Postal Service Denies Religious Accommodation

It is unlawful for employers to discriminate against employees on the basis of religion

I wonder if it had been a Muslim asking for a day off for religious observance of any of their holy days if the USPS would have had the same attitude? Represented by First Liberty, Church State Council and the Independence Law Center, after the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the USPS's anti-faith position, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case. Evidence of Gerald's faith and the importance of observing Sunday as the day of the week for worship and rest includes years of serving in foreign mission fields. According to First Liberty’s President, CEO and Chief Counsel Kelly Shackelford:

“It is unlawful for employers to discriminate against employees on the basis of religion. It’s time for the Supreme Court to reexamine a decades-old case that favors corporations and the government over the religious rights of employees.”

Federal Civil Rights laws clearly disallow any violation of religious freedoms in this manner. Even more important, the United States Postal Service, according to the U.S. Constitution, receives its rules and regulations from Congress. However, the First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]." Whether or not the U.S. Postal Service claims they are not violating the law is not the point as much as the fact that the USPS, and Congress, is violating the law of the land, the Constitution, by prohibiting Mr. Groff from observing the Sunday Sabbath with a work requirement that day when accommodations are available, and have even been suggested by the plaintiff.

Current "woke" world of intolerance against any views, beliefs contrary to a rising collectivistic anti-faith narrative, a growing intolerance and hostility toward religion, especially Christianity

This case could serve as a new precedent to stop employers, government and non-government, from discriminating against workers' religious faith. Liberty First explains,

"The 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination against employees on the basis of religion. The law doesn’t just protect against harassment and discrimination, it also requires reasonable religious accommodations, if they can be granted without causing undue hardship on the employer, such as simply rearranging a schedule."

The case in question that has been giving employers, corporations, and government entities an upper hand when it comes to discriminating against religious employees comes from the 1970s (TWA v. Hardison). The ruling of that case, according to First Liberty, "tips the balance in favor of corporations and the government over the religious rights of employees." In Gamble v. United States (2019) Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, in his opinion of the case, clearly states that overturning bad precedent is an important duty of the courts. “In my view,” Thomas declared in his judicial opinion of Gamble, “if the Court encounters a decision that is demonstrably erroneous—i.e., one that is not a permissible interpretation of the text—the Court should correct the error. . . . When faced with a demonstrably erroneous precedent, my rule is simple: We should not follow it.” -- Jun 19, 2019 In our current "woke" world of intolerance against any views or beliefs contrary to a rising collectivistic anti-faith narrative, we are seeing in the boardrooms of corporate America and many government agencies a growing intolerance and hostility toward religion, especially Christianity. People of faith, who in the case of Christianity follow the religious beliefs of the founding generation of this country, are being put into an illogical position of having to make a choice between their work schedule or work environment and their beliefs. Such discrimination against religious belief is illegal, and when it is the federal government doing it, as we see in this case, unconstitutional.

The very idea of anyone, much less an employer or governmental agency, forcing Americans to choose between their faith and their livelihood must not be legally or culturally acceptable

Wrong and right seem to be interchangeable in today's society. Scripture warns against such moral depravity.

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! ~ Isaiah 5:20 ESV

For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own ~ 2 Timothy 4:3 ESV

In short, no matter how you slice it, what happened to Gerald Groff was wrong, and should be viewed as outrageous to any American. The very idea of anyone, much less an employer or governmental agency, forcing Americans to choose between their faith and their livelihood must not be legally or culturally acceptable. Nobody should be put into a position by employers or government to face a difficult choice between their livelihood and their faith, especially when their beliefs can easily be accommodated.