LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

SCOTUS upholds religious rights in 9-0 decision

BabyBoomer50s

BabyBoomer50s

Capitalist
Joined
Nov 27, 2018
Posts
12,334
Groff v. DeJoy concerned whether the U.S. Postal Service was required to make accommodations for an evangelical Christian mail carrier who refused to work on Sundays. When Gerald Groff began working for USPS, Sunday shifts weren’t part of the job. But that changed when USPS signed a deal to deliver Amazon parcels. Griff sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and won.
 
schism666 said:
postal workers worked on sunday before bezos.
Click to expand...
Apparently not all of them. Here’s opening paragraph of the court’s opinion. Link to the full opinion below.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
GROFF v. DEJOY, POSTMASTER GENERAL CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 22–174. Argued April 18, 2023—Decided June 29, 2023
Petitioner Gerald Groff is an Evangelical Christian who believes for re- ligious reasons that Sunday should be devoted to worship and rest. In 2012, Groff took a mail delivery job with the United States Postal Ser- vice. Groff’s position generally did not involve Sunday work, but that changed after USPS agreed to begin facilitating Sunday deliveries for Amazon. To avoid the requirement to work Sundays on a rotating ba- sis, Groff transferred to a rural USPS station that did not make Sun- day deliveries. After Amazon deliveries began at that station as well, Groff remained unwilling to work Sundays, and USPS redistributed Groff’s Sunday deliveries to other USPS staff. Groff received “progres- sive discipline” for failing to work on Sundays, and he eventually resigned.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-174_k536.pdf
 
schism666 said:
what cereal box did you lift this from?


sounds like this lazy bloke just wants to watch foosball with his fancy foosball friends.
Click to expand...
I provided a link to the SCOTUS decision and pasted the relevant paragraph to save you the time looking for it.
 
Groff v. DeJoy

Any day that DeJoy loses something is a good day for America.
 
So will churches pay for additional resources that need to be hired to cover for the jesus freaks?
 
DeluxAuto said:
You wonder about a lot of things. He wasn't referring to the legality of the vote - now or then. Reading is fundamental.
Click to expand...
Poor Gavin. Bet he was upset with CA voters rejecting affirmative action again in 2020 by a 14% margin. 😂
 
DeluxAuto said:
Since when did you start hating on privileged white men going to private schools? He is your damn hero.
Click to expand...
I don’t hate anyone for attending private schools. There are some excellent institutions for learning to read the menu at the French Laundry.
 
BabyBoomer50s said:
I don’t hate anyone for attending private schools. There are some excellent institutions for learning to read the menu at the French Laundry.
Click to expand...
Oh, I see. You brought up race because that's what racists do.

French Laundry? Lol, quit trying to be hip.
 
The left is pissed it can no longer discriminate against Asians.

Liberals Outraged That Asian Students Will Finally Get A Fair Chance​


BRIANNA *****NEWS AND COMMENTARY WRITER
June 29, 20233:09 PM ET

Liberals and left-wingers spent the better part of Thursday morning lamenting that Asian students would no longer be disadvantaged in college admissions due to their race.

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday affirmative action is unconstitutional in two lawsuits brought against Harvard and the University of North Carolina. The cases challenged the universities’ consideration of race in the admissions process.

The suits were brought by Students for Fair Admissions Inc., a coalition of more than 20,000 prospective higher education students and parents, including one Asian American student who was denied admission to Harvard and six other top schools in 2014 despite his academic record.

National Education Association President Becky Pringle said on MSNBC that the appropriate headline for the news is “access and opportunity denied,” arguing the ruling would strip diversity from schools and communities.

More here: https://dailycaller.com/2023/06/29/liberals-asian-college-students-affirmative-action-scotus/

Why should Asians have to score 273 points more than black applicants in order to get into Harvard?
https://www.theblaze.com/news/cnn-phillip-debates-kenny-xu-affirmative-action
 
Rightguide said:
Joe is getting his ass kicked in the SCOTUS today.

Supreme Court sides with web designer who didn't want to create pro-LGBT messages​

by Kaelan Deese, Supreme Court Reporter |
June 30, 2023 10:03 AM
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/courts/scotus-sides-web-designer-colorado-lgbt-messages

The student loan case is going against Joe as well 6-3. Joe's criminality in his use of the Heroes Act has been stopped in its tracks.
Click to expand...
This case is an important milestone in Supreme Court history: before this case, you had to have "standing to sue" in order to proceed, i.e. be harmed physically or financially. Some Bozo right wing group FABRICATED an imaginary web designer and got all the way to the Supreme Court without anyone actually had standing. The Supreme Court didn't care, they just didn't to pass up an opportunity to legislate from the bench!
 
RobDownSouth said:
This case is an important milestone in Supreme Court history: before this case, you had to have "standing to sue" in order to proceed, i.e. be harmed physically or financially. Some Bozo right wing group FABRICATED an imaginary web designer and got all the way to the Supreme Court without anyone actually had standing. The Supreme Court didn't care, they just didn't to pass up an opportunity to legislate from the bench!
Click to expand...
What they did was prevent Colorado and the rest of the Democrat Party from legislating against the First Amendment in an attempt to cancel it with anti-discrimination rules. No law can violate the Constitution. The ruling does not prevent service to minority groups but it does delineate the difference between service and compelling an individual to create speech that violates an individual's beliefs. As Gorsuch brilliantly explains:

"Were the rule otherwise, the better the artist, the finer the writer, the more unique his talent, the more easily his voice could be conscripted to disseminate the government's preferred messages. That would not respect the First Amendment; more nearly, it would spell its demise,"

"The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands,"



 
means nothing

the Christian bakers won as well

but they are still being sued by gaze and the State
 
peili said:
means nothing

the Christian bakers won as well

but they are still being sued by gaze and the State
Click to expand...
It does mean something. In your world, there is no hope, path, or solution to what the left does.
 
I still believe that if you provide a service, you must provide it to everyone equally, regardless of your belief.

If you can't do that, then you shouldn't provide that service.

The only exception is if providing that service harms your business beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
peili said:
means nothing

the Christian bakers won as well

but they are still being sued by gaze and the State
Click to expand...

It means something. The Christian baker's case will get a motion to dismiss and the court will have to grant it.

At which point "the gaze" will pay the baker's legal bill and maybe face a suit themselves for even bigger money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
Buffalo Beast's "The 50 Most Loathsome Americans of 2010"
Replies
19
Views
2K
Balladeer08
Balladeer08
Back
Top