Mennonite in Supreme Court Case?

[Soloist]

If I can legally get an exemption for a vaccine and work in healthcare, I fail to see how Sunday is so onerous for the work outside of perhaps some small religious areas.

[ken_sylvania]

By definition it will have to be discriminatory since you will be preferencing religious reasons for taking Sunday off over all other different personal reasons for wanting the same. And what do you do if everyone claims a religious reason for taking Sunday off? It just depends on which religions or religious beliefs you preference. That seems to be an enormous can of worms because usually the government isn't in the business of deciding which religious beliefs are legitimate and which are not. That goes against the very text of the First Amendment.

Actually, the answer to that would be quite simple in this case. If everyone claims a religious reason for taking Sunday off, then let them all take Sunday off.

[Ken]

By definition it will have to be discriminatory since you will be preferencing religious reasons for taking Sunday off over all other different personal reasons for wanting the same. And what do you do if everyone claims a religious reason for taking Sunday off? It just depends on which religions or religious beliefs you preference. That seems to be an enormous can of worms because usually the government isn't in the business of deciding which religious beliefs are legitimate and which are not. That goes against the very text of the First Amendment.

Actually, the answer to that would be quite simple in this case. If everyone claims a religious reason for taking Sunday off, then let them all take Sunday off.

So any business or service that normally works on Sunday just closes?

No fire or police protection on Sundays?
No hospitals on Sunday?
No 911 or highway patrol on Sunday?
No paramedics on Sunday?

We live in a secular country and setting a religious accommodation requirement that has the effect of forcing businesses to close on Sunday is not consistent with that. Nor is burdening the few remaining employees who do stick around with all the extra work to pick up the slack for everyone who wants Sunday off.

The actual answer is that under the law, religious accommodations must be "reasonable' in that they do not impose an undue burden on the employer. And forcing employers to close on Sunday is the very definition of an undue burden. The court already decided that in 1977. The might change their minds this time and over-rule their previous 1977 decision. Who knows. But they already did decide that exact issue in the 1977 case Transworld Airlines vs. Hardison which you can read about here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_Wor ... ._Hardison

[RZehr]

By definition it will have to be discriminatory since you will be preferencing religious reasons for taking Sunday off over all other different personal reasons for wanting the same. And what do you do if everyone claims a religious reason for taking Sunday off? It just depends on which religions or religious beliefs you preference. That seems to be an enormous can of worms because usually the government isn't in the business of deciding which religious beliefs are legitimate and which are not. That goes against the very text of the First Amendment.

That is fine if religious reasons are treated differently. They have specific protections in this country. And this country and legal system already has to parse and sort the sincerely held religious beliefs against the insincere ones. Adding this protection would simply add another aspect to it, and it would not create a need to decide how Sabbath keeping is legitimate, while watching football is a not legitimate exercise of religion. Prisons famously have to make these determinations already.

Funny how todays society doesn't apparently have the know how to determine that Sabbath keeping, a practice of thousands of years in existence prior to this country, is a real religious activity, but they do "know" that if a 15 year old decides they are a different gender, that is something that must be accepted at face value, and inconveniencing others is the order of the day, and by the way you're bigot for not applauding. Where are the bigotry calls for people who question the faith of Sabbath day keepers? Where are the calls for acceptance? Where are the cheers for their courage to stand up for who they really are?

[ohio jones]

So any business or service that normally works on Sunday just closes?

No fire or police protection on Sundays?
No hospitals on Sunday?
No 911 or highway patrol on Sunday?
No paramedics on Sunday?

I don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse or just like to type, but everyone I know who has a religious objection to working on Sunday makes a distinction between essential and non-essential work. Even if we use the Covid definitions of what's essential, most people recognize that not every business absolutely must be open 24/7/365. Nobody will die if chicken sandwiches are unavailable for purchase one day a week; hospitals are categorically different.

[Ken]

So any business or service that normally works on Sunday just closes?

No fire or police protection on Sundays?
No hospitals on Sunday?
No 911 or highway patrol on Sunday?
No paramedics on Sunday?

I don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse or just like to type, but everyone I know who has a religious objection to working on Sunday makes a distinction between essential and non-essential work. Even if we use the Covid definitions of what's essential, most people recognize that not every business absolutely must be open 24/7/365. Nobody will die if chicken sandwiches are unavailable for purchase one day a week; hospitals are categorically different.

But the law doesn't make that distinction. That is the important point. What is essential work anyway?

What about an airline with flights on Sunday. Is that essential? What if it is just people flying to Hawaii or Orlando on vacation?

What about a Wal-Mart? Is that essential? What if it is the only pharmacy within 25 miles and people depend on the pharmacy within Wal-Mart to fill emergency prescriptions on Sunday?

The hypotheticals are endless.

[ken_sylvania]

By definition it will have to be discriminatory since you will be preferencing religious reasons for taking Sunday off over all other different personal reasons for wanting the same. And what do you do if everyone claims a religious reason for taking Sunday off? It just depends on which religions or religious beliefs you preference. That seems to be an enormous can of worms because usually the government isn't in the business of deciding which religious beliefs are legitimate and which are not. That goes against the very text of the First Amendment.

Actually, the answer to that would be quite simple in this case. If everyone claims a religious reason for taking Sunday off, then let them all take Sunday off.

So any business or service that normally works on Sunday just closes?

No fire or police protection on Sundays?
No hospitals on Sunday?
No 911 or highway patrol on Sunday?
No paramedics on Sunday?

Go back and read what I wrote. I said in this case, because this is a case where it would be just fine for the business to close.

We live in a secular country and setting a religious accommodation requirement that has the effect of forcing businesses to close on Sunday is not consistent with that. Nor is burdening the few remaining employees who do stick around with all the extra work to pick up the slack for everyone who wants Sunday off.

You asked "what if everyone claims a religious reason for taking Sunday off." If everyone has religious scruples against working unnecessary work on Sunday, then there would be no problem with these unnecessary businesses closing down on Sunday. Most factories don't need to run on Sunday, restaurants don't need to be open on Sunday, grocery stores don't need to be open on Sunday, and the casinos and strip clubs don't need to be open on Sunday or any other day for that matter. A society where "everyone" is religiously opposed to Sunday work is not a secular society.

And again, it's not the folks who take Sunday off that are burdening other employees with extra work. It's the business owners who have decided that the almighty dollar is more important than a day of rest and worship. Which is the greater burden - for a business owner to have to close on Sunday because nobody wants to work, or for an employee to be forced to work on the Lord's Day?

The actual answer is that under the law, religious accommodations must be "reasonable' in that they do not impose an undue burden on the employer. And forcing employers to close on Sunday is the very definition of an undue burden. The court already decided that in 1977. The might change their minds this time and over-rule their previous 1977 decision. Who knows. But they already did decide that exact issue in the 1977 case Transworld Airlines vs. Hardison which you can read about here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_Wor ... ._Hardison

I think we're all aware of what the law is. That shouldn't mean that we can't discuss what the law should be.

[ken_sylvania]

So any business or service that normally works on Sunday just closes?

No fire or police protection on Sundays?
No hospitals on Sunday?
No 911 or highway patrol on Sunday?
No paramedics on Sunday?

I don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse or just like to type, but everyone I know who has a religious objection to working on Sunday makes a distinction between essential and non-essential work. Even if we use the Covid definitions of what's essential, most people recognize that not every business absolutely must be open 24/7/365. Nobody will die if chicken sandwiches are unavailable for purchase one day a week; hospitals are categorically different.

But the law doesn't make that distinction.

Maybe it should.

[Ken]

I don't know if you are being deliberately obtuse or just like to type, but everyone I know who has a religious objection to working on Sunday makes a distinction between essential and non-essential work. Even if we use the Covid definitions of what's essential, most people recognize that not every business absolutely must be open 24/7/365. Nobody will die if chicken sandwiches are unavailable for purchase one day a week; hospitals are categorically different.

But the law doesn't make that distinction.

Maybe it should.

How would you define essential? And who gets to decide?

airlines?
hotels?
pharmacies?
grocery stores?
restaurants?
gas stations?
home and garden stores like Home Depot?
delivery services (FedEx, UPS)
laundries?
TV and radio stations?
movie theaters?
city parks and community pools?
state parks and beaches?
national parks?

[HondurasKeiser]

The law already provides for accommodations for religious practices and has since the Supreme Court ruled on this same issue in 1977. And the standard is that religious accommodations do not place an undue burden on the employer (including other employees). The Court also defined what it meant by "undue burden" and so has subsequent regulation.

This case is about whether to change that undue burden standard and if so, how far to go in placing burdens on employers to accommodate religious preferences. If the court upholds their previous standard from 1977 then he will lose. If they decide to change the standard then who knows what that means because we will be in new territory and the court will have to come up with some new threshold for defining what is is a "reasonable accommodation" versus an "undue burden"

Well then I guess we shall see. Regardless, any change towards more "reasonable accommodations" will necessarily affect more than just Christians.

By definition it will have to be discriminatory since you will be preferencing religious reasons for taking Sunday off over all other different personal reasons for wanting the same. And what do you do if everyone claims a religious reason for taking Sunday off? It just depends on which religions or religious beliefs you preference. That seems to be an enormous can of worms because usually the government isn't in the business of deciding which religious beliefs are legitimate and which are not. That goes against the very text of the First Amendment.

All law is discriminatory in some fashion or other…privileging some (or some viewpoints or some life choices) over others. There are already religious exemptions and carve outs for plenty of other facets of American life and the ability to discern legitimate religious beliefs hasn’t been hindered.