Mennonite in Supreme Court Case?

[Ken]

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.

No, actually that isn't true. All law isn't discriminatory.

If I'm running a restaurant I can't decide who to serve and who to throw out based on their religious beliefs and toss out Muslims because I don't like their religion.
If I'm running an airline I can' decide to seat some passengers and throw others off the plane based on their religion or lack of religion
If I'm a traffic cop I can't let let Lutherans go 80 and ticket Jews for going over 65 and ticket Muslims if they exceed 50 on the same road.
The IRS can't charge 15% income tax to Protestants and charge 30% to Atheists or Jews for the same income.

Generally speaking we treat everyone equally in this country regardless of their religion or lack of religion.

[Ernie]

It is sounding to me like you might think that the religious person has more obligation to be flexible and accommodating to his coworkers schedules, than the employer has to the religious persons schedule.
It is strange to think that the coworkers have this burden of obligation instead of the managers and the employer.

Just curious RZher whether it matters what religion a person has, as to whether the employer and managers should accomodate him.

Hindu's holy day is Thursday, Muslims-Friday, Sabbatarians-Saturday, Sunday-Christians. Should an employer let each have off on his particular day? What if the employer is a Christian... should that make a difference in what days he allows employees to work?

[Ken]

It is sounding to me like you might think that the religious person has more obligation to be flexible and accommodating to his coworkers schedules, than the employer has to the religious persons schedule.
It is strange to think that the coworkers have this burden of obligation instead of the managers and the employer.

Just curious RZher whether it matters what religion a person has, as to whether the employer and managers should accomodate him.

Hindu's holy day is Thursday, Muslims-Friday, Sabbatarians-Saturday, Sunday-Christians. Should an employer let each have off on his particular day? What if the employer is a Christian... should that make a difference in what days he allows employees to work?

Latin American Catholics traditionally take off the entire Easter Week (Semana Santa). If you employ Hispanic Catholics would they be entitled to take off the entire Easter Week if that is their religious tradition?

Some Hindus celebrate Dashain which is a 2-week long religious celebration in late October. Are they entitled to take off 2-weeks if that is their religious tradition?

[HondurasKeiser]

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.

No, actually that isn't true. All law isn't discriminatory.

If I'm running a restaurant I can't decide who to serve and who to throw out based on their religious beliefs and toss out Muslims because I don't like their religion.
If I'm running an airline I can' decide to seat some passengers and throw others off the plane based on their religion or lack of religion
If I'm a traffic cop I can't let let Lutherans go 80 and ticket Jews for going over 65 and ticket Muslims if they exceed 50 on the same road.
The IRS can't charge 15% income tax to Protestants and charge 30% to Atheists or Jews for the same income.

Generally speaking we treat everyone equally in this country regardless of their religion or lack of religion.

It is true.

You running a restaurant or airline isn’t a law. Laws that govern the way you run your restaurant or airline are in fact discriminatory. Laws determine who you can and cannot serve alcohol to, hire, and the conditions in which they work. The discrimination occurs it’s just seen as socially or legally acceptable for reasons related to the Common Good.

[Ken]

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.

No, actually that isn't true. All law isn't discriminatory.

If I'm running a restaurant I can't decide who to serve and who to throw out based on their religious beliefs and toss out Muslims because I don't like their religion.
If I'm running an airline I can' decide to seat some passengers and throw others off the plane based on their religion or lack of religion
If I'm a traffic cop I can't let let Lutherans go 80 and ticket Jews for going over 65 and ticket Muslims if they exceed 50 on the same road.
The IRS can't charge 15% income tax to Protestants and charge 30% to Atheists or Jews for the same income.

Generally speaking we treat everyone equally in this country regardless of their religion or lack of religion.

It is true.

You running a restaurant or airline isn’t a law. Laws that govern the way you run your restaurant or airline are in fact discriminatory. Laws determine who you can and cannot serve alcohol to, hire, and the conditions in which they work. The discrimination occurs it’s just seen as socially or legally acceptable for reasons related to the Common Good.

setting minimum age standards for adult activities like drinking or serving alcohol is not considered illegal discrimination.

treating people differently based on religion or race is.

Put a big sign up in your store or restaurant saying "Jews and Muslims not Allowed" and see how long you stay in business.

Or print a help wanted sign in the newspaper saying "Blacks and Hispanics need not apply" and see what kind of attention you generate.

[HondurasKeiser]

No, actually that isn't true. All law isn't discriminatory.

If I'm running a restaurant I can't decide who to serve and who to throw out based on their religious beliefs and toss out Muslims because I don't like their religion.
If I'm running an airline I can' decide to seat some passengers and throw others off the plane based on their religion or lack of religion
If I'm a traffic cop I can't let let Lutherans go 80 and ticket Jews for going over 65 and ticket Muslims if they exceed 50 on the same road.
The IRS can't charge 15% income tax to Protestants and charge 30% to Atheists or Jews for the same income.

Generally speaking we treat everyone equally in this country regardless of their religion or lack of religion.

It is true.

You running a restaurant or airline isn’t a law. Laws that govern the way you run your restaurant or airline are in fact discriminatory. Laws determine who you can and cannot serve alcohol to, hire, and the conditions in which they work. The discrimination occurs it’s just seen as socially or legally acceptable for reasons related to the Common Good.

setting minimum age standards for adult activities like drinking or serving alcohol is not considered illegal discrimination.

treating people differently based on religion or race is.

Put a big sign up in your store or restaurant saying "Jews and Muslims not Allowed" and see how long you stay in business.

I didn’t say anything about illegal discrimination, Ken. I said ALL law is a discrimination between people, groups and interests. Favoring some and not others e.g. minors can’t drink but adults may. It is illegal though to discriminate in law either for or against certain classes of people. Sex, race, ethnicity, etc.

[Ken]

It is true.

You running a restaurant or airline isn’t a law. Laws that govern the way you run your restaurant or airline are in fact discriminatory. Laws determine who you can and cannot serve alcohol to, hire, and the conditions in which they work. The discrimination occurs it’s just seen as socially or legally acceptable for reasons related to the Common Good.

setting minimum age standards for adult activities like drinking or serving alcohol is not considered illegal discrimination.

treating people differently based on religion or race is.

Put a big sign up in your store or restaurant saying "Jews and Muslims not Allowed" and see how long you stay in business.

I didn’t say anything about illegal discrimination, Ken. I said ALL law is a discrimination between people, groups and interests. Favoring some and not others e.g. minors can’t drink but adults may. It is illegal though to discriminate in law either for or against certain classes of people. Sex, race, ethnicity, etc.

I'm actually curious to see where all this goes. I absolutely support the law that requires religious accommodations when they are reasonable. Such as allowing people to wear head coverings, hijabs, turbans, etc. on the job. Or allowing people to pray on their breaks. And I think employers should be flexible for everyone to the extent that is reasonable. If someone who doesn't want to work Sundays or any other day can find people to take their shifts voluntarily then great. All is well. That is how things have always worked.

But I think they are asking for trouble if they create a rule for religious accommodation that burdens other employees. That is going to be a complete non-starter in most workplaces.

Take my wife's employer which is a large medical chain that has multiple hospitals and clinics throughout the region. They have decided to set up weekend urgent care walk-in clinics at about half of their regional clinics. The idea is to save money by diverting a lot of their weekend less-than-emergency care away from their hospital ERs to clinics scattered about the region where it is cheaper and easier to treat. That means they have to staff them with doctors, nurses, PAs, and intake clerks, and other professionals. They have chosen not to hire any NEW staff to work weekend urgent care clinics, they are just dumping that burden on existing staff. The can do that because possible mandatory overtime is part of their employment contracts.

So they first open up the schedule to any volunteers who want to get overtime hours and they do get some people who are happy to moonlight on weekends, even both days, nurses, doctors, etc. who just want the overtime. After that they staff up the rest of the urgent care clinics by putting everyone else on an assigned rotation in which you have mandatory clinic about once a month. If you don't want it you can try to find someone else to take your shift and doctors trade shifts back and forth when they have conflicts. My wife absolutely despises doing weekend urgent care clinics because she is already working 60 hours/week minimum at her regular clinic. On full clinic days she usually arrives at work about 6 am and is often there until 7-8 at night.

If suddenly there were a bunch of staff who decided that they couldn't work weekends for religious reasons and that meant my wife had to work two or three weekends per month instead of one she would be enraged. And there would probably be an employee revolt. That simply isn't reasonable because it puts the burden of someone else's religious observances on her. Few people actually want to be there on weekends. And they certainly aren't going to want to work MORE weekends just to cover for co-workers who claim a religious reason not so show up for their assigned shifts.

That is more or less the exact scenario with this case in front of the Supreme Court.

[ken_sylvania]

setting minimum age standards for adult activities like drinking or serving alcohol is not considered illegal discrimination.

treating people differently based on religion or race is.

Put a big sign up in your store or restaurant saying "Jews and Muslims not Allowed" and see how long you stay in business.

I didn’t say anything about illegal discrimination, Ken. I said ALL law is a discrimination between people, groups and interests. Favoring some and not others e.g. minors can’t drink but adults may. It is illegal though to discriminate in law either for or against certain classes of people. Sex, race, ethnicity, etc.

I'm actually curious to see where all this goes. I absolutely support the law that requires religious accommodations when they are reasonable. Such as allowing people to wear head coverings, hijabs, turbans, etc. on the job. Or allowing people to pray on their breaks. And I think employers should be flexible for everyone to the extent that is reasonable. If someone who doesn't want to work Sundays or any other day can find people to take their shifts voluntarily then great. All is well. That is how things have always worked.

But I think they are asking for trouble if they create a rule for religious accommodation that burdens other employees. That is going to be a complete non-starter in most workplaces.

Take my wife's employer which is a large medical chain that has multiple hospitals and clinics throughout the region. They have decided to set up weekend urgent care walk-in clinics at about half of their regional clinics. The idea is to save money by diverting a lot of their weekend less-than-emergency care away from their hospital ERs to clinics scattered about the region where it is cheaper and easier to treat. That means they have to staff them with doctors, nurses, PAs, and intake clerks, and other professionals. They have chosen not to hire any NEW staff to work weekend urgent care clinics, they are just dumping that burden on existing staff. The can do that because possible mandatory overtime is part of their employment contracts.

So they first open up the schedule to any volunteers who want to get overtime hours and they do get some people who are happy to moonlight on weekends, even both days, nurses, doctors, etc. who just want the overtime. After that they staff up the rest of the urgent care clinics by putting everyone else on an assigned rotation in which you have mandatory clinic about once a month. If you don't want it you can try to find someone else to take your shift and doctors trade shifts back and forth when they have conflicts. My wife absolutely despises doing weekend urgent care clinics because she is already working 60 hours/week minimum at her regular clinic. On full clinic days she usually arrives at work about 6 am and is often there until 7-8 at night.

If suddenly there were a bunch of staff who decided that they couldn't work weekends for religious reasons and that meant my wife had to work two or three weekends per month instead of one she would be enraged. And there would probably be an employee revolt. That simply isn't reasonable because it puts the burden of someone else's religious observances on her. Few people actually want to be there on weekends. And they certainly aren't going to want to work MORE weekends just to cover for co-workers who claim a religious reason not so show up for their assigned shifts.

That is more or less the exact scenario with this case in front of the Supreme Court.

In the case you present, why exactly should your wife have to bear the burden of the employer's pursuit of cost-cutting and additional profits? Why shouldn't the employer have to employ more people rather than force their existing workers to work even more overtime just so the shareholders (if any) and the CEO can get richer?

[ken_sylvania]

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?

I think it would be excellent if every one of those you mentioned were to close on Sunday so that their workers could go to Church, with a possible exception of pharmacies that could have an number to call for emergency service if needed.

[Ken]

I didn’t say anything about illegal discrimination, Ken. I said ALL law is a discrimination between people, groups and interests. Favoring some and not others e.g. minors can’t drink but adults may. It is illegal though to discriminate in law either for or against certain classes of people. Sex, race, ethnicity, etc.

I'm actually curious to see where all this goes. I absolutely support the law that requires religious accommodations when they are reasonable. Such as allowing people to wear head coverings, hijabs, turbans, etc. on the job. Or allowing people to pray on their breaks. And I think employers should be flexible for everyone to the extent that is reasonable. If someone who doesn't want to work Sundays or any other day can find people to take their shifts voluntarily then great. All is well. That is how things have always worked.

But I think they are asking for trouble if they create a rule for religious accommodation that burdens other employees. That is going to be a complete non-starter in most workplaces.

Take my wife's employer which is a large medical chain that has multiple hospitals and clinics throughout the region. They have decided to set up weekend urgent care walk-in clinics at about half of their regional clinics. The idea is to save money by diverting a lot of their weekend less-than-emergency care away from their hospital ERs to clinics scattered about the region where it is cheaper and easier to treat. That means they have to staff them with doctors, nurses, PAs, and intake clerks, and other professionals. They have chosen not to hire any NEW staff to work weekend urgent care clinics, they are just dumping that burden on existing staff. The can do that because possible mandatory overtime is part of their employment contracts.

So they first open up the schedule to any volunteers who want to get overtime hours and they do get some people who are happy to moonlight on weekends, even both days, nurses, doctors, etc. who just want the overtime. After that they staff up the rest of the urgent care clinics by putting everyone else on an assigned rotation in which you have mandatory clinic about once a month. If you don't want it you can try to find someone else to take your shift and doctors trade shifts back and forth when they have conflicts. My wife absolutely despises doing weekend urgent care clinics because she is already working 60 hours/week minimum at her regular clinic. On full clinic days she usually arrives at work about 6 am and is often there until 7-8 at night.

If suddenly there were a bunch of staff who decided that they couldn't work weekends for religious reasons and that meant my wife had to work two or three weekends per month instead of one she would be enraged. And there would probably be an employee revolt. That simply isn't reasonable because it puts the burden of someone else's religious observances on her. Few people actually want to be there on weekends. And they certainly aren't going to want to work MORE weekends just to cover for co-workers who claim a religious reason not so show up for their assigned shifts.

That is more or less the exact scenario with this case in front of the Supreme Court.

In the case you present, why exactly should your wife have to bear the burden of the employer's pursuit of cost-cutting and additional profits? Why shouldn't the employer have to employ more people rather than force their existing workers to work even more overtime just so the shareholders (if any) and the CEO can get richer?

It is in their employee contracts. It is also an employee-owned organization that is bleeding money and this is part of cutting costs and keeping insurance rates lower. Something has to give. You either cut costs (and this is a cost cutting measure to keep expensive ERs and ER docs from dealing with stuff like an endless stream of kids with pink eye or rashes) or you raise revenues which means raising insurance rates on everyone in the system. My wife can grudgingly understand why it makes sense from a health care service perspective to maintain weekend urgent care clinics. But she would object if the burden was not shared equitably.