• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Respecting Religion in the Workplace - Accommodations to be Re-evaluated by the Supreme Court Soon

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
Nope. Respecting religion can, and obviously has to be, done in a way that does not confer special privileges on any one group of employees. The thread is not about special privileges, it is about making room in employment terms (within reason ) for religious observance.


The OP is literally about granting an employee the special privilege of never having to work on sundays because of that person's religion, while all other employees who don't observe said religion, will have to work on sundays.


Accomodating for an employee's religion in the workplace is literally granting special privileges as a direct result of that person's religious beliefs.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
The OP is literally about granting an employee the special privilege of never having to work on sundays because of that person's religion, while all other employees who don't observe said religion, will have to work on sundays.


Accomodating for an employee's religion in the workplace is literally granting special privileges as a direct result of that person's religious beliefs.
There is nothing in this case that says this individual should be given privileges that are not extended to other employees, so far as I can see. As I've made clear earlier in this thread I think it is reasonable that employers respect a rest day for their employees. Whether they use that for religious observance or to go to the races is up to them. Employment terms that are humane and promote work/life balance can easily meet the objective of respecting religious belief without any need for special treatment for any group. Frankly, it's about time employers stopped strutting around, thinking they can set all the rules and if an employee doesn't like it they can F- off. We do not live in the c.19th any more.
 
Last edited:

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
So it's a question as to weither an employer accommodates religious, or should religious accommodate their occupation to match with their religion?
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
"A far-reaching federal statute, Title VII, requires employers to make “reasonable accommodations” for the religious beliefs and practices of employees. Yet what exactly that means has been unclear for decades. This issue comes to a head on April 18, 2023, when the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Groff v. DeJoy. Gerald Groff, a Christian postal worker, quit and sued the U.S. Postal Service, alleging it failed to accommodate his religious obligation not to work on Sundays.
The case, which could have wide-reaching impact, is focused on two questions. The first is whether the court should abandon an existing standard that says employers can refuse religious accommodations that would impose more than a minimum, or “de minimis,” cost on their businesses.
Second, the court will decide whether an employer may prove that a religious accommodation imposes an “undue hardship” by showing the burden it imposes on other workers, rather than the business itself."
This was interesting to me because I'd always assumed that religious accommodations per Title VII had more teeth to them than is implied by this scholar. Given how profit-obsessed businesses are it would be a low bar to show more than "de minimis" impact, I would think. I welcome a re-examination of this issue especially in a landscape where employers have disproportionate bargaining power against workers. Still, the idea of shifting the measure to burdening one's fellow workers is a bit troubling.

I'd recommend giving the entire article a read - it also links out to external references relevant to the story. What do you think about this case and issue?
Let us look at the 1st Amendment of the Constitution below:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The wording of the amendment has all the handcuffs on the Government and Congress, since Congress makes the laws. This amendment does not place any restrictions on the citizens. It says nothing about any limits on speech, peaceful assembly, practicing religion, the press, and petitioning the government when government acts like a criminal.

It does not say citizens can not assemble, to talk about religion, in schools, public squares or in businesses. This was an over reach of government and may be a crime that needs jail time for some members of Congress. I am not sure how the Left got away with making a law that goes against the handcuffs implied by the 1st amendment, with all the restrictions on Congress; Congress is not allowed to interfere with any of these open ended rights. Lawyers and law is now being used to promote fellow crooks.

As far as the topic at hand, if we had a free market, with each company geared to the needs of the free market, then we have citizens making this choice, with no government involvement. The way this would work out would the free citizens would find a solution that works for each company; individually. There would be no one size fits all. They then have an open discussion of pros and cons, workers can strike to get concessions, while businesses can use this freedom as a tool to recruit people who show strong spiritual dedication, which would amount to a very stable and self policing work force.

On the other hand, if Government gets involved, they would need to illegally take off their handcuffs, like a thief with home confinement, taking off their ankle bracelet. This is where crimes occur and politicians need to be impeached. This is what was envisioned by the founding fathers; free people working things out among themselves, with the public servants not thinking they are the overlords, making choices to benefit themselves, at the expense of adult human rights.

The civil servants thinking they are the master is why we have so much debt; not their money being wasted. Tax money and debt is being used for leveraging their own nest eggs. The bad servants should be brought to the barn and whipped, so they can learn their proper place, in lands of individual freedoms not controlled by Government.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I'm not sure what to make of the fact that someone could reasonably believe that anti-vaccination "entitlements" are in the same attitude category as wanting to engage in joyful celebrations or days of rest and study pertaining to a religious practice. o_O

Anti-religion, much?
There were court challenges in Canada based on this very idea.

Anti-vaxxers objecting to workplace vaccine mandates argued that the mandates violated the Charter provisions for freedom of conscience that are usually the basis of religious accommodation claims.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
"A far-reaching federal statute, Title VII, requires employers to make “reasonable accommodations” for the religious beliefs and practices of employees. Yet what exactly that means has been unclear for decades. This issue comes to a head on April 18, 2023, when the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Groff v. DeJoy. Gerald Groff, a Christian postal worker, quit and sued the U.S. Postal Service, alleging it failed to accommodate his religious obligation not to work on Sundays.

The case, which could have wide-reaching impact, is focused on two questions. The first is whether the court should abandon an existing standard that says employers can refuse religious accommodations that would impose more than a minimum, or “de minimis,” cost on their businesses.


Second, the court will decide whether an employer may prove that a religious accommodation imposes an “undue hardship” by showing the burden it imposes on other workers, rather than the business itself."
--- From How far must employers go to accommodate workers' time off for worship? The Supreme Court will weigh in
This was interesting to me because I'd always assumed that religious accommodations per Title VII had more teeth to them than is implied by this scholar. Given how profit-obsessed businesses are it would be a low bar to show more than "de minimis" impact, I would think. I welcome a re-examination of this issue especially in a landscape where employers have disproportionate bargaining power against workers. Still, the idea of shifting the measure to burdening one's fellow workers is a bit troubling.

I'd recommend giving the entire article a read - it also links out to external references relevant to the story. What do you think about this case and issue?
Something that I wonder about - and I'm hoping that I'm wrong - is whether this will further advantage Christianity.

I mean, large employers like the USPS will generally have plenty of Mon-Fri jobs that never get scheduled on a Sunday, so transferring someone to one of those jobs may very well be a "de minimis" action.

OTOH, how many jobs do they have with schedules that let an employee consistently be available for Muslim prayer times on Friday? I would guess that the work to carve out a space for a non-Christian religious employee would often be significantly more to the point where an employer could argue that the burden is unreasonable.

... all because we've set up our society to cater to Christianity alone, by and large.
 

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Something that I wonder about - and I'm hoping that I'm wrong - is whether this will further advantage Christianity.

I mean, large employers like the USPS will generally have plenty of Mon-Fri jobs that never get scheduled on a Sunday, so transferring someone to one of those jobs may very well be a "de minimis" action.

OTOH, how many jobs do they have with schedules that let an employee consistently be available for Muslim prayer times on Friday? I would guess that the work to carve out a space for a non-Christian religious employee would often be significantly more to the point where an employer could argue that the burden is unreasonable.

... all because we've set up our society to cater to Christianity alone, by and large.
Say we required all teachers; company employees, to teach on Sundays. They are exempt from working on Sundays. How did they get this exemption, which is still sold as a taboo for anyone with a religious need? There are about 4,000,000 teachers who get this accommodation. The teachers formed a union and used that to leverage what they want.

The teachers still get the entire summer off, with pay, in this day and age. Imagine if some Religions needed the summer off with pay. The Left would be in an uproar, but they will defend the teachers; part of their team. Teachers union were even given the power to screw their customers; students, out of an in-person education; up north, during COVID. It turned out children were not that vulnerable to COVID, as a group. This move was not for the children. The lockdown excuse was also not really needed, as sold, since the hard data showed the same health results, as no lockdown; teachers still taught in person in Florida and had similar health affects.

Religion accommodation can also be done via the free market. Government was used in the Teacher's Union case, via campaign donations to shady Lefty politicians. Since the Government has handcuffs, with respect to the 1st Amendment, religious accommodation will be less harsh on business, since a union cannot pay off politicians the same way; conflict of interests.

Since the Government and all its employees have handcuffs in terms of religion, and since one can lose their job for bad mouthing minorities, women, LBGTQ, etc., should Government employees be fired for doing the same to religion? Religion is the only true Constitutional handcuff for all government employees; agents of Congress who sign off on all checks. What is enforced is free speech censorship, which is being violated by the government and its agents. The system is quite messed up and needs lots of house cleaning. What we see is what happens when law favors crooks.

I am working under the assumption that law was originally designed for the good of the people, and not just for the advantages of a small group of crooks. If Law is being made to protect crooks, then law has finally become obsolete, since it no longer serves its original use for good, but has become a tool for crooks.

For example, Nixon's staff during 1972, broke into the Democrats headquarters at the Watergate Hotel before the 1972 Presidential election. This is still seen as one of the worse corruption scandals in US history. This led to the impeachment of Nixon and jail time for those who broke in and covered up.

Fast forward to 2026, President Obama and VP Biden did the same with the Trump Towers in 2016. They actually outdid Nixon by using the CIA and FBI; used professional spooks, to wire tap, place spies inside Trump Tower. Where was the Nixon trial, impeachment and possible prison? The laws that went after Nixon were ignored. This is a good example of law being used to protect bad behavior that had previously been defined as criminal for Nixon. Technically, Biden should have been disqualified from running for president in 2020, because of the Trump Gate spy scandal. Law was used to allow crooks to escape the first round of justice and then allowed to prosper. Law may quite well be at the end of its ropes. It is not longer used just for good.

As far as daily prayers, for Christians, Muslims and others, since the Federal Government is handcuffed and cannot stop religion, peaceful assembly and free speech, by law, anywhere in the Public or Private sector, the compromise is to use private time, in both sectors, such as lunch and breaks, as a flex time slot for such things. Everyone can benefit. One can have lunch, pray or both.

In schools, we can teach world religions, as an elective subject, like we do woman and minority studies. Al three have been subject to discrimination at one time or another. Freedom of Religion came about due to a long history of religious persecution. This gives a time slot for all the birds of a feather, to assemble and to collectively worship and/or enjoy their collective accomplishments, while praying for those who repressed you.
 
Last edited:

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Say we required all teachers; company employees, to teach on Sundays. They are exempt from working on Sundays. How did they get this exemption, which is still sold as a taboo for anyone with a religious need?
Our society was developed in a way that caters to the Christian religion. That's why schools are closed on Sundays.

There are about 4,000,000 teachers who get this accommodation. The teachers formed a union and used that to leverage what they want.
Well, no. No teacher's union had to negotiate to get Sundays off.

The teachers still get the entire summer off, with pay, in this day and age.
Teachers don't get paid for the summer unless they work over the summer.

Some school boards allow teachers to deduct some of their pay over the school year and have the deducted amount paid out over the summer.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
What it it's only a small workforce, making absences on a rota impractical?
Or a larger workforce with more specific and discrete skillsets.
Team of complimentary skills rather than overlapping ones.

Also imagining the changes to hiring policies...

New tech position open...orthodox Jews need not apply!!

Yuck.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
It's about ensuring freedom from discrimination based on these protected classes. Failure to make reasonable accommodations for these protected categories is, in effect, engaging in discrimination.
As would be making accommodations for some groups and not others based on these protected classes.
If you make accommodations for no groups based on religion, then it's possible to argue you're not being discriminatory.
If you make the same allowances for all groups, you certainly can.
If you makes allowances for some groups, in some situations, and without clear guidelines...now it's tricky.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
I was today years old when I learnt the US still makes postal employees work on Sundays.
Most of our postal services are closed on Sundays. At least in my area
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
I was today years old when I learnt the US still makes postal employees work on Sundays.
Most of our postal services are closed on Sundays. At least in my area
I think that's the same in the US - there's no mail delivery on Sundays and post offices are closed.

Still, I think you'll find that in your country as well as the US, postal employees are working at distribution centres and driving trucks cross-country so that the letter carriers have mail on hand to deliver Monday morning.
 

SomeRandom

Still learning to be wise
Staff member
Premium Member
I think that's the same in the US - there's no mail delivery on Sundays and post offices are closed.

Still, I think you'll find that in your country as well as the US, postal employees are working at distribution centres and driving trucks cross-country so that the letter carriers have mail on hand to deliver Monday morning.
Ahh true.
Though with what I know about workers rights in Oz compared to the States, I wouldn’t be surprised if our workers get paid more for Sunday work than Americans. Or just simply refused Sunday shifts without any real consequences.

I mean geez, I got more basic leave as a part time employee at my first job than my American cousin did as a full time employee
 
Top