Mennonite in Supreme Court Case?

Things that are not part of politics happening presently and how we approach or address it as Anabaptists.
Ken
Posts: 21863
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:02 am
Location: Washington State
Affiliation: former MCUSA

Re: Mennonite in Supreme Court Case?

Post by Ken »

Soloist wrote: ↑Sun Apr 16, 2023 10:14 pm
Neto wrote: ↑Sun Apr 16, 2023 7:47 pm I thought that postal workers must swear an oath to "uphold and protect the constitution of the United States". That is, in my opinion, just as great an issue Sunday work.
To my knowledge any federal employee does. I looked into the medical core and working for the VA and basically determined they wouldn’t work for the oath.
As has been the case for decades, the oath for Federal service allows one to either "swear" or "affirm" https://federalnewsnetwork.com/commenta ... -it-means/
“I, ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.””
The larger point of the oath isn't the swearing part, but the content. It basically has two parts. The first is to emphasize that your allegiance is to the Constitution and not a supervisor or agency or political party or even the President. Should the government go haywire, your obligation is to the Constitution and no specific individual. It gives all Federal employees the right to tell a rogue supervisor or leader "my obligation is to the Constitution, not you." That might not be super relevant if you are a part-time mail carrier. But it might be if you are the Attorney General. The second part of the oath is your promises that you will do your job faithfully and well. Which I expect we all agree is a good thing to promise.

What would you have in its place? Nothing? Or some differently worded set of obligations that all Federal employees agree to when taking the job.
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
Josh

Re: Mennonite in Supreme Court Case?

Post by Josh »

Ken wrote: ↑Sun Apr 16, 2023 8:39 pm The Post Office actually benefits rural people much more than urban people. In densely populated urban and suburban areas there are a wealth of delivery options. Not so much in the far-flung rural stretches of the country.
Ken, what kind of an absurd opinion is this? FedEx, UPS, and others deliver to the whole country, with very limited exceptions. The only places they don't deliver are places the post office doesn't deliver either - places where you have to go to the post office to retrieve your mail.

Amazon also does their own delivery in much of the country, and where they don't have their own delivery, they rely on UPS, FedEx, and the post office. Where do you get these unfounded opinions of "far-flung rural stretches of the country?" Are you talking about some part of Alaska where the population of polar bears outnumbers people?
0 x
Josh

Re: Mennonite in Supreme Court Case?

Post by Josh »

Valerie wrote: ↑Sun Apr 16, 2023 10:11 pm Yet they're frequently raising rates! So if this was to help keep them from doing that it sure isn't working
I went to send a postcard yesterday and found out postcard prices have spiked up to 48¢... regular letters are now 65¢. Don't even get me started on how expensive media mail is now.

The post office would run a giant profit except they have massive unfunded liabilities when it comes to pensions. Before Ken elaborate with his vast knowledge of the post office, I would like to cite myself as qualified to have an opinion like this since I worked for USPS as a contractor within the last five years, and became intimately familiar with the funding situation when deploying something to every post office in the entire country. (Let's just say it has something to do with the number 56.)
0 x
Ken
Posts: 21863
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:02 am
Location: Washington State
Affiliation: former MCUSA

Re: Mennonite in Supreme Court Case?

Post by Ken »

Josh wrote: ↑Sun Apr 16, 2023 11:15 pm
Ken wrote: ↑Sun Apr 16, 2023 8:39 pm The Post Office actually benefits rural people much more than urban people. In densely populated urban and suburban areas there are a wealth of delivery options. Not so much in the far-flung rural stretches of the country.
Ken, what kind of an absurd opinion is this? FedEx, UPS, and others deliver to the whole country, with very limited exceptions. The only places they don't deliver are places the post office doesn't deliver either - places where you have to go to the post office to retrieve your mail.

Amazon also does their own delivery in much of the country, and where they don't have their own delivery, they rely on UPS, FedEx, and the post office. Where do you get these unfounded opinions of "far-flung rural stretches of the country?" Are you talking about some part of Alaska where the population of polar bears outnumbers people?
I don't know what it is like where you live, but out here in the west, both UPS and FedEx rely on the USPS for most of their "last mile" deliveries in very rural areas. So sure, you can ship FedEx or UPS to rural addresses, but those carriers only take the package as far as the nearest post office and the mail carriers do the rest. That partnership has existed for years. https://www.vox.com/identities/2020/4/1 ... ommunities
0 x
A fool can throw out more questions than a wise man can answer. -RZehr
steve-in-kville

Re: Mennonite in Supreme Court Case?

Post by steve-in-kville »

Ken wrote: ↑Mon Apr 17, 2023 12:03 am I don't know what it is like where you live, but out here in the west, both UPS and FedEx rely on the USPS for most of their "last mile" deliveries in very rural areas. So sure, you can ship FedEx or UPS to rural addresses, but those carriers only take the package as far as the nearest post office and the mail carriers do the rest. That partnership has existed for years. https://www.vox.com/identities/2020/4/1 ... ommunities
Not so much UPS, but FedEx does this in our area.
0 x
Soloist

Re: Mennonite in Supreme Court Case?

Post by Soloist »

Ken wrote: ↑Sun Apr 16, 2023 10:39 pm
“I, ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.””
The larger point of the oath isn't the swearing part, but the content. It basically has two parts. The first is to emphasize that your allegiance is to the Constitution and not a supervisor or agency or political party or even the President. Should the government go haywire, your obligation is to the Constitution and no specific individual. It gives all Federal employees the right to tell a rogue supervisor or leader "my obligation is to the Constitution, not you." That might not be super relevant if you are a part-time mail carrier. But it might be if you are the Attorney General. The second part of the oath is your promises that you will do your job faithfully and well. Which I expect we all agree is a good thing to promise.

What would you have in its place? Nothing? Or some differently worded set of obligations that all Federal employees agree to when taking the job.
I have no opinion as to what they should change.
Sorry I wasn’t clear enough, I objected to the content of the oath as well as something I couldn’t affirm.
0 x
Jazman

Re: Mennonite in Supreme Court Case?

Post by Jazman »

Josh wrote: ↑Sun Apr 16, 2023 6:53 pm There are zero reasons (0) for the post office to be requiring anyone to work on Sundays. We get junk mail delivered 6 days a week. We can wait until Monday for the weekend's batch.
According to the article (in my hometown/county newspaper) the issue became an issue when the post office started a contract? with Amazon... to begin delivering goods/parcels on Sundays. (so not necessarily junk mail...). Personally I don't have a strong opinion either way. It seems from the article that Mr Groff had successfully negotiated some exemptions for himself with his employer multiple times but eventually the bigger entity (Amazon) won out in the parties involved (him, his employer, Amazon).
At a glance, this case seems to be more about corp. greed/overreach than keeping the Sabbath (at least prescribed by gov law, etc) It's an interesting case: We, here at least, often frame things as the little guy vs big gov.... but this seems to be more about Corp. amoral goliath vs religious little guy. With that framing I tend to lean towards granting the religious little guy his convictions, but I can see the other point too; that maybe religious little guy should do all in his power to not inconvenience his employer and fellow employees, but if he can't do that and work only Mon-Sat at the same time, maybe it's time to move on to a different vocation.
1 x
Grace
Posts: 4693
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 5:26 pm
Location: Pennsylvania
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Mennonite in Supreme Court Case?

Post by Grace »

Lancaster Online had a more in depth story about Mr. Groff versus the USPS. I posted the content of the article beings there is a paywall.


https://lancasteronline-pa.newsmemory.c ... e=20230416
In federal district court in 2019, Gerald Groff explained why, as a U.S. Postal Service mail carrier in Holtwood, he had refused to show up for work 24 times and ultimately resigned his position.

“Very simply, I believe that the Lord’s day, or Sundays, is meant to be a day of rest, and that it’s unique and holy, a day set aside to worship the Lord, and it’s supposed to be a day of rest where we abstain from work,” Groff said.

Groff sued the Postal Service for scheduling him to work Sundays. He lost, appealed and lost again.

But the U.S. Supreme Court, now controlled dations. Legal experts warn it also could cause unfair power imbalances among employees.
Groff, who grew up in Lancaster County and lives in Providence Township, has pro bono representation from several law firms aligned with efforts to expand the role of churches in public life, among other issues.

In arguing Groff’s case, these lawyers want the court to reexamine a 45-year-old ruling that said employers should meet a person’s religious needs only if it doesn’t cause the company an “undue hardship.”

They want the court to reinterpret what that means. A ruling for Groff could drastically reshape workplaces by giving religious workers more power to seek accommodations by an assertive 6-3 conservative majority, decided in January to review the case, with a hearing set for Tuesday. The Supreme Court is expected to issue a decision on the case by the end of June.

Scholars and advocates say a court ruling expanding the rights of religious workers could force a greater portion of the national workforce to defer to conservative Christian stances on issues including birth control, marriage and abortion. They say the ruling could lead to workplace discrimination against LGBTQ people, who have been targeted by the same law firms that represent Groff.
Groff declined requests for an interview, and his lawyers would not answer some questions about his life and background. Public records and interviews Groff granted to conservative outlets provide glimpses of a spottily employed, somewhat solitary man dedicated to his faith.
The missionary

Groff, 45, is unmarried. He grew up in Holtwood, in southern Lancaster County, where his family descended from Mennonites who settled in the region in the 1700s.

“I grew up in a Christian family, and I have a picture at home of myself standing with my hand on a globe I made in kindergarten, and it said, ‘Someday, I want to be a missionary,’ ” Groff said in a video interview produced by his legal team. “And so my life has been about figuring out how God would like to use me.”

He went to Mennonite schools, and he graduated from Millersville University in 2001 with a bachelor’s degree in biology.
From there, Groff followed an atypical path for someone with a science degree. He worked as a volunteer for the college’s English Language Institute for two years, earning only a stipend, according to federal legal filings.

He worked two roughly 16-month stints at Sight & Sound Ministries, the performing arts institution that aims to share Christian teachings through the plays and musicals it stages. From 2004-07, he didn’t work at all, court filings show.

Gaps may be accounted for by volunteer work and missionary service. For example, from August 2007 to March 2008, Groff volunteered with the Dove School of Global Transformation, an international network of evangelical churches that was founded in Lancaster County.
Groff said he went to Africa after high school and served there two more times. He said he also did mission work in Nepal and other parts of Asia, “just going wherever God wanted to put me.”

He’d been unemployed for over a year when he took a part-time mail carrier job at the Quarryville post office in November 2010. He resigned after 11 months, then returned to the job six months later.
“When you’re on the mission field, you have to come back and start over when your term is finished, and sometimes you just have to take the job that comes along,” he said in the interview produced by his attorneys. “For me, when God opened that door, I was willing to go there. I didn’t know what I was in for.”

Groff’s court saga began after the Postal Service began delivering packages for online retailer Amazon, said Chrissy Miller, the assistant district representative for the National Rural Letter Carriers’ Association, a labor union.

Quarryville mail carriers began delivering for Amazon in 2015. By then Groff was a “rural carrier associate,” a noncareer employee scheduled on an as-needed basis. Like his colleagues, Groff was expected to work occasional Sunday shifts under the new agreement with Amazon.
In May 2016, the union representing Groff and his colleagues set up an arrangement with the Postal Service on how to handle this, Miller said. Rural mail carriers could volunteer to work a Sunday shift. When not enough people volunteered, there was a rotation to make sure they “are assigned their fair workload and take their fair rotational turns working on Sundays,” she said.

Legal documents show Groff worked out a deal with the Quarryville postmaster to be exempt from working Sundays. But later, the postmaster told Groff she could no longer do that.

Groff transferred from Quarryville to Holtwood to avoid the Sunday work requirement, but in 2017, Holtwood was also tasked with delivering Amazon packages.

In a deposition, Holtwood Postmaster Brian Hess described mounting frustration at the small post office, where nearly every employee was a churchgoing Christian who, like Groff, preferred not to work Sundays.

Mail carriers were allowed to complete their Sunday shifts after church. But for Groff, who said he believes Sundays must be reserved for honoring God, that compromise wasn’t enough.
0 x
Neto

Re: Mennonite in Supreme Court Case?

Post by Neto »

Valerie wrote: ↑Sun Apr 16, 2023 10:32 pm
Soloist wrote: ↑Sun Apr 16, 2023 10:14 pm
Neto wrote: ↑Sun Apr 16, 2023 7:47 pm I thought that postal workers must swear an oath to "uphold and protect the constitution of the United States". That is, in my opinion, just as great an issue Sunday work.
To my knowledge any federal employee does. I looked into the medical core and working for the VA and basically determined they wouldn’t work for the oath.
"Before entering upon their duties and before receiving any salary, all officers and employees of the Postal Service shall take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: ''I, llllllll, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, ."

Perhaps they allow you to say a firm as in the above statement instead of swear, sounds like they make an allowance for people who don't want to swear..
Not that the searing of oaths is not an important question in terms of Biblical faith, but another whole issue is being missed here - What does "defend" entail in this context?
1 x
Soloist

Re: Mennonite in Supreme Court Case?

Post by Soloist »

Neto wrote: ↑Mon Apr 17, 2023 8:13 am

Not that the searing of oaths is not an important question in terms of Biblical faith, but another whole issue is being missed here - What does "defend" entail in this context?
For me when I looked at it the issue I had involved being ordered to do things I didn’t support such as in public health involved in vaccinations or some of the laws surrounding public health restrictions.
For mail, I’m not sure but there might be a clause for federal employees being used in national defense or agreement for military service of some cause, I just remember not being able to agree in good conscience.

I could never be a comercial pilot due to laws surrounding impressment of planes/pilots for military needs.
1 x
Post Reply