Seventh-day Adventist Fucktards

I nice thing about being a normal person (aka atheist) is there are no rules. Normal people can do what they want any time they want.

One of the numerous fucktard branches of Christianity is the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Like every other moronic cult ever invented, the Seventh-day Adventists have rules. This rule is about Saturday. If they have a job they are required to never work on a Saturday. The employer either accommodates the moron or the moron gets fired.

Why do these cults have bullshit rules? It's to show respect for the Magic Man.

Some stuff from Google:

"The Seventh-day Adventist Church keeps the Sabbath from sundown on Friday to sundown on Saturday, because God set apart the seventh day of creation week to be a day of rest and a memorial of creation."

"Seventh-Day Adventists observe the Sabbath from sundown Friday to sundown Saturday and can't work on the Sabbath."

As if a magical master of the entire fucking universe cares what days the human apes on this insignificant planet don't work.

These fucktards think their Magic Man magically created this planet and the human apes who live here. Who needs science in a universe where everything we see was magically created in 6 days?

The rest of the post is a cut & paste job from the god-soaked Wall Street Journal. The WSJ has a god bullshit article every week. They call it the "Houses of Worship". I call it the "Houses of Extreme Stupidity". This is from one month ago.

This bullshit is disgusting:

"But true pluralism—across all faiths and identities—requires collective sacrifice, even for the sake of some of the smallest minorities. That in turn requires meaningful accommodations for religious practice. Americans shouldn’t have to give up their faith to make a living."

There's that word "faith" again. Faith is an excuse to not think. Faith is an excuse to believe in ridiculous bullshit. Here in Idiot America our fucktards think faith is a virtue.

OPINION
COMMENTARY
HOUSES OF WORSHIP

A Day of Rest May Get a Day in Court

The justices could undo a 1977 decision that gutted workers’ religious protections.

By Michael A. Helfand
March 21, 2019

The Supreme Court inched closer this week to undoing a decades-old mistake that has denied meaningful workplace protections for religious employees. On Monday the high court asked the solicitor general to outline the government’s view in Patterson v. Walgreen, a case under consideration for a full hearing.

Darrell Patterson, a Seventh-day Adventist, alleges that his employer, the Walgreens drugstore chain, failed to accommodate his Sabbath observance. According to Mr. Patterson, the company said he faced demotion or termination after he refused to conduct training on a Saturday. Walgreens asserts that Mr. Patterson rejected reasonable alternatives, and the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the company’s favor in March 2018. The case raises a fundamental legal question: What exactly constitutes a reasonable accommodation for an employee’s religious practices?

In 1972 Congress amended Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to require that employers “reasonably accommodate” employees’ religious practices, unless doing so would create an “undue hardship.” Absent real financial consequences, the law expects employers to let people of faith make a living without giving up their religious commitments. Federal law simply calibrated the interests of employers and employees, which often requires difficult compromises.

But in 1977 the Supreme Court upset this delicate balance. In Trans World Airlines v. Hardison—another case about an employee’s sabbath observance—the court defanged the religious-accommodation requirement. In translating “undue hardship” to the far more indulgent “de minimis” standard, the court effectively told employers that they need to expend only trivial resources on religious accommodation.

This bizarre interpretation was motivated by an outdated concern about separation of church and state. On this theory, it would be unconstitutional to require an employer to take anything more than minimal costs to accommodate someone else’s religion. This stingy view of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, however, has largely been repudiated by the Supreme Court in recent years. Over several cases, the justices have held that legislation to accommodate religion is not an endorsement of religion but only part of a collective commitment to protect religious practice.

When Congress amended Title VII, it explicitly meant to protect employees of minority faiths. Sen. Jennings Randolph of West Virginia explained that his goal was to protect all sabbath observances, “whether the day would fall on Friday, Saturday or Sunday.” Randolph—himself a Seventh Day Baptist—hoped the law would ensure the “opportunity to earn a livelihood within the American system, which has become more pluralistic and more industrialized through the years.”

But the Supreme Court’s adoption of the de minimis standard undermined the law’s defense of religious minorities. Having to let workers swap shifts and share responsibilities undoubtedly puts pressure on employers. Yet defining these accommodations as posing undue hardship has all but eliminated employers’ obligation to their employees’ religious practice. This is why federal courts have been siding with employers in the overwhelming majority of “undue hardship” cases even before the claims make it to trial.

By asking the solicitor general for input, the Supreme Court has signaled its willingness to hear Patterson v. Walgreen. A subsequent ruling in Mr. Patterson’s favor could prevent past precedent from doing further damage to those seeking religious accommodations in the workplace. It’s especially encouraging because Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh recently suggested they were searching for a case that would allow the court to reconsider Hardison. The solicitor general should seize this opportunity and outline for the high court why the law, as written, requires employers to provide substantive religious-accommodation protections in the workplace.

No doubt protecting religious pluralism is hard. It would be easier to capitulate to a cultural inertia, where life remains oriented around the traditional practices of the majority. And for employers whose sole focus is conquering the competitive marketplace, expending effort and resources on religious accommodations might be seen as a distraction. But true pluralism—across all faiths and identities—requires collective sacrifice, even for the sake of some of the smallest minorities. That in turn requires meaningful accommodations for religious practice. Americans shouldn’t have to give up their faith to make a living.

Mr. Helfand is a professor at the Pepperdine University School of Law.