- This topic has 311 replies, 39 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 7 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
GAW -“Just don’t expect any sympathy from anyone”
Who do I want sympathy from? The posters on YWN?
I wasn’t expecting any money from the posters here!
IDK if Trump change anything but he can change “business as usual” in this country!
There are a lot Jews here that think in order to get along with the Goyim we have to assimilate!
Eg. Clinton’s son in law.
But Trump’s daughter was willing to become Jewish, in order that her husband didn’t have to assimilate!
Ubiq -“whoever says any thing he doesnt like? That has been the case throughout he campaign”
So do really think he’ll start up with anyone he doesn’t like because the way he acts now?!? If you really do, that’s idiocy!
“Article 2. you now say misinterpret earlier you said “I happen not to have a problem with that interpretation, but what I just posted was to make a point” Which is it?
At any rate earlier you asked “”Who says” regarding The courts interpreting the law. This is in the constitution. You dont get to decide (though of course you can have an opinion). but interpreting the law is PRECISELY the courts role.”
Again they have No right, call it what you want – interpret or misinterpret, to change the basic normal understanding of the law!
And out of the kindness of my heart, I gave you an example how they changed the meaning of “Religious accommodation”!!!!
who will be voting for trump and who will be voting for clinton?
Ain’t saying.
The Wolf
Former Mayor of Shilo, Israel, David Rubin, appeared on Fox Business to explain why Donald Trump is the best presidential candidate for Israel. He’s dati leumi, religious.
Hooray for yichusdik! I wish I could write you in on my ballot, but I don’t think screen names are allowed.
Yochy, you’re not quite right. Swing states include Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan, all of which have significant numbers of frum voters. I can’t find the numbers, but I’d be surprised if it’s as low as 0.5%. I realize you didn’t mean 99.5% literally, but my point is that there are frum Jews whose vote actually matters.
Health
“So do really think he’ll start up with anyone he doesn’t like because the way he acts now?!? If you really do, that’s idiocy!”
What do you mean by start up? shoot some nukes? Probably not though he HAS downplayed use of chemical weapons in the past. And according to some accounts isnt quite sure why we dont use nuclear weapons more often and IT is too risky to find out how he will punish those who criticize him. that he will suddenly grow thick skin and for the first time in over 20 years that we have grown to know and love him, he will brush off and ignore an insult is the literal definition of insanity according to Einstein (look it up)
“But Trump’s daughter was willing to become Jewish, in order that her husband didn’t have to assimilate!”
So trump is now your example of promoting multiculturalism?
“Again they have No right, call it what you want – interpret or misinterpret, to change the basic normal understanding of the law!”
you couldnt be more wrong. That is PRECISELY the job of the courts in general, and the supreme court in particular. Nmaely to interpret the law.
See Article 2 of the US constitution. You say misinterpret, though a. you indicated at one point that you couldnt list such an example. b. misinterpret is obviously subjective. and c. in a sense it is their job to “misinterpret” sicne by interpreting the law (ie doing their job) they will sometimes get it wrong in your opinion.
“And out of the kindness of my heart, I gave you an example how they changed the meaning of “Religious accommodation”
that IS very kind of you to back up your baseless statements with examples. However I cant find where youve provided your example. would you mind linking to the post where you provided said example of where “they changed the meaning of “Religious accommodation””
Thanks a ton!!!!!!!!!!!!! (now thats how you use exclamation marks)
To be honest I personally am certainly not voting for Clinton and am still on the fence about whether I will vote for Trump or stay home.
I would have voted for any other Republican with the preference being Ted Cruz.
As for the substance.
1) To state that now-a-days there is no discrimination is a blatant falsehood.
Affirmative Action is inarguably “discrimination”, liberals argue that it is “worthy” discrimination I would disagree however the fact that it is in fact discrimination is indisputable.
2) Religious Accommodation- By Liberal standards if I, an orthodox Jewish person have a business which provides flowers, baked goods, professional photography or other such services.
And I can demonstrate that thfoughout my years in business I have served everyone regardless of who or what they are and do it with a smile on my face.
I can still be fined or shut down for one thing only.
If an irreligious gay “couple” ask me to cater their wedding event and I refuse.
Even if I show I have lived my whole life as a halachic jew and I can provide a reasonable halachic analysis that catering or providing services to this specific “marital” event violates the Jewish legal principle of “mesayeah” and as such I am constrained by the Halacha I have kept my whole life from supporting this marital event in any way and have to respectfully pass on the offer.
Still I am to be labeled a religious bigot who must be shut down.
That is the extent of “Religious Accommodation” in Liberal America.
3) According to “liberal” policies a religious OBGYN should be required to prescribe medication against their fervent religious belief, and perform medical procedures against their fervent religious belief – Religious Accommodation.
4) Muslim Immigration– I admit that my views on this matter are somewhat colored, I speak Hebrew and have relatives in E”Y including an aunt who was shot going shopping and a six month old cousin blown up on a bus leaving her father severely wounded and a mother who has been in and out of surgeries for ten years.
So yes I will state it is a complete unwillingness to see facts in front of your eyes. A complete unwillingness to see the dangers posed to millions of people by allowing people to immigrate from a region of the world where each and every single official and unofficial poll has shown at least 20% of the population wishes above all else to kill you and me and everyone else.
It is madness.
Even more it is the outmost disrespect to even attempt to compare those fleeing Nazi Germany to those coming here now when those fleeing Nazi Germany never held a gun in their lives hated the countries they were from and worshipped American as the “goldeneh Medinah” while the countries the “refugees’ are fleeing from now have exported terrorists who have literally killed and maimed tens of thousands of people worldwide.
Is it sad, even terrible, that some who are innocent may be forced into less then ideal circumstances by Trump policies?
Of course it is.
However the President of the United States first and foremost has a duty and obligation to protect the citizens of the United State of America only after that is done can the President afford to accommodate others.
That is basic principle that holds true for the Leader of each and every country worldwide. The leader of the country is first and foremost obligated to protect the countries citizens.
By allowing unfettered access to the USA from certain countries the lives and well being of thousands of US citizens are being cavalierly put at risk a fact that has been proven again and again again in this Country and in other counties including throughout the EU.
If/When a reasonable set of checks can be done to ensure that the safety and wellbeing of US citizens is not being placed in danger by admitting refugees from certain counties then Mr. Trump himself has stated the US should act.
5) Associates- The Liberal-Democrat party has not just associated, it has elevated race baiters who have attempted to divide this country and have Jewish Blood on their hands.
Is their any other way to describe Al Sharpton?
They have not just stood by, they have actively made a place in their party for a “movement” that has led to the lives of those who risk their lives each and every day to protect them, to be put at risk. A movement that is silent as Black on Black violence causes hundreds of deaths and tears the city of Chicago apart but will destroy the livelihoods of people by rioting and burning down a city when a police officer (even one of color- who somehow is labeled an “Uncle Tom” by putting on a uniform and attempting to make his neighborhood and city a safer place) makes a mistake and takes a regrettable action when they think their lives are at stake. Yes I am referring to Black Lives Matter.
And the Democrat- Liberal party accepts money from a self hating Jewish billionaire who pours millions of dollars into organizations dedicated to fighting the State of Isreal. Yes I am referring to George Soros and BDS.
It is truly unfortunate that any sane Jewish person can support this type of party.
kaganys – your not allowed to ask that according to the rules sorry.
Ben LEvi
I am not arguing to support Clinton per se. I am vehemently against Trump which by default makes me “support” Clinton.
As you are on the fence regarding Trump Our difference on the subject at hand is not that vast.
Therefore for now I will hold off n replying to the bulk of your (admittedly excellent) post at this time.
I will however respond to #3 since it is clearly factually inaccurate. A doctor does not have to prescribe or perform any procedure against his/her beliefs. He/she does have to refer the patient to someone else however. (As to whether this is against halacha see R’ Zilbershteyn’s teshuva on the matter.)
I am sorry to hear about the tzarros your family has endured. May Hashem grant you a nechama and may your family and all of klal yisroel no longer have to endure such tzar.
Have a wonderful Shabbos Nachamu
Ubquitin,
Thanks for your thoughts.
However Liberal’s were ardently in favor of forcing Hobby Lobby to cover birth control in spite of their religious beliefs.
If you read up on their current stance (there was a recent court decision) as to whether individual pharmacies are required by law to offer that drug you will see the same.
Again I am not arguing as to whether or not they are correct in their religious belief’s ( I am an orthodox Jew not a Cristian).
However it is an inarguable fact that the people in question were and are sincere in their religious beliefs (Mr. Green has spent millions to that extant- even when he is at at a disadvantage, Liberals do not like discussing the fact Hobby Lobby offers higher wages then the market dictates for certain positions because they believe it is the Christian thing to do, they are also closed Sunday’s for the same reason)
It is true Liberal Democrats believe strongly in “Religious Accommodation”, as long as it does not conflict with Liberal “Values”.
I will also add that whether or not either of these things are against Halacha is a matter that has no place in Secular courts.
Period.
Secular Judges no matter the religious beliefs are not proficient in theological law.
They should not have the power or ability to dictate which side of a Religious dispute one must go with.
Ubiq -“What do you mean by start up? shoot some nukes?”
That’s exactly right! Don’t assume he’ll be shooting nukes at anyone he doesn’t like. Stop threatening e/o with scare tactics!
“But Trump’s daughter was willing to become Jewish, in order that her husband didn’t have to assimilate!”
“So trump is now your example of promoting multiculturalism?”
Much more than the Clintons with their Jewish son in law!
They would never consider letting their daughter become Jewish!
“you couldnt be more wrong. That is PRECISELY the job of the courts in general, and the supreme court in particular. Nmaely to interpret the law.
See Article 2 of the US constitution. You say misinterpret, though a. you indicated at one point that you couldnt list such an example. b. misinterpret is obviously subjective. and c. in a sense it is their job to “misinterpret” sicne by interpreting the law (ie doing their job) they will sometimes get it wrong in your opinion.
that IS very kind of you to back up your baseless statements with examples. However I cant find where youve provided your example. would you mind linking to the post where you provided said example of where”
From EEOC website:
“Title VII prohibits:
Courts have No right to change the basic meaning of the law!
Even if they have the right to interpret the law!
Again -“They changed the meaning of “Religious accommodation”!
The law says employers’ must do Religious accommodation. Ask any normal English teacher and they would translate that to mean not too hard on the employer or not extremely hard on the employer or even no matter what.
Saying it means “not more than de minimis cost or burden on business operations;” is changing the basic meaning of the law!!!!
They got away with this, just like in Germany – they got away with the Nuremberg laws!!!!
Ben Levi
“However Liberal’s were ardently in favor of forcing Hobby Lobby to cover birth control in spite of their religious beliefs.”
So what? they were wrong, and that isnt how the court ruled
At any rate, Religious accommodation while important and protected under the constitution is not a be all end all.
My neighbor is an Amaleki he has a yichus brief tracing his lineage back to Amalek, there are eidim who testify to it, he even has a DNA test. I spoke to my Rav who said there is a mitzva to kill him. (I’m sure there are Rabbanim out there who are meikil but my Rav is very machmir on these things) This is my sincerly held religious belief. My lawyer however cautioned that my right to kill him would not be protected
sikhs have a religious mandate to carry a knife with them at all times (this is true unlike my first more ridiculous example). Their religion is not accommodated on airplanes.
Even Shabbos which is the part of the discussion that led to this path. While one of the posters was lying when he said that their is only one job that lets you keep Shabbos. The truth is if an employee’s Shabbos would cause “undue burden” on the employer the employee’s sincerly held religous beliefs does not have to be accommodated.
(Keep in mind that any accommodation exists at all is quite a liberal idea)
My point is that while other values are deemed by the courts to be more important than religous accommodation (namely, public safety, being non-discriminatory, or arguably providing basic healthcare), doesnt mean religous accommodation doesnt exist. and the court’s stance in the case you cite only proves that it does (even if it isnt as high un the totem pole as you’d like)
Health are you for real?
From the law YOU provided and as I have been saying all along:
It is the courts job to determine what “reasonable accommodation” means
Kudos on you for fianly admitting that you were wrong on that point, “Even if they have the right to interpret the law!” Though its tnot quite that they have “the right” That is their purpose, to interpret the law. If we argue as to what “reasonable accommodation means” Say you say it means having more senior employess work the less desirable saturday shift, I say that is too much to ask. IT is the Courts EXACT ROLE to define whether this is “reasonable accommodation” of course you might not agree, but to say they have no right ruling on the issue (as you did earlier) is to fundamentally misunderstand what the role of the court is (Though as I mentioned earlier the Doanld isnt sure either).
BTW when you said you provided an example earlier, where you referring to the secret supreme court case that only you know about?
Ubquitin
Ye, you are right that the courts ruled against the Liberal’s on this issue.
However the Liberal Democrats currently running are very clear on the fact that they would appoint Justices who would overturn the rulings that essentially ensure our rights to practice our religion as the Torah mandates it.
Ubiq -“IT is the Courts EXACT ROLE to define whether this is “reasonable accommodation” of course you might not agree, but to say they have no right ruling on the issue”
I never said that they didn’t have the right! What I said it’s just like in Germany – they got away with the Nuremberg laws!!!!
When I wrote they “have No right”, you misinterpreted that I meant no legal right, what I meant No moral right!
Next time, why don’t you ask me what I mean before jumping on me that I’m wrong?!?
Ben Levi -“Ye, you are right that the courts ruled against the Liberal’s on this issue.”
So you agree, like the conservatives, that any too-bit excuse that the company can think of, they don’t have to hire Non-Shabbos workers?!?
I am unaware of any conservative position that states that “any” two bit excuse a company should be sufficient not to hire non-Shabbos workers.
And I would not describe my philosophy as straight conservative or straight liberal.
It so happens that in the current environment it appears that the conservative are the ones that are more respectful of religious rights.
In fact I do not think that Liberals would even argue the point.
Health
“When I wrote they “have No right”, you misinterpreted that I meant no legal right, what I meant No moral right!”
not quite. See here:
I said “”The court interprets the law. That is their role.”
You replied: “Who says? If the law says “Religious accommodation” and they said not more than “de minimus”. Who says that what it means? I say no matter what!”
To which I have been replying several times. It doesnt matter what you say. The court’s role as defined by the constitution is to interpret the law. Of course some of their interpretation wont fit with yours or mine for that matter. In fact in most cases their are even supreme court justices, often as many as 4 who disagree with the court’s interpretation. That doesnt mean every time the court’s interpretation doesnt agree with yours its “just like in Germany”
You are also ignoring the part of the law i keep pointing out, and that you quoted earlier religious accommodation is not absolute. It is only employer’s job to “reasonably accommodate” You keep ignoring this point, much like when you were asked several times regardinghow many jobs you need listed that allow for Shabbos observance (ealier you said their was one)
Stranger still You also said:
“I happen not to have a problem with that interpretation,”
So the one example weve been talking about, about which not only are you unable to provide a reference to the case in question (being one of the secret supreme court cases that none of us can know about), at one point you indicated you dont even disagree with the court on that issue. So how exactly are they like Germany. If the court does what (you know acknowledge is ) their job and rules in a way that you dont feel they misinterpreted?
Ben Levi – I’m not interested whether you call our government conservative or liberal.
I’m interested what the rights of Frum Jews have in this country.
They don’t have the right to work in all types of jobs!
I think that there is a chance that Trump can change that!
But I wonder what appeal Hillary has that she got Satmar and BMG, Lakewood to promise to vote for her?
I know that those places get a lot money from our government. Did she promise them even more?!?
ben LEvi
“It so happens that in the current environment it appears that the conservative are the ones that are more respectful of religious rights.
In fact I do not think that Liberals would even argue the point.”
It’s probably true in the “current environment.”
However regarding the very issue at hand, the mere fact that a Jew cant be fired simply becasue he is a Jew or becasue he wont work on Saturday (again Health, as long as it doesn’t put an “undue burden” on the employer) is quite a liberal idea. Most conservatives (note not most Republicans, party affiliations were different in the 60’s) voted against it. the very idea of a goverment telling a employer who he can and cant hire is the antithesis of conservatism.
And who knows how the “current environment” can change. Especially when a leading candidate is being spoken of as ushering in the 4th Reich
Ben Levi……………….
“It so happens that in the current environment it appears that the conservative are the ones that are more respectful of religious rights.”
WRONG…Conservatives are only more respectful of their OWN religious rights and beliefs.
They want to bring back prayer to the public schools.
They want to not allow Muslims to build Mosques and practice their religion wherever they would like in America
They want to have their version of biblical items on public property..e.g the 10 Commandments statues in the courthouse and state capitol (Kentucky and Oklahoma). The version wasn’t that which appears in the Torah.
The list goes on…………….
CTLawyer
I think that we disagree on numerous points.
1) Allowing prayer in public schools is not “infringingg” on my rights unless I am obligated to join in. What does infringe is not allowing others to pray that is disallowing them to pray as they wish when they wish.
2) I am unaware of where exactly they wish to limit Muslims ability to practice their religion, unless you are referring to the Ground Zero Mosque? If you are I am wondering what you would feel about Muslims opening a Mosque on the same site as the Number 2 bus bombing in Israel?
3) Displaying Ten Commandments statues on public property in no way “infringes” on my beliefs, it does not force me to acknowledge it, to believe in it or any such thing.
All of those things simply require the minority to allow the majority in this country to practice and acknowledge their religion.
However what does “infringe” in a real way on my ability to practice my religion is forcing me to provide a pill that my religion says is wrong.
What does infringe is forcing me to provide services to ceremonies that my religion prohibits me from taking part in in any way.
You see tolerance is when I am asked to simply respect others without being forced to partake.
Intolerance is when I am forced to partake in what I wish to refrain.
Health
“When I wrote they “have No right”, you misinterpreted that I meant no legal right, what I meant No moral right!”
not quite. See here:
I said “”The court interprets the law. That is their role.”
You replied: “Who says? If the law says “Religious accommodation” and they said not more than “de minimus”. Who says that what it means? I say no matter what!”
To which I have been replying several times. It doesnt matter what you say. The court’s role as defined by the constitution is to interpret the law. Of course some of their interpretation wont fit with yours or mine for that matter. In fact in most cases their are even supreme court justices, often as many as 4 who disagree with the court’s interpretation. That doesnt mean every time the court’s interpretation doesnt agree with yours its “just like in Germany”
You are also ignoring the part of the law i keep pointing out, and that you quoted earlier religious accommodation is not absolute. It is only employer’s job to “reasonably accommodate” You keep ignoring this point, much like when you were asked several times regarding how many jobs you need listed that allow for Shabbos observance (earlier you said there was one)
BTW Health
Stranger still You also said:
“I happen not to have a problem with that interpretation,”
So the one example weve been talking about, about which not only are you unable to provide a reference to the case in question (being one of the secret supreme court cases that none of us can know about), at one point you indicated you dont even disagree with the court on that issue. So how exactly are they like Germany. If the court does what (you now acknowledge is ) their job and rules in a way that you dont feel they misinterpreted?
Ubiq -“not quite. See here:
I said “”The court interprets the law. That is their role.”
You replied: “Who says? If the law says “Religious accommodation” and they said not more than “de minimus”. Who says that what it means? I say no matter what!”
To which I have been replying several times. It doesnt matter what you say. The court’s role as defined by the constitution is to interpret the law. Of course some of their interpretation wont fit with yours or mine for that matter. In fact in most cases their are even supreme court justices, often as many as 4 who disagree with the court’s interpretation. That doesnt mean every time the court’s interpretation doesnt agree with yours its “just like in Germany”
Why do you make me repeat myself umpteen times?!? Is it because you truly don’t understand or that you can never be wrong?!?
They have the legal right to interpret anyway they want, not necessarily what is a moral interpretation!
Keep dreaming that an employee can take off Shabbos because that’s the law.
They used to post after the SCOTUS decision just saying it means “not more than de minimis cost”. Now they added in “or burden on business operations;”. That to me is changing the basic meaning of the law!!!!
I think they changed it after my Court case!!
This is because at that time I was legally correct!
They change the meaning every time they feel like it!
This is because they are subtlety Antisemitic!!!
But keep voting DemonCrat!!!
They change the meaning every time they feel like it!
This is because they are subtlety Antisemitic!!!
But keep voting DemonCrat!!!
Worse, they are pro Union. Even when the company is willing to make an accommodation, if the union gets in the way, the Union gets first dibs on not allowing the accommodation to go through.
In all fairness to the court though, making exceptions to the union contract, even where there may be reason due to discrimination, would be more than a “de minimis” cost, as forced exceptions to seniority would cause discontent within the ranks and possible reopening of the negotiated contract (i.e. “burden on business operations”). So either way (whether you call it “de minimis” or “burden on business operations”) I believe TWA v Hardison was decided appropriately.
As we don’t know what your case was, I can’t speak to your specific scenario, but have to assume that the courts were correct in their decision there as well.
Health
I have no trouble admitting when wrong
see here for example: http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/conspiracy-theories-1/page/2#post-611749
Now your turn…
“They have the legal right to interpret anyway they want, not necessarily what is a moral interpretation!”
I’m sorry I don’t know what that means. At any rate it clearly wasnt what you were saying in the first few exchanges on the subject as I indicated above.
“Keep dreaming that an employee can take off Shabbos because that’s the law.”
oops I forgot, it is because most of our bosses are Ohavei Yisroel
“”They used to post after the SCOTUS decision”
I dont know what decision you are talking about. Their is none I can find regarding Shabbos (there are a few about Sunday).
I dont know when various definitions were added, nor do I know when this possibly imaginary SCOTUS decision you reference took place. So it is impossible to argue that point.
I do have a question for you (though you haven’t answered most until now) In your mind does the law as written in 1964 require an employer has to suffer a loss so his employee can keep Shabbos? how much loss?
GAW -“or “burden on business operations”) I believe TWA v Hardison was decided appropriately.”
Of course you’d say that. But you seem to know a little law. So answer my question – “They used to post after the SCOTUS decision just saying it means “not more than de minimis cost”. Now they added in “or burden on business operations;”.”
When did they add it in?
I think they changed it after my Court case!!
This is because at that time I was legally correct!
Ubiq -“Health
I have no trouble admitting when wrong”
Obviously you do, especially here!!
“this doesnt appear in the original, I’m not sure when it was addedd but it was added by Congress, not the Court.”
Obviously you know nothing about law and how it’s written! I studied medicine and I had to learn law because of my court cases.
I’ve a question for you – how do you come here pretending that you’re the know-it-all?
You obviously don’t know a thing about law!
That’s obvious from your statement of -“I’m not sure when it was addedd but it was added by Congress, not the Court.”
I’ll try to teach you something, IDK if I can, wherever you got that from, it’s from the or I should say based on the Court’s decisions, not because Congress wrote it into law!!!!!!
“Obviously you do, especially here!!”
nope and As always I provided proof seee link above.
“I studied medicine and I had to learn law because of my court cases.”
Too bad In your studies of medicine and law you didint come across the phrase “non-sequitur” What does medicine have to do with anything? I remember your firm grasp on medicine form the time you tried to make up Triage guidelines and pass them off as readily available knowledge.
“I’ve a question for you – how do you come here pretending that you’re the know-it-all?”
By reading, and providing sources for almost all that I say. And from learning from others including you when applicable. Try it. Also if you would please anwer my questions…
“You obviously don’t know a thing about law!”
I wasnt the one who had to be told what the function of the supreme court was…
“I’ll try to teach you something, IDK if I can,”
Please do. I love learning new things.
“wherever you got that from,”
I got it from “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub. L. 88-352) (Title VII), as amended,” widely available online.
“it’s from the or I should say based on the Court’s decisions, not because Congress wrote it into law!!!!!!”
Do you have a source for that? I was not aware that The courts decisions were written into laws and am ready to admit my mistake (and boy would I be off) if what you say is indeed correct
Regarding TWA vs. Hardison, it was the two most liberal justices — Brennan and Marshall — who dissented. If you want it reversed, you need to get liberal justices appointed which means voting Clinton.
Islam is a religion of peace. If the goverment says it than it must be true.
Gosh, I’m happy I don’t live in that men holding hands with men, weather disaster and race hating American country. And all the streets are numbered instead of named. How would I find anywhere?
But on the plus side, your seforim have cheap shipping or free shipping… Hmm. Nearly balances things up.
Ubiq-“I wasnt the one who had to be told what the function of the supreme court was…”
I was being facetious. I don’t like what they do & did to me and to others!
“I’ll try to teach you something, IDK if I can,”
“Please do. I love learning new things.”
I’ll do it one time. Enjoy!!!
“I got it from “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub. L. 88-352) (Title VII), as amended,” widely available online.
“it’s from the or I should say based on the Court’s decisions, not because Congress wrote it into law!!!!!!”
“Do you have a source for that? I was not aware that The courts decisions were written into laws and am ready to admit my mistake (and boy would I be off) if what you say is indeed correct”
Here it is! I’m not going to have a back & forth with you because obviously you don’t know a thing about law:
“Reasonable accommodation without undue hardship as required by section 701(j) of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
(a) Purpose of this section. This section clarifies the obligation imposed by title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, (sections 701(j), 703 and 717) to accommodate the religious practices of employees and prospective employees. This section does not address other obligations under title VII not to discriminate on grounds of religion, nor other provisions of title VII. This section is not intended to limit any additional obligations to accommodate religious practices which may exist pursuant to constitutional, or other statutory provisions; neither is it intended to provide guidance for statutes which require accommodation on bases other than religion such as section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The legal principles which have been developed with respect to discrimination prohibited by title VII on the bases of race, color, sex, and national origin also apply to religious discrimination in all circumstances other than where an accommodation is required.
(b) Duty to accommodate.
(1) Section 701(j) makes it an unlawful employment practice under section 703(a)(1) for an employer to fail to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee or prospective employee, unless the employer demonstrates that accommodation would result in undue hardship on the conduct of its business. 2
2 See Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63, 74″
Charlie -“Regarding TWA vs. Hardison, it was the two most liberal justices — Brennan and Marshall — who dissented. If you want it reversed, you need to get liberal justices appointed which means voting Clinton”
You don’t begin to understand what I want!
You want liberal justices, not me!
I want justices that define “undue hardship”, the way most people define it! Eg. like the disabled law for employment!
I want justices that will outlaw abortion (unless the mother’s life is in danger)!
I want justices that will uphold laws that make sodomy illegal!
I want justices that will make same sex marriage illegal!
Health: Maybe conservative justices with overturn Obergefell, but no one will make sodomy illegal. Even if the courts would (and there is no reason to uphold such laws), the local governments would just rescind them. The vast majority in this country now are no longer interested in making sodomy illegal. That ship has long since sailed.
Health
We dont have to go back and forth.
But:
a. that wasnt what I asked. I am asking for you to to provide a source that Supreme court’s decisions are written/amended into laws.
b. You are lying again. At the time of TWA v Hardison as mentioned in the ruling “the 1967 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidelines in effect at the time requiring an employer, short of “undue hardship,” to make “reasonable accommodations” to the religious needs of its employees”
I dont think court didn’t add this in at the time.
And as for what you want. yOu want opposite things from your justices. for the first youd like liberal justices who interpret things broadly and maximize govt’s role in private enterprise.
and regarding sodomoy you want a time machine see Sam’s comment
Sam2 -“Even if the courts would (and there is no reason to uphold such laws)”
The reason is because it’s against the Torah and the Goyish Bible!
“the local governments would just rescind them.”
We have to get rid of those politicians and put in conservative ones!
“The vast majority in this country now are no longer interested in making sodomy illegal. That ship has long since sailed.”
Actually most people in this country believe in the Bible.
But the sick liberals have pushed their way into the laws!
We gotta reverse that trend!
Ubiq -“And as for what you want. yOu want opposite things from your justices. for the first youd like liberal justices who interpret things broadly and maximize govt’s role in private enterprise.
and regarding sodomoy you want a time machine see Sam’s comment”
My comment was to Charlie, not to you! That’s correct – the way the system is now – they’d be opposite each other!
Change the system!
I want justices that the Torah has No problem with!!!
Ubiq -“I am asking for you to to provide a source that Supreme court’s decisions are written/amended into laws.”
I did that! Didn’t you read my post?!?
“You are lying again.”
Funny! Let me ask you something – who are you calling a liar – me or the US Code that I quoted above?!?
Of course you’d say that. But you seem to know a little law. So answer my question – “They used to post after the SCOTUS decision just saying it means “not more than de minimis cost”. Now they added in “or burden on business operations;”.”
When did they add it in?
I think they changed it after my Court case!!
This is because at that time I was legally correct!
Once again, without knowing what your case was I have to assume that the courts were correct. TWA vs. Hardison could have been decided against Hardison based on either standard. In addition, either standard would be considered “undue hardship”.
1) Allowing prayer in public schools is not “infringing” on my rights unless I am obligated to join in. What does infringe is not allowing others to pray that is disallowing them to pray as they wish when they wish.
Ben Levi:
So you would agree with a law that conditions any educational funding whatsoever (including attendance, busing, Special Ed, children getting therapy, etc.) on the school, at the beginning (or middle) of the school day, praying for the return of Jesus the son of God as our savior? After all, the children have the right to remain silent!??
Gavra at Work,
Of course not, again such a law means that the government is mandating an official school policy, it is requiring the school to implement a religious action.
That’s something that clearly violates the principle of freedom of religion.
However if the parent body of an individual school decided upon their own to act in accordance with the majority of the particular school’s population in prayer policy, with the caveat that the minority population within that school is not required to attend or take part in any way.
Then on a theoretical basis why not?
(On a practical basis I believe that the Courts would not allow because of the way separation of Church and State is currently defined)
Again I am fervently against any government interference in religion what-so-ever. Whether pro or anti.
I believe that is was the US policy until recently when it seemed to change in favor of mandating the Liberal Democrat religion and outlawing any other.
GAW -“Once again, without knowing what your case was I have to assume that the courts were correct.”
Of course you would, because you sound like a lawyer.
I didn’t come to ask you if they Judged me correctly.
Actually I’m Not interested in your opinion!
“TWA vs. Hardison could have been decided against Hardison based on either standard. In addition, either standard would be considered “undue hardship”.”
Why do you come here with your double talk?
I asked you a question – I’ll repeat it.
Question – “They used to post (EEOC) after the SCOTUS decision just saying it means “not more than de minimis cost”. Now they added in “or burden on business operations;”.”
When did they add it in?
I think they changed it after my Court case!!
I would like to clarify my position on certain things.
Some poster’s here seem to feel that disallowing school prayer, the mention of G-d, or certain morals in the public sphere is a “Jewish” position.
It isn’t and it never has been.
It’s an atheistic/liberal position that has led to the degradation of the public school system and the society that lives off of that on many levels.
Sadly many Athiestic/liberal organizations call themselves “Jewish” organizations and still others substitute the current values of the NYT and Washington Post editorial boards for the Torahs values and call them Jewish Values.
They are Jewish values only in so much as they are held by (probably intermarried) Jews who may attend services led by a female rabbi who cannot read Hebrew once a year.
There is a well know story with the Chofetz Chaim.
The Chofetz Chaim used to travel from town to town selling his seforim he once passed a church and the non-Jewish wagon driver failed to cross himself.
The Chofetz Chaim then got off saying that he could not travel with someone who does not believe in anything.
THe public school system of old was not perfect in any way and Boruch Hashem we now have a cheder system. But as severl “old timers” have told me.
It used to be Jews attended public schools and they may not have learnt how to be Jews but at the very least they learnt how to be people, the basic morals of right and wrong.
Now-a-days they do not learn even that. Instead they are taught dasic morals of liberal society in the guise of “freedom of religion”.
It is illegal to pray in Public School but it is legal to teach Heather had two mommies.
It is illegal to display the Ten Commandments but it is legal to teach young girls how to properly do “acts” that define married life.
It is “controversial” for girls and boys to be required to study separately and it is equally controversial to demand that female teachers and students dress in way that their body is not on display for all to see and focus on.
So I wonder what exactly was more “damaging” to the USA as a whole and the Jewish people in particular.
School prayer and separate classrooms or the current state of the Public School system?
Health
No the code isn’t lying.
The code isn’t touched by ScoTus.
It is ammended by Congress. You haven’t provided a source that says otherwise.(nor have you replied to several of my questions)
I double checked with several lawyers, codes aren’t edited by the court. That simply isn’t how it works.
Ubiq-“Health
No the code isn’t lying.
The code isn’t touched by ScoTus.
It is ammended by Congress. I double checked with several lawyers, codes aren’t edited by the court. That simply isn’t how it works.”
If it’s true – so what?
“You haven’t provided a source that says otherwise.(nor have you replied to several of my questions)”
I really don’t understand you! Are you in some sort of denial?!?
I posted the US Code here in this topic, right above my response to Charlie! I even put it in question marks!
I proved that I was right!
Why do you keep denying this?!? Because you can’t admit that you’re wrong?!?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.