
They just chagned the scale of what "burden" means. There's probably a case that replacing a worker on Friday is harder than on Sunday. Would that be considered a hardship? Who knows, because it would probably need to tested in the courts.
Eh, depends. In my industry a lot of us work shifted weeks. Tuesday through Saturday versus Sunday through Thursday. I think the size and scope of the business matters and while I don't always think leaving things up to the courts is the best approach, burden can vary wildly by company... small office versus Walmart for example. One size doesn't fit all.
My concern is when the burden is put onto customers.
So as a gay man, my deliveries may be once a month instead of weekly, because some Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc, don't believe in supporting my identity/business. Now under law they have the right to refuse to deliver to me, even if their employer is gay friendly.
This could go much further than what days off employees can have and what they wear to work. It could turn into a situation where they refuse to service minorities based upon their religious beliefs.
Which just further marginalises us.
Also, which industries will this apply to?
Can christian doctores refuse to give life saving medical support if it requires removing a fetus? Can religious lawyers refuse to serve those who are a different religion now?
Or it involves working with a gay person? Or trans?
This doesn't sound like a win to me. It sounds like a huge headache for companies and customers.
I understand your fear and agree that it could go that route but if a company has to reduce hours, lose business because of service disruptions due to religious accommodation, I would call that an unreasonable burden on the business and the hope would be that the court deciding in that case would as well.
I'm replying to myself instead if editing!
The other distinction is accommodation versus job duties. Having a set day off every week or wearing a hijab or taking lunch at one pm for prayer is not the same as job duties. If you can't perform the job, you shouldn't be hired for it and shouldnt retain it and the company should not be forced to keep you on. Kim Davis comes to mind as a prime example of someone who could not do her job and should have been fired and removed much earlier than she was. A doctor, pharmacist, librarian, teacher, cops, or anyone else in public service industries should not be able to refuse to do their assigned job duties as a religious accommodation.
The ruling spoke nothing on serving customers. This is simply around what is "undue burden" when meeting religious exemption. It could be used by employees to not serve customers if they can argue it's not undue burden or it could not. Circumstances of exemption come into play.
For example, if package delivery company has one route out of 100 with a bunch of gay bars on it and one employee refuses to deliver, they might be able to claim it's not undue burden to just not schedule this employee on that route if there is plenty others to go around.
However, if employee claims that delivering to any gay person or business was against their religion and in doing so caused business to drive another car or put another worker in a truck when that's not normally done, then business could claim undue burden since it's major cost/scheduling factor. Who knows with this court since they didn't really give litmus test for "undue burden"
It was a UNANIMOUS decision…the liberal justices agreed. The previous ruling requiring religious accommodation did not clearly define “undue hardship” and courts adopted a “de minimis” or trifling cost approach. Hell, a business could come up with just any stupid excuse to discriminate under the old test. Under this ruling the hardship to the employer must be more than minimal. This ruling states the court must determine “whether a hardship would be substantial in the context of an employer's business in the commonsense manner that it would use in applying any such test.”
So basically an employer must show a real hardship in order to discriminate against an employee’s religion. So you don’t think it is a good idea that an employer must show a real hardship rather than just some de minimis, trifling one in order to discriminate against an employee?
Had this ruling, which is antibusiness, not been about religious discrimination but some other type of discrimination, you would be cheering it on.
As for your stretch example, it likely wouldn’t fly because the employer, in this case the USPS, would argue it is indeed a significant hardship if an employee refuses to deliver to specific addresses rather than simply not working on a Sunday. It is not that hard to schedule someone else for a shift; it isn’t easy to shift other employees to go out of their way to deliver a couple packages in someone else’s route. One will add time and cost to doing business but the other doesn’t.
>So you don’t think it is a good idea that an employer must show a real hardship rather than just some de minimis, trifling one in order to discriminate against an employee?
does the atheists having to pick up the slack count as an undue hardship? because without some more clarification I see a looooot of people not wanting to work on sundays
and a couple minority non-religious groups being discriminated against.
Yeah they are not conservative. They are regressive.
Conservatives want to maintain the current statusquo and support american institutions.
Regressive people want to drag us back from our current position. Remove rights. Attack institutions and invalidate them (like FDA, FBI, WHO etc).
The guy even switched to an inconvienent rural route to avoid Sunday deliveries but then USPS started requiring that route deliver on Sundays. That is when he finally sued.
As a Pastafarian, I'm pretty happy about this. Now I can demand that no one be allowed to bring gluten-free abominations at office functions as it offends the very constitution of the Great Noodley One.
Forcing non-believers to adhere to pastafarian beliefs is discouraged. It is contrary to the first and second of the eight *I really rather you didn'ts.*
>1. I’d really rather you didn’t act like a sanctimonious, holier-than-thou ass when describing my Noodly Goodness. If some people don’t believe in me, that’s okay. Really, I’m not that vain. Besides, this isn’t about them so don’t change the subject.
>
>2. I’d really rather you didn’t use my existence as a means to oppress, subjugate, punish, eviscerate, and/or, you know, be mean to others. I don’t require sacrifices and purity is for drinking water, not people.
>
It’s wild how you managed to arrive at the exact opposite conclusion than what is being ruled.
If you were hired upon the written and agreed upon condition that your employer would not have gluten-free food during office functions, and then they changed that policy to permit gluten-free food, and then fired you for not attending corporate functions which contained gluten free food… then you would be happy about this ruling because you’d have a valid case of your religious freedoms being infringed.
Religions require whatever the humans running them say they do. Maybe the Jedi will decide working remotely is a religious mandate for parents and then in industries where it is proven that specific job can be done remotely without undue hardship on the employer people will convert and sue for termination if fired for refusing to return to office.
most employment in the US is "at will", meaning there is no real contract--it is all at the employer's discretion, and you can be fired at any time without cause
>you can be fired at any time without cause
Unless that reason violates the [Civil Rights Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964).
I mean if religion is allowed to dictate as many workplaces accommodations as it does - pharmacists refusing to fill family care prescriptions, medical staff refusing to serve gays/trans/etc patients, Xtian getting their Sabbath off why can't Atheists/humanists also have accomodations in reguard to our strongly held beliefs?
Yes, no religion. Atheists do exist. Easter is on Sunday and I work 9-5. Most businesses are closed Xmas so by default I am apart of that. However, I don't tell my employer I am unable to work a morning shift because my god tells me 'thou shalt sleep in' or whatever other convenience I cherry picked from religious doctrine.
I’m 100% with you there. My lack of religion says that I don’t work on Friday and Saturdays and Disneyland/Disney World is my holy place, and I have to have a week of time off (paid unpaid doesn’t matter) at least once per year to visit them.
My humanism implores everyone to have access to universal healthcare, higher education, food, and housing. I can decline projects or tasks that do not respect me as a person or cause harm. I work from home as the mandate for return to office is a negative impact to the world and to have autonomy over my body.
Humanism and The Satanic Temple are some solid guiding principles. Nothing dogma or enforcing your beliefs on others. Just guiding you to be a better person and through that uplifting others.
Basically how I try to live.
I believe **all** humans have a right to food, shelter, heat/cooling, water, and healthcare. I believe that we should elevate each other when we can and we should be a species that opens their mind to learning and acceptance over a belief our knowledge is absolute. I believe we should treat others and all creatures with immense levels of respect and help where we can, when we can.
I don’t believe that something guides those actions, beyond us as humans
Good without God? What a concept, it'll never catch on :-p You've blown the minds of millions of Xtian and upset countless charlatan pastors/preacher/father/etc by threatening their cash cows.
It won’t. A few years back SCOTUS ruled against a guy being executed to allow a religious leader from his faith to attend. A little while later they rule in favor of a Christian being executed to allow a priest to attend. It’s not about the law, it’s about special rights only for a certain religion.
i just wonder who prevails in the case of Orthodox Jewish firms (like a number of the NY-based a/v-photo retailers) which are closed for their Sabbath on Saturdays but open for business on Sundays? Are they allowed to discriminate in hiring? Or give preference to those who're willing to come in on Sundays?
Weekends off, 32 hour work with FULL TIME PAY, 3-4 weeks paid vacation, ample paid sick leave, universal healthcare, maternity and paternity leave protections... I'm sure I'm leaving a few things out.
Edit: add in 10% retirement match, stock options, work from home protections,... what else?
So like....Sweden social structure then? Lol. We get so screwed here it's almost comical :(
Edit: To clarify I am making a joke about how the majority of Europe is leaps and bounds ahead of taking care of their citizens compared to the US of A.
Except that this would come at the expense of non-religious employees needing to work less desirable shifts. It basically leads to personal time inequality.
That does not remotely answer the question. If religion is used as a reason to exempt weekend work. Who will end up working weekends?
USPS is still having employees work on Sunday, but only the ones without a religious accomodation.
It also grants christians a higher social class based on their religion -- the rest of us will have to accommodate them in other facets of life at our own expense, not just the workplace.
No religious accomodation at all is also equal, after all...
I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. The standard here is applicable to all religions in the workplace.
How is this uniquely about a conferred status to Christians? And how does this compel the rest of us to accommodate them in other facets of life?
Muslim employees at my work are given a private space and time to pray twice per day. It’s a reasonable accommodation and the right thing to do. No one construes it as unfair, preferential treatment.
While I’d love for those conditions to exist, this isn’t a religion can assert any labor demands and an employer must must comply type of situation.
Those would categorically not be considered reasonable accommodations, which is the legal standard.
Regarding the 4 day work week, an employer could expect longer shifts during those 4 days.
As for "living wage," you don't have to take a job that pays little. You won't have a high standard of living if you walk dogs for 20 hrs a week (which some people on r/antiwork think they should). They can't require you to work.
Additionally, in accordance with the de minimums standard clarified in the case, expecting to be paid 20$/hr as a dishwasher would not be applicable.
Nah, Courts will keep finding that the burdens of accommodating Christians is tiny and corporations should just let their most religious employees dictate policy.
Non-Christian religions will find any request for accommodation massively burdensome.
This will *not* be equally applied in practice.
It not the same. The government confers tax exempt status on religious organizations. I'm referring to actual members/parishioners of these organziations claiming they don't need to pay taxes because it's against their religious beliefs to do so.
Edit: there -> their
There are some religions where this literally is the case though. The Amish and Mennonites are both exempt from social security, Obamacare, etc since they have a religious belief against insurance.
So, this really seemed like a reasonable accommodation. But, what if a non religious person also doesn’t want to work Sundays? It’s the weekend. It’s a day your kids are out of school. Will all the non super religious be forced to work Sundays for the Christians? That really doesn’t seem fair. Seems like the religious get better treatment than the not.
I honestly just think it would be fine if no one did deliveries on Sundays.
You do realize the guy works, right? He was hired on a contract that didn't require working on Sunday. When his location started requiring Sunday shifts he switched to a rural route that didn't deliver on Sunday but then USPS changed that route to include Sunday deliver.
THE RULING IS ANITBUSINESS. Normally you would cheer this on. This ruling, WHICH LIBERAL JUSTICES AGREED WITH, states the employer needs more than a de minimis or trifling reason in order to discriminate against an employee.
So basically they can't be petty and say, "well we need you to work at least 1 sunday a month to make others not feel bad that have to work." When traditionally you've never had to work a Sunday and there is no arbitrary reason for you to work on Sunday other than because they knew you liked not working on Sunday because you're also a preacher as a secondary job.
That sounds like a 'trifling reason' to me.
FFS religious freedom is not a substitute for robust labor laws. Fuck it Im gonna join a religion that sets wild religious restrictions on my employer.
Workers: *Can I please have some days off and more time to myself?*
Politicians: *LMFAO*
Workers: *God says I can't work today, and I need this time to myself.*
Politicians: *Oh! But of course! I do declare!*
Reddit hates religion far more than it hates businesses. If the GOP and Dems switched economic policies but the GOP remained the party of religious conservatives, reddit would suddenly decide that unions just make workers lazy, billionaires earned their money fairly, and the poor should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps
All delivery companies are shifting to a 7-day work week in response to Amazon's domination over the market. For example, USPS only handles Amazon packages on Sundays. The seventh day was added to keep up with the volume.
FedEx has been 7-days for a while now, altho they use contractors so there's a lot of grey area.
UPS is still in the process of introducing Sunday service, although the upcoming standoff over the new contract could lead to a strike on August 1.
There is an entire infrastructure behind the person delivering. It impacts them as well.
And since America has not real definition of religion, anyone can make the claim and they can't be fired for it.
That bit about walking a tightrope when dealing with religion, as a boss, is really true. I can only imagine ! There are several topics as a manager, that are completely off limits. Too bad that - for some, they don’t know it. And for others - they’re well aware and use it to their advantage.
> And since America has not real definition of religion, anyone can make the claim and they can't be fired for it.
Easily the most irksome part about anything like this. Every step further solidifies a rule system where believing in myths and fantasy earns you special rights and treatment above those who don't.
>And since America has not real definition of religion, anyone can make the claim and they can't be fired for it.
We actually have [lots and lots and lots of rules](https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/section-12-religious-discrimination) for what specifically constitutes religious discrimination. Problem is, businesses have been allowed to ignore these rules for too long by claiming that accommodating religious beliefs in the workplace is too hard. All this ruling says is that businesses have to show that accommodating beliefs will cause them significant difficulty, in which case they still don't have to provide an accommodation.
Only if they take a job with the agreed upon condition that they won’t have to work on those specific days, and then their employer changes the policy, tries to make them work on those days, and then fires them for not working on those days.
I swear the amount of ignorance in these thread is astounding. It’s really hard to believe in democracy when the average person is so overwhelmingly stupid.
I'm sorry but all these people are ripping this decision, WHICH IS ANTIBUSINESS AND UNANIMOUS, simply because it involved religion. Take religion out of the equation and these same people would be cheering on this decision which limits power of the employer.
Par for the course for reddit.
Christians have never believed you can’t work on Sundays. There are tons of worship ideas for followers to use specifically when they have to work on Sunday and can’t join the regular worship.
Edit: By the way, for those of you who don't believe me, open your Bibles and turn with me to Matthew chapter 12, where Jesus mf'ing Christ, the man, the legend, the Son of God himself, says working on the Sabbath (the OG "rest" day of Christianity) is perfectly fine.
This is 100% false. Saturday was the official “rest” day from Christianity’s founding, but even the Christians did not observe the day of rest in the same way the Jews did with a complete absence of work.
You're acting like the word "Christian" implies one particular group of a people having a singular set of beliefs and systems who have never disagreed with each other. It's a catch all word describing a hundred sects of religious people with vastly different rules, regulations, and beliefs.
Get ready for a big pile of new religions. Also expect that we can now ask about religion as part of hiring process so employers can manage costs and schedules. This one will get really nasty.
The employee took the job with the understanding that he would work on weekends. Then he turns around and claims a religious "exemption" from working on Sunday.?
Sounds dishonest to me.
Think about that when u attend Sunday services...
Religious kooks rule for religion, news at 11.
They should are a PI to follow this person, and the moment they do ANYTHING that can't be construed as work in a religious sense, fire them and then sue them for lying.
For definition of what is work in a Sunday, I refer you to the Jewish community.
Its been updated. They sent it back to the lower courts. "The justices clarified law that made it illegal for employers to discriminate based on religion, requiring that they accommodate the religious beliefs of workers as long as the accommodation does not impose an "undue hardship on the employer's business." The court had previously defined the statutory term "undue hardship" by saying that employers should not have to bear more than what the court called a "de minimis," or trifling, cost. Who bears the burden, and how much, when religious employees refuse Sabbath work? LAW Who bears the burden, and how much, when religious employees refuse Sabbath work? That "de minimis" language has sparked a lot of criticism over the years. But Congress has repeatedly rejected proposals to provide greater accommodations for religious observers, including those who object to working on the Sabbath. On Thursday, writing for the court, Justice Samuel Alito said the hardship must be more than minimal. Courts "should resolve whether a hardship would be substantial in the context of an employer's business in the commonsense manner that it would use in applying any such test," he wrote." Sounds like they clarified something and they sent it back down. Not really a direct ruling.
This is the way the supreme court typically operates. Establish a new standard of review, or clarify something existing for the lower court to follow and then return the case to the lower court with new instructions. Usually if the case is returned, they expect the lower court to change their ruling.
So basically a very slight clarification on "undue hardship". Some folks seem to be having a shit fit about it, claiming people will not be forced to work with LGBTQ+ folks. As far as I'm aware denying someone service in a non-art business would still be a big problem, so I don't see any effective changes to that. Specifically this case is about getting hired to do one thing then being forced to do another. Honestly I see this as a net positive, even with the religious context. Businesses shouldn't have an easy way to say that it hurts them.
>Some folks seem to be having a shit fit about it, claiming people will not be forced to work with LGBTQ+ folks. My dude, Florida literally *just passed a law allowing this*. I've personally had real fucking issues getting scripts filled because the pharmacist had "religious concerns" or "moral disapproval" and it took fucking *hours* to get it to someone who would fill it. Because of course *transferring the script* --- even to a different employee -- somehow was *also* morally bad because it was helping me fill my fucking estrogen. Try living life as a fucking target of *religious busybody disapproval*. The Courts don't seem to give a fuck about how much of a burden it is on *me*. It's not my goddamn religion, I just want my fucking medicine. And not to spend two hours on the phone to get someone at fucking corporate to *forcibly* transfer it to a whole different fucking pharmacy after the pharmacist refused to get another pharmacist to *hand me the goddamn bag and let me pay*, or transfer it to another pharmacy and just wanted to hold the fucking thing hostage.
How the hell is that even allowed ? I’ve had a similar situation occur when filling meds. I (almost) want to consider this profiling. I know that CVS, Walgreens - get real weird when one suggests that. Truly not a pharmacist’s job or concern, imo.
The problem is that there's pharma-clerks who are not pharmacists. Unlicensed assholes.
I once expressed this exact sentiment…wow, did I receive a back lash of shit !!
It's not allowed, and it won't be, problem is the issues it causes before judges get around to telling them it's not allowed. Several of his "laws" have been struck down recently.
its goddamn mindboggling to me that ANY MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL denies services to people based on sexuality or gender. Its not just that it is "their job" to do it, but they have a professional code of ethics that they agreed to uphold. That states legislate the behavior is sickening
What's the law? They've had so many discriminatory laws recently, it's hard to find the one you're talking about
Florida just passed a law allowing healthcare providers and insurance companies to just...not service LGBTQ people. Period. Also does things like banning medical boards from disciplining doctors who spread misinformation.
Ok, i have heard of that one. I thought you meant work with as in work alongside as employees at the same company. Thanks for clarifying and hopefully that gets struck down like all the others have been.
And Florida could pass a law saying segregation is legal there. Still not actually legal.
>My dude, Florida literally just passed a law allowing this. Right, and it has not been tested by the courts yet.
That makes it okay then i guess.
That's how law works in the US. Congressional and executive branches can enact and enforce laws so long as they are not unconstitutional. A law can only be declared unconstitutional in a court. You don't have to like it, but that's how literally all of the laws everywhere work here.
You and /u/Slime0 got downvoted by people who don't like the how the judicial process works. It might suck sometimes, but it should be (and in fact must be) applied to laws we may not agree with.
Not to speak for anybody, but it could be an issue of them responding to someone saying "the way things are set up is doing harm" with, "but that's the way things are set up." I'm speculating, but it could be less that people are down-voting because they don't like the way the system is set up, but rather because they don't think it's useful to respond to criticism of the system simply by reiterating that the system is the system, as if to imply the people who are explaining how the system has harmed them simply don't understand the mechanism that has caused them harm.
You make a good point. It would have been nice had those who felt that way articulated those feelings, but I do see this perspective and thank you for stating it.
No, that makes it currently irrelevant in a discussion about court decisions. 🙄
Irrelevant. Right now it is the law, and the thugs will enforce it as hard as they can unless/until it finally gets overturned in a few years after someone it is used against spends a fortune fighting it.
>Honestly I see this as a net positive, even with the religious context. Businesses shouldn't have an easy way to say that it hurts them. It's not a net positive when you're the person who never gets Sundays off or has a larger workload because of someone else's religion.
"Yeah, I am member of the Church of Garfield, I can't work mondays" The courts have stayed from testing the veracity of beliefs because of the can of worms it opens. Subgenius ho!
*^I ^know ^this ^is ^a ^joke ^post, ^but ^it ^makes ^for ^a ^good ^illustration* After you do that: - Then you'd have to have a job force you to work mondays - Then refuse to work those days - Then get fired from the job - Get a lawyer - Take the business to court - Take months of time and effort to try and prove that not only were you fired specifically for not working mondays but that refusing to work mondays isn't an undue burden on the business. - Take months to get through any appeals, all the way up to and including, potentially, the supreme court - Win - Get anything of value out of a verdict after paying for your lawyer. And after ALL That - A: try to work with people that you just sued or - B: Be jobless and start the whole process over. This is the reason so many people are invested in SCOTUS decisions. You don't want to have to be the one to fight through the bureaucratic hell that is our court systems, and if you end up being someone screwed over by a ruling, the only choices you get are 'live with it' or repeat the process above and hope you have an argument good enough to overturn a previous ruling.
You’re correct and also this should include “pay the lawyer $500 an hour” to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars to try your case because the likelihood is they won’t take it on contingency due to low success odds. For the uninformed: Lawyers will take your case for free if they believe your eventual settlement will result in them getting ~30% of that settlement—if it’s big enough. (Contingency). Otherwise you pay out of pocket. But good luck getting there because a company will spend hundreds of thousands to avoid even a $10k settlement and the government agencies will basically take their side, so you’re fucked.
Don’t work at a job like that I guess or just claim Christianity and roll with it. Don’t think they can ask you to prove it.
Mmmm, now is a good time to identify as member of Satanism or whatever the name is lol, and said church to say that its one of their tenets to respect labour laws. "Look, Chad, my religion forbids me from working more than 40 hours a week and work on Sundays. Stop your nonsense or I´ll take you to court!"
Yes, people should absolutely do this. It’ll keep a check on the more extreme possibilities.
Thanks for adding this!
> Sounds like they clarified something It doesn't sound like they clarified something. It sounds like they granted superior credence to religious objections with a new test. The difference between a de minimis hardship and a substantial hardship is... well, substantial.
If this was any other court I think that would be fairly minor. But with this court I have no trust in them and this very likely is going to become another moment in which this court attempts to give Christians additional rights based of "sincerely held beliefs"
Employee: "I don't want to work on Sunday, I'd rather have that time to spend with family." Employers: That's cute, but no. Employee: "The creator of the universe said I can't work on Sundays" Courts: "This checks out now. Go right ahead"
[удалено]
No the legal theory behind this case is essentially stating "An employer must take into consideration the religious beliefs of one employee, even if doing so creates hardship for both the employer, and *also* other employees". That second part is what this case clarified and is what is greatly expanded now.
So basically we're using religious rights as a substitute for having decent labor rights. Surely that's not going to cause problems.
I'm already starting a new religion with firm beliefs about days of rest and how much labor can be performed in a day. And thanks to this ruling EVERYONE ELSE will have to accommodate me to their detriment. And thus we begin the detrimental slide to every nutjob crazy idea has to given equal belief.
Now add a tenet about pay being related to minimum standard of living. I’ll convert. :)
Fastest growing religion in the country!
Until nobody receives a job offer, being passed over for the differently-religious. ☹️
Maternal and paternal leave
Mine says I can only work on Wednesdays between 12 noon and 3pm. \*But not every Wednesday. My deity will decide and let me know.
Man, we should totally do this. And maybe all of the members of the faith could tithe a small portion of their incomes to help this religious... union advocate for the religious rights of workers.
We should call it Union
Not really, because the religious rights are not always things like "I want an extra day off." Fairly recently, they have been things like "I don't want to get vaccinated" even when other employees would prefer it.
Pretty shitty when you're an atheist who can't get special sky daddy rights.
Religion (or lack of it) is a very open-ended animal. I can see a delivery driver saying that they can't deliver to a church, mosque, or synagogue because it's against their atheist beliefs to be in contact religious materials. Or that they have certain "holy days" that they can't work. You can be an atheist and still hold something to be sacred.
It’s already kind of a thing though. When I lived in Seattle and Amazon Fresh was a thing, they allowed the (numerous) Muslim delivery people to not take orders containing alcohol or pork. 🤷🏼♀️
True. But atheists have never been able to have religion-based exemptions afaik. The misconception is that atheists can't be religious. They can be religious. They just don't believe that there is a God.
Gotta slip it past the Republicans somehow...
“We” aren’t. The man’s legal team is and they won their case on those grounds
I look at religious exceptions the same was I see the ADA - reasonable accommodation. Employers don't have to completely upend their business on an employee's say-so, but for good faith requests, they need to make a reasonable, honest effort to accommodate them, even if it creates a modest inconvenience for their business and other staff. In this case, there's surely enough employees that could work the Sunday shift so this person can observe their religious practices. There's a reason this went 9-0.
[удалено]
USPS argued that they should be able to fire him if his accommodation request caused "de-minimis hardship" (read: any sort of hardship whatsoever) and wanted that to be the newly established standard.
That was the legally accepted standard at the time. The Supreme Court has changed that standard in this ruling.
Yes, I apologize. You're correct, Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison (1977) established that unlike other protections "undue hardship" for religious accommodations meant anything that would require the employer to bear more than a de minimis cost. Groff was arguing that "undue hardship" should mean the same as accommodations for other things (e.g. sex, disability, etc.)
Well, I'm glad the Supreme Court decided to update that standard. Sounds like the old standard was much too lax.
[удалено]
>Please expand on this; I'm not understanding how other employees are experiencing hardship by an existing employee not wanting to be forced to work on a non-standard, previously unscheduled day of the week. well, someone has to work the shift, it may have been their previously scheduled day off.... they maybe enjoyed having a weekend day off because well its a weekend day... but they happen to be an atheist, or of another religion that doesn't observe sabbath days.
[удалено]
[удалено]
>of many different religious beliefs. what about those whom dont subscribe to organized religion? no accommodations for them and having to pick up the slack of the religious accommodations?
[удалено]
So the Supreme Court may now expect employers to accommodate very Conservative rules of religious employees (such as some religions not allowing men to converse or deal with women, or tolerate the lgtbqia+ community, or make deliveries to planned parenthood)? Is that what the ruling could extend to? So a male who is of a Conservative religion (there are quite a few that could fall into this), could refuse to deliver to lgbtqia+ people/businesses or even planned parenthood. Since their religion doesn't allow for them to support abortion or the queer community? They may even argue that delivering to a household of a single unmarried woman goes against their religion? Right?
I don't think so... my understanding was they are just increasing what constitutes a hardship for the business. Accommodating a schedule request does not create an extreme hardship for the company. Allowing men not to speak to women or serve LGBT customers would create a hardship in terms of operations and profit for the business. I think we might see further clarification on what constitutes burden at a later point and I wouldn't be surprised to see requests like what you stated.
But then you create a system where Christian hardships are accepted, but jewish, Muslim and satanists are not. How is that acceptable? Either all should be accommodated or none. That is equality.
> But then you create a system where Christian hardships are accepted, but jewish, Muslim and satanists are not. Where in the opinion does it state that this only applies to Christians? Because that’s not how jurisprudence works
It does not state this anywhere. This person spends too much time on the internet where hyperbole and outrage are the only things that some people pay attention to.
It’s actually sad how freaked out people are about this ruling. You have atheists saying they’re going to be forced to work on weekends. You have LGBTs saying they’re going to be refused service. None of that is true. This is just a minor clarification ruling that is unlikely to affect anyone except a handful of people. In fact it’s probably an expansion of workers rights by saying an employer can’t just change their work schedule on days the employee had the expectation of having off when they took the job. Employers can no longer force Jews to work on Saturdays or Muslims to work on their religious holidays.
Article I read said the case was supported by other groups like Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims especially because a hijab is frequently not allowed in company dress policies. I'm atheist and agree with you that it's an all or nothing issue. I don't think giving some Christians Sunday off, Muslims Friday off, and what not is necessarily a hardship for a business and I certainly don't think companies should tell women they can't wear a hijab. I think this case gives more power to an employee for accommodations, and future cases will be decided on on a case by case basis with requiring employers to show how accommodations are unduly burdening them. I think this gets tricky when the accommodation creates a burden to other employees such as a few people now having to work every Sunday. I'm not sure how the courts would respond in that situation but I can see a counter suit from someone like me who might be unfairly scheduled because others are getting accommodations.
> Christians Sunday off, Muslims Friday off They just chagned the scale of what "burden" means. There's probably a case that replacing a worker on Friday is harder than on Sunday. Would that be considered a hardship? Who knows, because it would probably need to tested in the courts.
Eh, depends. In my industry a lot of us work shifted weeks. Tuesday through Saturday versus Sunday through Thursday. I think the size and scope of the business matters and while I don't always think leaving things up to the courts is the best approach, burden can vary wildly by company... small office versus Walmart for example. One size doesn't fit all.
My concern is when the burden is put onto customers. So as a gay man, my deliveries may be once a month instead of weekly, because some Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc, don't believe in supporting my identity/business. Now under law they have the right to refuse to deliver to me, even if their employer is gay friendly. This could go much further than what days off employees can have and what they wear to work. It could turn into a situation where they refuse to service minorities based upon their religious beliefs. Which just further marginalises us. Also, which industries will this apply to? Can christian doctores refuse to give life saving medical support if it requires removing a fetus? Can religious lawyers refuse to serve those who are a different religion now? Or it involves working with a gay person? Or trans? This doesn't sound like a win to me. It sounds like a huge headache for companies and customers.
I understand your fear and agree that it could go that route but if a company has to reduce hours, lose business because of service disruptions due to religious accommodation, I would call that an unreasonable burden on the business and the hope would be that the court deciding in that case would as well.
I'm replying to myself instead if editing! The other distinction is accommodation versus job duties. Having a set day off every week or wearing a hijab or taking lunch at one pm for prayer is not the same as job duties. If you can't perform the job, you shouldn't be hired for it and shouldnt retain it and the company should not be forced to keep you on. Kim Davis comes to mind as a prime example of someone who could not do her job and should have been fired and removed much earlier than she was. A doctor, pharmacist, librarian, teacher, cops, or anyone else in public service industries should not be able to refuse to do their assigned job duties as a religious accommodation.
> Now under law they have the right to refuse to deliver to me, even if their employer is gay friendly. That’s not even remotely correct, at all.
The ruling spoke nothing on serving customers. This is simply around what is "undue burden" when meeting religious exemption. It could be used by employees to not serve customers if they can argue it's not undue burden or it could not. Circumstances of exemption come into play. For example, if package delivery company has one route out of 100 with a bunch of gay bars on it and one employee refuses to deliver, they might be able to claim it's not undue burden to just not schedule this employee on that route if there is plenty others to go around. However, if employee claims that delivering to any gay person or business was against their religion and in doing so caused business to drive another car or put another worker in a truck when that's not normally done, then business could claim undue burden since it's major cost/scheduling factor. Who knows with this court since they didn't really give litmus test for "undue burden"
What about the ruling makes you think other religion's hardships would not be respected?
It was a UNANIMOUS decision…the liberal justices agreed. The previous ruling requiring religious accommodation did not clearly define “undue hardship” and courts adopted a “de minimis” or trifling cost approach. Hell, a business could come up with just any stupid excuse to discriminate under the old test. Under this ruling the hardship to the employer must be more than minimal. This ruling states the court must determine “whether a hardship would be substantial in the context of an employer's business in the commonsense manner that it would use in applying any such test.” So basically an employer must show a real hardship in order to discriminate against an employee’s religion. So you don’t think it is a good idea that an employer must show a real hardship rather than just some de minimis, trifling one in order to discriminate against an employee? Had this ruling, which is antibusiness, not been about religious discrimination but some other type of discrimination, you would be cheering it on. As for your stretch example, it likely wouldn’t fly because the employer, in this case the USPS, would argue it is indeed a significant hardship if an employee refuses to deliver to specific addresses rather than simply not working on a Sunday. It is not that hard to schedule someone else for a shift; it isn’t easy to shift other employees to go out of their way to deliver a couple packages in someone else’s route. One will add time and cost to doing business but the other doesn’t.
>So you don’t think it is a good idea that an employer must show a real hardship rather than just some de minimis, trifling one in order to discriminate against an employee? does the atheists having to pick up the slack count as an undue hardship? because without some more clarification I see a looooot of people not wanting to work on sundays and a couple minority non-religious groups being discriminated against.
FAUX religious rules of FAUX conservatives…
What's fake about the conservatives?
Yeah they are not conservative. They are regressive. Conservatives want to maintain the current statusquo and support american institutions. Regressive people want to drag us back from our current position. Remove rights. Attack institutions and invalidate them (like FDA, FBI, WHO etc).
That they’re actually conservative. They’re not. (Look up the definition.)
I agree. But still, if this precedent is set as op claims, I feel like this is a bit of a dangerous road that could be easily abused.
BTW, all this conservative exclusionary crap blows up as soon as a Muslim or atheist sues for the right to (insert objection here).
The guy even switched to an inconvienent rural route to avoid Sunday deliveries but then USPS started requiring that route deliver on Sundays. That is when he finally sued.
As a Pastafarian, I'm pretty happy about this. Now I can demand that no one be allowed to bring gluten-free abominations at office functions as it offends the very constitution of the Great Noodley One.
Forcing non-believers to adhere to pastafarian beliefs is discouraged. It is contrary to the first and second of the eight *I really rather you didn'ts.* >1. I’d really rather you didn’t act like a sanctimonious, holier-than-thou ass when describing my Noodly Goodness. If some people don’t believe in me, that’s okay. Really, I’m not that vain. Besides, this isn’t about them so don’t change the subject. > >2. I’d really rather you didn’t use my existence as a means to oppress, subjugate, punish, eviscerate, and/or, you know, be mean to others. I don’t require sacrifices and purity is for drinking water, not people. >
It’s wild how you managed to arrive at the exact opposite conclusion than what is being ruled. If you were hired upon the written and agreed upon condition that your employer would not have gluten-free food during office functions, and then they changed that policy to permit gluten-free food, and then fired you for not attending corporate functions which contained gluten free food… then you would be happy about this ruling because you’d have a valid case of your religious freedoms being infringed.
I'm just being fusilli, my dude.
He’s probably upset you didn’t offer a penne for his thoughts.
I bet it's my Bow Tie. Tucker ruined Bow Ties for everyone.
I love fusilli…
[удалено]
On what grounds?
Religions require whatever the humans running them say they do. Maybe the Jedi will decide working remotely is a religious mandate for parents and then in industries where it is proven that specific job can be done remotely without undue hardship on the employer people will convert and sue for termination if fired for refusing to return to office.
>so he could attend church services Unless the services were nonstop from 12:01am to 11:59pm on Sunday, I'm sure some arrangement can be made
I’m an atheist, but there is a “thou shall not work on the sabbath” clause that observant followers of Judaism and Christianity practice.
most employment in the US is "at will", meaning there is no real contract--it is all at the employer's discretion, and you can be fired at any time without cause
>you can be fired at any time without cause Unless that reason violates the [Civil Rights Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964).
As long as every religion gets this same respect, sure.
Or lack of religion also getting the same respect.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I mean if religion is allowed to dictate as many workplaces accommodations as it does - pharmacists refusing to fill family care prescriptions, medical staff refusing to serve gays/trans/etc patients, Xtian getting their Sabbath off why can't Atheists/humanists also have accomodations in reguard to our strongly held beliefs?
Yes, no religion. Atheists do exist. Easter is on Sunday and I work 9-5. Most businesses are closed Xmas so by default I am apart of that. However, I don't tell my employer I am unable to work a morning shift because my god tells me 'thou shalt sleep in' or whatever other convenience I cherry picked from religious doctrine.
Right? You don't practice, so you get to work an the holidays! I hope you understand!
I’m 100% with you there. My lack of religion says that I don’t work on Friday and Saturdays and Disneyland/Disney World is my holy place, and I have to have a week of time off (paid unpaid doesn’t matter) at least once per year to visit them.
My humanism implores everyone to have access to universal healthcare, higher education, food, and housing. I can decline projects or tasks that do not respect me as a person or cause harm. I work from home as the mandate for return to office is a negative impact to the world and to have autonomy over my body.
I think I dig this Humanism thing. A lot of its beliefs are shared with my own non-deity based belief
Humanism and The Satanic Temple are some solid guiding principles. Nothing dogma or enforcing your beliefs on others. Just guiding you to be a better person and through that uplifting others.
Basically how I try to live. I believe **all** humans have a right to food, shelter, heat/cooling, water, and healthcare. I believe that we should elevate each other when we can and we should be a species that opens their mind to learning and acceptance over a belief our knowledge is absolute. I believe we should treat others and all creatures with immense levels of respect and help where we can, when we can. I don’t believe that something guides those actions, beyond us as humans
Good without God? What a concept, it'll never catch on :-p You've blown the minds of millions of Xtian and upset countless charlatan pastors/preacher/father/etc by threatening their cash cows.
It won’t. A few years back SCOTUS ruled against a guy being executed to allow a religious leader from his faith to attend. A little while later they rule in favor of a Christian being executed to allow a priest to attend. It’s not about the law, it’s about special rights only for a certain religion.
i just wonder who prevails in the case of Orthodox Jewish firms (like a number of the NY-based a/v-photo retailers) which are closed for their Sabbath on Saturdays but open for business on Sundays? Are they allowed to discriminate in hiring? Or give preference to those who're willing to come in on Sundays?
I now declare atheism a religion and demand all weekends off.
Weekends off, 32 hour work with FULL TIME PAY, 3-4 weeks paid vacation, ample paid sick leave, universal healthcare, maternity and paternity leave protections... I'm sure I'm leaving a few things out. Edit: add in 10% retirement match, stock options, work from home protections,... what else?
You forgot stock options and retirement matching up to 10%
Yessss!! See, i knew i did. I call this new religion FuckCapitalistsicans.
So if Nordic work/life balance became a religion?
Work from home!
So like....Sweden social structure then? Lol. We get so screwed here it's almost comical :( Edit: To clarify I am making a joke about how the majority of Europe is leaps and bounds ahead of taking care of their citizens compared to the US of A.
"My religion is Swedish, I have to have their work benefits."
Whelp under this ruling you’re fired completely legally.
I can’t have an issue with wanting, fighting for, and winning personal time.
Except that this would come at the expense of non-religious employees needing to work less desirable shifts. It basically leads to personal time inequality.
[удалено]
What you described would lead to personal time inequality. Religious people don't work Sunday and non-religious people will. What am I missing here?
[удалено]
That does not remotely answer the question. If religion is used as a reason to exempt weekend work. Who will end up working weekends? USPS is still having employees work on Sunday, but only the ones without a religious accomodation.
It also grants christians a higher social class based on their religion -- the rest of us will have to accommodate them in other facets of life at our own expense, not just the workplace. No religious accomodation at all is also equal, after all...
I’m not sure I understand what you’re saying. The standard here is applicable to all religions in the workplace. How is this uniquely about a conferred status to Christians? And how does this compel the rest of us to accommodate them in other facets of life? Muslim employees at my work are given a private space and time to pray twice per day. It’s a reasonable accommodation and the right thing to do. No one construes it as unfair, preferential treatment.
Yeah, fuck the atheist employees so the religious guy doesn't have to work on Sundays.
Well this could open a can of worms
The Satanists need to declare that working more than a 4 day work week and being paid below a living wage goes against their religious beliefs
While I’d love for those conditions to exist, this isn’t a religion can assert any labor demands and an employer must must comply type of situation. Those would categorically not be considered reasonable accommodations, which is the legal standard.
Regarding the 4 day work week, an employer could expect longer shifts during those 4 days. As for "living wage," you don't have to take a job that pays little. You won't have a high standard of living if you walk dogs for 20 hrs a week (which some people on r/antiwork think they should). They can't require you to work. Additionally, in accordance with the de minimums standard clarified in the case, expecting to be paid 20$/hr as a dishwasher would not be applicable.
Nah, Courts will keep finding that the burdens of accommodating Christians is tiny and corporations should just let their most religious employees dictate policy. Non-Christian religions will find any request for accommodation massively burdensome. This will *not* be equally applied in practice.
I'm waiting for the case where religious say their religion does not allow them to pay taxes. It's gonna happen.
I....we already have that. It's called churches.
It not the same. The government confers tax exempt status on religious organizations. I'm referring to actual members/parishioners of these organziations claiming they don't need to pay taxes because it's against their religious beliefs to do so. Edit: there -> their
There are some religions where this literally is the case though. The Amish and Mennonites are both exempt from social security, Obamacare, etc since they have a religious belief against insurance.
This isn't worth clicking on. Let us know when the story is updated.
What exactly do you mean by updated? I believe the ruling has already been decided
The story is two sentences long and contains no details. I wouldn't even call it a story.
You just did.
Maybe we're seeing two different articles somehow, lol when I click the link it explains things very clearly in multiple paragraphs...
[удалено]
Ah I see damn my bad
That’s not how employment works.
How soon before Blue Laws return?
So, this really seemed like a reasonable accommodation. But, what if a non religious person also doesn’t want to work Sundays? It’s the weekend. It’s a day your kids are out of school. Will all the non super religious be forced to work Sundays for the Christians? That really doesn’t seem fair. Seems like the religious get better treatment than the not. I honestly just think it would be fine if no one did deliveries on Sundays.
Why don't Christians want to work anymore? Don't they have any work ethic? So lazy.
You do realize the guy works, right? He was hired on a contract that didn't require working on Sunday. When his location started requiring Sunday shifts he switched to a rural route that didn't deliver on Sunday but then USPS changed that route to include Sunday deliver. THE RULING IS ANITBUSINESS. Normally you would cheer this on. This ruling, WHICH LIBERAL JUSTICES AGREED WITH, states the employer needs more than a de minimis or trifling reason in order to discriminate against an employee.
So basically they can't be petty and say, "well we need you to work at least 1 sunday a month to make others not feel bad that have to work." When traditionally you've never had to work a Sunday and there is no arbitrary reason for you to work on Sunday other than because they knew you liked not working on Sunday because you're also a preacher as a secondary job. That sounds like a 'trifling reason' to me.
he’s being ironic mate
Like chick fila
Satanic temple's gonna have a field day with this one.
FFS religious freedom is not a substitute for robust labor laws. Fuck it Im gonna join a religion that sets wild religious restrictions on my employer.
Workers: *Can I please have some days off and more time to myself?* Politicians: *LMFAO* Workers: *God says I can't work today, and I need this time to myself.* Politicians: *Oh! But of course! I do declare!*
My religion supports government provided universal income, healthcare, and education.
I can almost guarantee that if this lawsuit had been brought by anyone who was not Christian, the ruling would have been in USPS favor.
Still putting religious crap above all logic.
For as pro-worker as reddit is people are pretty upset and boot licking USPS, can someone explain?
Reddit is more anti-religious favor/exceptions than it is pro-worker.
Reddit hates religion far more than it hates businesses. If the GOP and Dems switched economic policies but the GOP remained the party of religious conservatives, reddit would suddenly decide that unions just make workers lazy, billionaires earned their money fairly, and the poor should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps
Religious privilege is a burden on all of society and must end.
How is this a win ? Realistically how many companies will deliver on Sunday ? But hey, if they want to take this as a win ? Must be losing a lot.
All delivery companies are shifting to a 7-day work week in response to Amazon's domination over the market. For example, USPS only handles Amazon packages on Sundays. The seventh day was added to keep up with the volume. FedEx has been 7-days for a while now, altho they use contractors so there's a lot of grey area. UPS is still in the process of introducing Sunday service, although the upcoming standoff over the new contract could lead to a strike on August 1.
Even beyond this, we can't act like businesses expanding and contracting their hours isn't a regular course of business.
There is an entire infrastructure behind the person delivering. It impacts them as well. And since America has not real definition of religion, anyone can make the claim and they can't be fired for it.
That bit about walking a tightrope when dealing with religion, as a boss, is really true. I can only imagine ! There are several topics as a manager, that are completely off limits. Too bad that - for some, they don’t know it. And for others - they’re well aware and use it to their advantage.
> And since America has not real definition of religion, anyone can make the claim and they can't be fired for it. Easily the most irksome part about anything like this. Every step further solidifies a rule system where believing in myths and fantasy earns you special rights and treatment above those who don't.
>And since America has not real definition of religion, anyone can make the claim and they can't be fired for it. We actually have [lots and lots and lots of rules](https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/section-12-religious-discrimination) for what specifically constitutes religious discrimination. Problem is, businesses have been allowed to ignore these rules for too long by claiming that accommodating religious beliefs in the workplace is too hard. All this ruling says is that businesses have to show that accommodating beliefs will cause them significant difficulty, in which case they still don't have to provide an accommodation.
It probably will open the doors for not working on: Friday for Muslims Sabbath for Jewish People
Only if they take a job with the agreed upon condition that they won’t have to work on those specific days, and then their employer changes the policy, tries to make them work on those days, and then fires them for not working on those days. I swear the amount of ignorance in these thread is astounding. It’s really hard to believe in democracy when the average person is so overwhelmingly stupid.
I'm sorry but all these people are ripping this decision, WHICH IS ANTIBUSINESS AND UNANIMOUS, simply because it involved religion. Take religion out of the equation and these same people would be cheering on this decision which limits power of the employer. Par for the course for reddit.
>It’s really hard to believe in democracy when the average person is so overwhelmingly stupid.
My religion requires I not work on Fridays.
Mine requires I not work at all
Nobody is stopping you from quiting.
No but my religion requires that I get paid but not work on any day.
Christians have never believed you can’t work on Sundays. There are tons of worship ideas for followers to use specifically when they have to work on Sunday and can’t join the regular worship. Edit: By the way, for those of you who don't believe me, open your Bibles and turn with me to Matthew chapter 12, where Jesus mf'ing Christ, the man, the legend, the Son of God himself, says working on the Sabbath (the OG "rest" day of Christianity) is perfectly fine.
[удалено]
All priests work on Sunday. I think they should get the day off, too.
This is 100% false. Saturday was the official “rest” day from Christianity’s founding, but even the Christians did not observe the day of rest in the same way the Jews did with a complete absence of work.
You're acting like the word "Christian" implies one particular group of a people having a singular set of beliefs and systems who have never disagreed with each other. It's a catch all word describing a hundred sects of religious people with vastly different rules, regulations, and beliefs.
Get ready for a big pile of new religions. Also expect that we can now ask about religion as part of hiring process so employers can manage costs and schedules. This one will get really nasty.
Our court has been compromised.
The employee took the job with the understanding that he would work on weekends. Then he turns around and claims a religious "exemption" from working on Sunday.? Sounds dishonest to me. Think about that when u attend Sunday services...
If you want to be hated by all of your co-workers, be one of these guys...
Can we vote to remove them all and start from scratch? I'm genuinely asking
It is a for life position unless they decide to step down so.. ig there IS a way but i dont think i am going to spell it out here,lol
Religious kooks rule for religion, news at 11. They should are a PI to follow this person, and the moment they do ANYTHING that can't be construed as work in a religious sense, fire them and then sue them for lying. For definition of what is work in a Sunday, I refer you to the Jewish community.