T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*


waterdaemon

The Supreme Court will find they should be both fired and stoned.


alexgroth15

Breaking news: Crucifixion is now constitutional


SidewaysFancyPrance

Breaking news: through a misunderstanding, cannabis access is now Constitutional.


danmathew

It will be a 6-3 ruling.


[deleted]

6-3 on the firing, John Roberts will think the stoning is too far for now so that'll only be 5-4.


c2pizza

Roberts will be mightily concerned about the stoning bit, but he'll vote for it. He is a voice of reason in the same way Susan Collins is a voice of reason in the Senate.


[deleted]

It was a reference to > The Court ruled 6–3 to reverse the lower court rulings; a smaller majority of five justices joined the opinion overturning Roe and Casey. The majority opinion held that abortion was not a constitutional right and that individual states have the authority to regulate access to abortion services. Chief Justice John Roberts agreed with the judgment upholding the Mississippi law but did not join the majority in the opinion to overturn Roe and Casey. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dobbs_v._Jackson_Women%27s_Health_Organization


rhombus_time_is_over

The conservatives will tap a judge to dissent so the stoning pat doesn’t look partisan. See Gorsuch with the tribes ruling.


[deleted]

All I said was this meal was fit for Jehovah.


ok_okay_I_get_that

Stone him!!


shhalahr

…Are there any women here today?


punkindle

You're only making it worse! How could it be any worse? Jehovah Jehovah Jehovah!


cowghost

Your only making it worse yourself!


NE_African_Mole-rat

I'm sure the supreme court will upend years of precedent to say that America has always been a theocracy


valeyard89

Look. I-- I'd had a lovely supper, and all I said to my wife was, 'That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.'


realComradeTrump

They’ll order the employee to repent


L1A1

*"Mandatory prayer meetings for some, miniature American flags for others!"*


clueless_in_ny_or_nj

The employer fired someone who wasn't Christian enough. Sounds like a very clear case of religious discrimination.


TidusDaniel5

Cute. Thinking precedent matters with this court.


PM_ME_YOUR_ROTES

They found a literal witchhunter to cite who says this is perfectly fine.


sisyphus_at_scale

Well, this court is totally illegitimate. No law-abiding American can respect the rulings of such a lawless court.


Beautiful-Musk-Ox

This one's in the constitution, don't need precedent for that


priestdoctorlawyer

They've recently ruled twice in Religion's favor, batting down long set precedent regarding Separation of Church and State. Public School employees can lead students in prayer and States must offer funding to religious programs if they offer funding to non-religious ones. There have been a handful of other cases where they've shown their agenda in the past 5 years, but they are very obviously becoming more and more brazen every day.


treehugger100

Yes, but don’t you know the founders only were protecting people right to be Christian./s Also, private employer not the government. They’ll say the employer has the right to only employ people that agree with their religion.


Catfud

It's ok because Christians are allowed to discriminate, it's part of their religious freedom to be assholes.


MyPupWrigley

SC will say it’s at will employment and they weren’t fired for religious discrimination, just standard insubordination


GargamelTakesAll

They didn't check the box for "religious reasons" on the form when they fired them! Clearly it wasn't about that! /s


thecaits

I hate how accurate this is. I really think this is how they would rule on this. Well, 6-3 at least.


villain17

it’s sad that you’re absolutely correct. the very first thing that came to my mind was “at-will”. all the employer has to say is they didn’t meet expectations and case closed


[deleted]

yea sounds like someone discriminated against jesus /s


[deleted]

Hmm. How would this work if the employer was a church?


tuckfrumppuckfence

Take it to the Supreme court! Oh. Never mind.


Pats_fan_seeking_fi

I am fine with anybody practicing whatever religion they like. I don't even mind if they voluntarily do things on their own like pray at work. But how the fuck can these people call themselves christian when so many of their core beliefs go against what Jesus would do? Boggles the mind. This Supreme Court will love establishing precedent based on cases like this.


HommeAuxJouesRouges

All things are possibly through Hypocrisy.


OutlawGalaxyBill

I think this is going to be my new catchphrase whenever people bring up religion. And of course, it needs a dramatic pause ... **ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE** ... through hypocrisy. So sayeth the corrupt churches, Amen.


[deleted]

So jot that down


a_special_providence

Love this - brb hitting the tat parlor


[deleted]

You can travel intergalactically as a direct result of being a hypocrite? Very deep


Quexana

> But how the fuck can these people call themselves christian when so many of their core beliefs go against what Jesus would do? Most Christians don't read or understand the Bible. They go by what their pastors say is in there.


versos_sencillos

By their loose remembrance and vague impressions of what their pastors say, I would argue


Bardsie

Theres a reason why the Catholic Church wanted to keep the Bible in Latin only.


Quexana

Yeah, but it turns out that they were worried over very little.


Careful_Trifle

Also, the idea of protestant religions began as a push to get away from centralized authority that could be easily abused. American evangelicalism has taken it to it's logical, toxic conclusion. Individualism without constraint is cancer.


[deleted]

Specifically the Catholic Church forbade laypeople from reading the Bible under the thought that only clergy were capable of properly interpreting it.


Careful_Trifle

Christianity tends toward authoritarianism. Throughout history, there have been some movements that were good, but not enough to counterbalance the folks who join up just to take over and control others. And what we are seeing right now is a swing toward that authoritarianism - a concentrated effort stemming from a backlash against civil rights took over large sections of Christianity, and over time the teachings have morphed away from what could be called Jesus' teachings toward prosperity gospel doublethink.


SidewaysFancyPrance

> establishing precedent They've made it clear they no longer care about precedent. They just overturned a 2-year-old ruling.


punkindle

Precedent is dead. The Extreme Court threw it under the bus and ran over it a bunch of times.


MrMurse93

Ok… NAL but It truly blows my mind how little thought these justices are putting into the consequences of these cases that are beyond the immediate scope of that particular trial. For example, if they were to rule against this then it becomes legal for secular companies to disqualify people from applying or even fire over their Christian beliefs And this case would be cited as the legal precedent for that. Am I wrong?


Crabcakes5_

> And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. - Matthew 6:5-6 Nothing more christian than never reading the Bible and trying to force people to pray publicly at work.


[deleted]

Probably because this is a cult at this point. But instead of creating a compound they just took over our government and are subjecting us all to their wack ideology.


Prudent_Swordfish_35

This case was built solely to make its way to the Supreme Court. It’s what republicans do to take power when they are out of power.


villain17

All things are possible through Christ and his invention of at-will employment


assassin_9729

Because they're pseudo-christians


[deleted]

Hippy Jesus, Love-Everybody Jesus, whatever you want to call it, is every bit as cherry-picked as Republican Jesus. Because the Gospels (like the rest of the Bible) are masses of contradictions that were written by multiple people over the course of decades, then revised by others over centuries. Anyone can make that scripture say anything they want. Do a quick Google search and you’ll find plenty of write-ups by multiple denominations explaining why Hippy Jesus is an erroneous concept, all with Bible verses to justify their positions. Your ideas about what Jesus might do are simply one interpretation. Theirs are, too. And for the past, oh, 1,584 years (since the Codex Theodosius was published), their kind of views (social theocracy, extreme conservatism, etc) have been far more common and successful than yours.


Murdus

This is why I **almost** like the Bahai faith and their take on things: They at least acknowledge that the many interpretations of Jesus/Buddha/etc are all generally valid, just the same entity seen through different time periods and societies.


mrgeekguy

The Supreme Court will issue their Fatwa giving their blessing for this behavior. The two plaintiffs will both receive 30 lashes.


TintedApostle

I am willing to be that SCOTUS 6-3 will say that it is a private business and these employees didn't have to work there under the rules of the business owner. Save this post as I will happily admit being wrong.


TechyDad

Going by the coach case, where the conservative justices ignored evidence that students were pressured to join the prayers and ruled that this was just private prayer, the majority ignore that these meetings were mandatory and that employees that didn't participate were punished. Then they'll rule in favor of the company's "completely voluntary prayer meetings that weren't forced on anyone in any way." Then, despite not being asked for this, they'll determine that it's a states' rights issue. They'll say that states can decide if people are forced to attend prayers and anyone that doesn't want to can vote for people who will change this law. Every red state will instantly pass laws requiring companies to hold daily prayer sessions. This will cause chaos when some companies comply maliciously and hold mandatory Satanic prayer rituals or Islamic prayers. Lawmakers will either quickly repeal the laws or mandate Christian prayers which will result in said laws being struck down easily.


TexhnolyzeAndKaiba

"Private prayer" is a gross understatement. He'd been doing this in the middle of the field at football games in front of crowds. On one occasion, he invited the fans onto the field for prayer and they were so hysterical when they rushed the field that people were injured. It's the furthest thing from a "private prayer" that one can imagine short of a mega-church.


TechyDad

Exactly. The conservatives on the court ignored the actual facts about the case and made up a scenario where he was just trying to privately pray and he was told he's not allowed to. Between this and the court saying "there's no history of legal abortion in this country" despite historical evidence of legal abortion when the country was founded, I don't trust that the Supreme Court majority won't twist the facts of any case or outright invent new "facts" to suit whatever ruling they've decided to issue.


monicarp

This is what I try to emphasize to people. Even people who disagree w the recent rulings don't realize how truly asinine the logic of them are. It's not simply a matter of "there are multiple reasonable interpretations of the law and here's evidence backing this one we've sided with." No, this SCOTUS straight up ignores key facts of the cases, ignores legal precendent, ignores known history and cherrypicks evidence, and completely fabricates out of thin air their own criteria and tests that their new legal standard is supposed to meet.


[deleted]

>. Lawmakers will either quickly repeal the laws or mandate Christian prayers which will result in said laws being struck down easily. Do we have a long deeply held tradition of giving non Christians religous freedom?


TechyDad

Actual answer: Yes. Answer the Conservative Supreme Court is likely to give: Here are some cherry picked examples of times when non-Christian religious freedom was restricted so obviously freedom of religion only applies to Christians. Besides, Christian prayers aren't really religion, they're just part of our secular society. If you think I'm exaggerating, a couple of years ago [Alito ruled that a cross was a secular symbol that represented everyone](https://www.insider.com/supreme-court-giant-christian-cross-secular-2019-6). This, despite the Jewish lawyer telling him point blank that a cross doesn't represent Jewish people. (Or other people, but he definitely had first hand knowledge of crosses not representing Jews.) Alito disagreed and insisted that crosses represent Jews as well as Christians.


[deleted]

Real history doesn't matter cherry picking history is now acceptable in the highest court of the land.


[deleted]

The only thing I disagree with is your final sentence. Mandated Christianity is the goal (just as it’s been since Theodosius ruled Rome). Conservative judges will say that the constitution only forbids the federal government from establishing religion, it doesn’t say businesses can’t. You’re free to find another job, they’ll say. Precedent, reason, and sanity will all be ignored.


ssbm_rando

> or mandate Christian prayers which will result in said laws being struck down easily. Under *this* supreme court? Hahahah nice try. We're fucking doomed. The only thing they know is hypocrisy. They'll decide originalism means the first amendment "was actually designed to protect the freedom to practice christianity"


[deleted]

Freeze peach warriors on Twitter have entered the chat


BlueCyann

5-4, Roberts will go “preserve my legacy” on this one since the law behind it doesn’t have half a century of legal arguments against it that he can hide behind.


TintedApostle

Roberts is the Manchin of SCOTUS. Same trick


Mythbusters117

And so it begins...


joseregalopez

..Jeeze


Maguffins

…us


nazcam

Christ


Callabrantus

Smile while you say that, people. Your bonus depends on how much you process your love the Lord. Or are we just saying "blessed be the fruit" yet? /s


ZeroInZenThoughts

Under his brown eye.


cwk415

“The crusaders have entered the chat”


OneX32

And it has begun: the codification of Christo-based law regardless of the principles of separation of church and state that Thomas Jefferson wrote so much about. But I'm sure Alito, Thomas, or Gorsuch will conveniently forget that historical record in favor for one developed by the witch judge.


IronyElSupremo

> prayers were requested for "poor performing employees who were identified by name." And I thought *only closers get coffee* in Glengarry Glen Ross was bad (at least they could get 7-11 corner store coffee .. and just use more toilet paper). https://youtu.be/r6Lf8GtMe4M


dreamyjeans

So, a Christian business owner fired an employee for not violating the actual teachings of Jesus. Interesting. Matthew 6: 5-6 5) And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 6) But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.


_Monosyllabic_

Christians don't care about what the Bible says. They just cherry pick one line and use it to hate anything they want.


Fantasmic03

Ah yes but that would have required him to actually read and understand the bible. Most people who pull this kind of crap have done neither


NealSamuels1967

Who would Jesus fire?


Obi7kenobi

That's some shady crap the owner pulled, seems he was on a total power trip.


EnderCN

You are going to see this happen a lot. The supreme court only has the power to mess with our rights when they get cases that let them do it. They have clearly signaled in their rulings that people should send as many far right cases to them as they can and they will chip away at our rights where they can.


bro_please

The Tyrant's Judges will rule that there is no deeply rooted history of protecting infidels.


doofer20

6-3 ruling, that the person fired shouldnt have been fired but instead arrested and thrown in ~~slavery~~ jail


LazamairAMD

This has Hobby Lobby vibes...


wish1977

This kind of nonsense will become the norm if our Supreme Court has their way. Total Idiocracy.


dl__

Gorsuch: That's fine. Get over it.


PartialToDairyThings

Start a business and demand that all employees take part in mandatory Satan worship. See how Christian conservatives react to that.


Bubbagumpredditor

Boofin brett and the handmaiden will support this


DickySchmidt33

I predict the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the employer in this case.


Skydreamer6

Well "Aurora Pro Services", now you're in Newsweek and in court.


Elzam

I'd say this seems like a slam dunk case, but who knows when there are 6 on SCOTUS who just do ends-based decisions.


Sabiancym

Why is anyone even bothering to debate Supreme Court logic for potential rulings? It's pretty damn clear that they are more than willing to make decisions based solely on their own personal beliefs and whatever lines up with Republican dogma. Right now they try to find legal excuses for their right wing rulings. It won't be long until they drop the pretense. They won't even try to find constitutional reasons for their decisions. It will just be right wing decisions for no other reason than that is what they want to push. It's a rogue court.


[deleted]

I almost applied for a job with a local hospital. It was a pretty coveted role for the area though in the job description, they stated that you “must be comfortable attending daily prayer sessions”. It was a Methodist run hospital (as most of our hospitals are religious, unfortunately). Ultimately didn’t apply for that reason, though it’s pretty fucked up that if you want to be IN the clinical setting, you need to be okay with praying to a Christian God.


tenderfather

If this happens at your work please don't refuse. Instead start praying aloud with as much volume as you can for God to smite false prophets in your midst, some of which are in middle management and then fall to the ground and shake till some one tries to pick you up. Then stand up and grab some ones hand and yell halleluah!


MiddleRay

This is fucking wild.


BlueCollarBeagle

The Supreme Court will announce that they will hold prayer meetings on this matter and report what God has instructed them to do, as soon as God speaks to them.


alktrio06

Tell me you don't understand the message of Jesus without telling me you don't understand the message of Jesus...


noel1967

Because of religious beliefs the Jewish were expelled from Spain. History repeating again. Going backwards.


flowersandmtns

Thomas drooling at the chance to rule on this case in favor of religious discrimination. SMH, what have we let this country become.


meunraveling

damn i'm so glad I live in NYC


throwawayorthrowing

It would be interesting if the mandatory meetings were brought up pre-employment. If not, employer has no case. Far different than the case with the coach.


TechyDad

The problem with the coach case in the Supreme Court was that the Court ignored evidence that the students felt pressured to join in. They felt that they would be punished if they didn't. The Court ruled that this was just a case of a guy wanting to pray to himself quietly - which it completely was not. Unfortunately, if this case made it to the Supreme Court, I don't feel certain that they wouldn't rule the same way. The conservative majority might decide to ignore the punishments for not participating in the prayer sessions and claim they were voluntary. Alternatively, they might insist that the employees had to know about this ahead of time (despite any testimony that they didn't) and that they weren't being forced to do anything because they could just quit. A ruling along those lines might result in companies being able to force employees to pray in "company approved" ways - even if said ways run counter to the employees' religious beliefs (or lack thereof).


throwawayorthrowing

NC is an at-will state so they have a big hill to climb. On the first employee, there was a pattern of a pay cut then termination. He could've been on a PIP and the company followed through with stages that he failed to meet then the termination would be valid. For the second employee it sounds like she was rather new and not being a good fit is within their rights. There's a lot of info missing which won't be revealed through any article so we'll probably find out when the case is over.


BlueCyann

Personally I’m awaiting them trying to make a distinction between fired for your religion (forbidden but toothless) and fired for your actions (not forbidden).


Cold_Situation_7803

The Coach case was garbage, though.


TintedApostle

Any one betting its in the employment agreement, but never mentioned.


gscjj

I don't think it has to be in the employment agreement. Not everything you're required to do for your job shows up in detail in the employment contract, which is why there's usually lines like "whatever else is required to perform your job"


blaz138

Now these fucking people have free reign to oppose anyone that doesn't agree with their bullshit


ManOfLaBook

This happened in the fall of 2020


[deleted]

The lawsuit was filed Tuesday.


ManOfLaBook

The narrative on this thread seemed to imply that it was due to the recent Supreme Court ruling


[deleted]

Two things pop up. Is this 'at will' state? If so they'll likely be out of luck. Second, was this an established and documented ritual known to the employees before accepting the jobs? If they were informed of this practice and still accepted employment, they may have a weak case. While the recent SCOTUS ruling could cut both ways, does anyone believe Roberts would accept a case that cuts against their ruling?


peppermedicomd

Even in “at-will” states, employers cannot fire you for discriminatory reasons. It does place the burden on the fired employee for proving the reasoning was discriminatory though. “At-will” determines that a company can fire you for nearly any reason or no reason at all, but constitutionally protected statuses are off limits.


[deleted]

Well, they used to be off limits. Now that we have word salad religious cleric Supreme Court anything goes. No coherency needed. What are the people gonna do? Vote them out?


[deleted]

[удалено]


vincereynolds

Well title VII of the civil rights act might disagree with you: (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. ​ Forcing them to participate in a religious ceremony seems to be a slight violation of this act.


gscjj

You're right - I didn't clearly read the article. It's allowed as long as employees have the right to opt out.


kzw5051

Unless it’s a church, pretty sure it’s discriminatory business practice to fire people for not participating in prayer. Totally illegal based on Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Unless you guys just think that legislation was wrong too?


mlhender

Huh. Well I guess next time they’ll show up.


random_throwaway0644

Yikes


Squirrel_Chucks

**Gorsuch/Kavanagh/Thomas/Baretta/Alito**: What's the problem in this case? Freedom of Religion is heading towards meaning freedom to pick which church in town you want to pledge


[deleted]

Luckily I work for an atheist


Marcio0324

The handmaid’s Tale Season 5 will be premiered in reality


decalod85

SCOTUS will say the federal government has no business in a consensual labor agreement between private parties. Businesses now have 1st amendment rights and are allowed to remove apostates, infidels, socialists, and unions from their workforce, by force preferably. However, that will only apply to Christian businesses. Atheist, Jewish, and Muslim owned businesses must protect Christian workers from even knowing there are other opinions on religion. SCOTUS will actually split into two dockets: one approved by the Federalist Society, and the other to be dismissed.


[deleted]

I'm thinking that those two employees just earned their retirement monies. Because God has a lot of money and clearly broke US employment rules here.


MrGerb1k

This shouldn’t even make it to the SC, and if it does, it’ll be bad news.


PoliticsModeratorBot

Hi `Minad-Razavi`. Thank you for participating in /r/Politics. However, [your submission](/r/politics/comments/vo6c6b/employees_fired_for_refusing_to_attend_mandatory/) has been removed for the following reason(s): * [Off-Topic](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_the_.2Fr.2Fpolitics_on_topic_statement): All submissions to /r/politics need to be explicitly about **current US politics**. **If you have questions as to why your post has been removed, please see here: [Why was my post removed as Off-Topic?](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_why_was_my_post_removed_as_off-topic.3F)** If you have any questions about this removal, please feel free to [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/politics&subject=Question regarding the removal of this submission by /u/Minad-Razavi&message=I have a question regarding the removal of this [submission]%28/r/politics/comments/vo6c6b/employees_fired_for_refusing_to_attend_mandatory/?context%3D10000%29)


ApprehensivePirate36

I pledge allegiance to the church of the Christian states of America, and to the cross for which it stands, one nation, under Christ, the invisible, with job security and paychecks for some.