Tolerance II

 

This Is Me

When the sharpest words wanna cut me down
I'm gonna send a flood, gonna drown 'em out
I am brave, I am bruised
I am who I'm meant to be, this is me
Look out 'cause here I come
And I'm marching on to the beat I drum
I'm not scared to be seen
I make no apologies, this is me

Tolerance works both ways.

Justices Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch are doing their best to prove Charles Dickens was right in Oliver Twist. They are casting doubt on the 1977 ruling of the Supreme Court that if an employer makes reasonable accommodations for religion, where reasonable accommodations are those that cause a minor, or "de minimis," cost, there is no religious discrimination. SCOTUS is hearing a case where an evangelical associate rural mail carrier, Gerald Groff, refused to work on Sunday. The employer, in this case the US Postal Service, did not fire the employee or force him to work on Sunday. Postal officials sought to accommodate Groff by attempting to facilitate Sunday shift swaps, but the effort was not always successful. As a result, his absences caused resentment among other carriers who had to cover his shifts and ultimately led one to leave the rural post office and another to quit the Postal Service altogether, according to court papers. Groff received several disciplinary letters for his attendance and resigned in 2019.  Groff seems to be arguing that any disciplinary letters at all were religious discrimination, and the fact that he resigned, and was not fired, was religious discrimination.

The case might be dismissed, by deciding that Groff does not have standing because he resigned. IMHO, that would be a mistake. The case is one of the rights of an individual vs. the rights of the group, which is precisely the kind of cases the Supreme Court should decide. Are the rights to practice religion absolute and the group must accept the decision of the individual, or can the group impose reasonable limits and say that while it tolerates the religious beliefs of an individual that does NOT mean that the religious beliefs of the individual are the beliefs of the group.

IMHO, this is no different than the 303 Creative case. Any beliefs of an individual, or a minority within in a group, should be tolerated, but that does not mean that the group accepts those beliefs. Tolerance, reasonable accommodations, is different from acceptance. The problem seems to be when an individual thinks his rights are correct and absolute and the group does not agree. That individual should also tolerate the group, as much as the group is expected to tolerate the individual. In the words of Eddie Murphy at the Golden Globes, “Pay your taxes. Mind your business…. And keep Will Smith's wife's name out your f---ing mouth!