Why we need conservative, pro-life Supreme Court Justices

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rau said:
Advising Hispanics they are not permitted in your shop does no harm?
Click to expand...
No it doesn’t. It’s my property. I also own a house and I decide who I let in. Am I harming those who I don’t let in?
 
RuthAnne said:
I said they should be allowed to. That doesn’t mean I agree with it. That doesn’t mean I think it’s right.
Click to expand...
And that’s a legitimate position, that has been expressed by others. Eliminate all nondiscrimination laws. Get the government completely out of the process and leave it to the free market.

For example, if that were the law, an employer could fire their best software developer just because they’re LGBT. In theory at least, they’d pay the price for that decision: they’d lose a great employee who was adding value; the employee might go down the street and work for a competitor; and the employer’s customers and vendors might refuse to do business with an employer that would do that.

Whether it would work in practice is another question.
Padres1969 said:
Why should they be allowed to when no other employer is allowed to? Just taking the Catholic view, these people aren’t ministers by any definition the RCC uses. But now the church when its convenient to discriminate against them can declare them so. Nevermind that it’s a system that will be rife with abuse by any religion.
Click to expand...
That’s why I’m a little concerned about this “religious freedom,” because it could be abused.

The opinion in full:

opinion

Quoting from the dissent, as quoted in an article:

article
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, warned that Wednesday’s decision may provide a “rubber stamp” for employment discrimination by religious institutions.

“Although today’s decision is limited to certain ‘teachers of religion,’ its reasoning risks rendering almost every Catholic parishioner and parent in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles a Catholic minister,” she wrote in her dissent, which Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joined. “That is, the Court’s apparent deference here threatens to make nearly anyone whom the schools might hire ‘ministers’ unprotected from discrimination in the hiring process. That cannot be right.”
Click to expand...
And, according to the dissent, the employees weren’t even required to be Catholic, and the employers didn’t assert that there was any religious reason for their firing (like in cases where employees get fired for being LGBT).

So this is what could happen:

A church school could assert that all of its food service employees are “ministers.” They could even say that feeding the students who go there is part of the school’s religious mission; therefore, the people involved in it have to be considered “ministers.”

Lucy the lunch lady turns 50.

The person in charge of the hiring and firing says to themself, “I’m an ‘ageist.’ I believe that people over 50 are bad employees because they’re starting to lose their mental capabilities.” So they fire Lucy, who’s a single mother with a family to support. And the organization doesn’t even have to give the real reason; they’d only have to say they have the “religious freedom” to choose their own ministers.
 
RuthAnne said:
If I own a business I should have the freedom to run it as I see best. I have the right to sell and I have the right to fail. It’s not that complicated.
Click to expand...
You can fire or discipline any employee at will; an employer is just not allowed to do those things based on illegally discriminatory reasons.
 
RuthAnne said:
No it doesn’t. It’s my property. I also own a house and I decide who I let in. Am I harming those who I don’t let in?
Click to expand...
You’ve never been tired and looking for a motel far away from home on a dark night?

If there is any value in what you sell you are certainly harming people by preventing them access to it.
 
Last edited:
Nepperhan said:
You can fire or discipline any employee at will; an employer is just not allowed to do those things based on illegally discriminatory reasons.
Click to expand...
Yep. And I TOTALLY disagree with that. Discrimination should not be illegal.
 
Nepperhan said:
If there is any value in what you sell you are certainly harming people by preventing them access to it.
Click to expand...
So am I obligated to stay open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, so as to not prevent anyone from being able to access my store?
 
I understand that freedom is a frightening thing to people who have lived under socialism all their lives, like we have done under the Democrats and Republicans. It’s either Mommy Government (Democrats) or Daddy Government (Republicans). We have to go running to either mommy or daddy every time we disagree with something that someone else does.
 
I completely agree. I think as prolife people if we are going to overturn roe v wade we also have to make sure there is charities, foundations,etc that are going to help these unexpected mothers. (I am prolife btw)
 
RuthAnne said:
So am I obligated to stay open 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, so as to not prevent anyone from being able to access my store?
Click to expand...
No. But wouldn’t it be good if justice played a part in our decisions? Is it just to deny an Hispanic a room in your hotel while welcoming a European, for no other reason than their differing heritage? Would it be bad if the law took exception to unjust and harmful actions such as this?
 
I mean if that’s your POV there’s really not much more to discuss. You seem to have this unrealistic view that given the chance to operate completely freely, absent discrimination protections, that society will largely lean toward not allowing it to happen. All I can say is, you should look at the history of this country more, and that you’re speaking from a position of extreme privilege.
 
signit said:
So this is what could happen:

A church school could assert that all of its food service employees are “ministers.” They could even say that feeding the students who go there is part of the school’s religious mission; therefore, the people involved in it have to be considered “ministers.”

Lucy the lunch lady turns 50.

The person in charge of the hiring and firing says to themself, “I’m an ‘ageist.’ I believe that people over 50 are bad employees because they’re starting to lose their mental capabilities.” So they fire Lucy, who’s a single mother with a family to support. And the organization doesn’t even have to give the real reason; they’d only have to say they have the “religious freedom” to choose their own ministers.
Click to expand...
Yep. The price of freedom sometimes sucks. Would you rather have security or freedom? Some people are willing to sell their freedoms for security. I am not one of those kinds of people.
 
I’d argue being able to be safe in your job free from unreasonable, and immoral, discrimination based on the whims of people in power IS freedom.
 
No it’s your financial freedom vs the employers freedom to discriminate. Don’t know about you but I consider the former more important than the latter.
 
RuthAnne said:
It’s your security at the cost of your employer’s freedom.
Click to expand...
Because the shoe can readily be on the other foot, sensible people readily see the wisdom in giving up freedoms without merit for the sake of another’s security. It tends to go hand in hand with living harmoniously in community.
 
Rau said:
sensible people readily see the wisdom in giving up freedoms without merit for the sake of another’s security.
Click to expand...
If that’s your idea of sensible then that’s the last thing I want to be.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top