Here ya go Michael: *The Congress shall have the power:*
*To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.* *https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section1 <https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section1>* On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 11:20 AM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > Opinion? Really? > > Here is the Constitution: > http://www.constitution.org/cons/constitu.txt > > Can you locate the BASIS for this legislation? > [*Hint: it simply is NOT there*] > > Are you content with worshipping *whatever* an ever-changing majority of > Justices decree? > > If one actually READS the Constitution, one discovers that it is > GOVERNMENT that is prohibited from "discrimination". > > Additionally, Amendment XIII SPECIFICALLY prohibits "involuntary > servitude". > > Regard$, > --MJ > > "Has anyone noticed that Gruber's approach to selling Obamacare has been > liberals' approach to the Constitution since the Revolution of 1937? "We'll > just say that it means what we want it to mean, whatever the issue and > despite over 100 years of its meaning the opposite, every single time, > because average Americans are too dumb to know we're lying." The only thing > unusual about Gruber is that he was perfectly candid about having lied; in > law schools, this is called "constitutional theory." > "This reminds me of one of my mentors at UVA, the leading historian of > 19th-century American politics (now retired). "Kevin," he once said to me, > "there's one theme that runs through American political history: although I > don't always think much of their opponents, I hate the Democrats."" -- > Kevin Gutzman > > > > > At 10:35 AM 3/1/2015, you wrote: > > Title VII is unconstitutional, "In Your Opinion"......Obviously the > Supremes and the Twelve Circuit Courts around the United States don't feel > that way. > > On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 2:45 PM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > > The entire thing is nonsense. > Title VII is unconstitutional. > The CRA of 64 is unconstitutional. > > Regard$, > --MJ > > "The bottom line is that the true test of one's commitment to freedom of > association doesn't come when he allows people to associate in ways he > approves. The true test of that commitment comes when he allows people to > be free to voluntarily associate in ways he deems despicable. Forced > association is not freedom of association." -- Walter Williams > > > > At 11:02 AM 2/28/2015, you wrote: > > According to the 10th Circuit, (as Travis's article points out)  > > "Title VII requires that employers have explicit, verbal notice of a job > applicant’s religious needs that may conflict with company policy. > Such direct notice is required, the appeals court decided, so that the > employer has “particularized, actual knowledge†that hat the applicant > follows a specific faith practice and will need an accommodation for > it. Because Elauf did not provide that in her crucial job interview, > the appeals court ruled, there was no Title VII violation in the refusal to > hire her." > > In other words, if XYZ Temps knew that John's religious convictions would > be in conflict with its workplace dress code, then then XYZ Temps had no > obligation to hire John.  > > > > http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/02/argument-preview-faith-and-a-workplace-dress-code/ > > On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 8:28 AM, plainolamerican < > [email protected]> wrote: Jon, a clerical worker who is an > observant Jew, wears tzitzit (ritual knotted garment fringes at the four > corners of his shirt) and a yarmulke (or skull cap) in conformance with his > Jewish beliefs. XYZ Temps places Jon in a long-term assignment with one of > its client companies. The client asks XYZ to notify Jon that he must remove > his yarmulke and his tzitzit while working at the front desk, or assign > another person to Jon's position. According to the client, Jon's religious > attire presents the "wrong image" and also violates its dress code > prohibiting any headgear and requiring "appropriate business attire." XYZ > Temps may not comply with this client request without violating Title VII. > > The client also would violate Title VII if it changed Jon's duties to keep > him out of public view, or if it required him not to wear his yarmulke or > his tzitzit when interacting with customers. Assigning Jon to a position > out of public view is segregation in violation of Title VII. Moreover, > because notions about customer preference (real or perceived) do not > establish undue hardship, the client must make an exception to its dress > code to let Jon wear his religious garb during front desk duty as a > religious accommodation. XYZ should strongly advise its client that the EEO > laws require allowing Jon to wear this religious garb at work and that, if > the client does not withdraw its request, XYZ will place Jon in another > assignment at the same rate of pay and decline to assign another worker to > the client.[9] > 1. What is the federal law relating to religious dress and grooming in the > workplace? > Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., > as amended ("Title VII"),prohibits employers with at least 15 employees > (including private sector, state, and local government employers), as well > as employment agencies, unions, and federal government agencies, from > discriminating in employment based on race, color, religion, sex, or > national origin. It also prohibits retaliation against persons who complain > of discrimination or participate in an EEO investigation. With respect to > religion, Title VII prohibits among other things: disparate treatment > based on religion in recruitment, hiring, promotion, benefits, training, > job duties, termination, or any other aspect of employment (except that > "religious organizations" as defined under Title VII are permitted to > prefer members of their own religion in deciding whom to employ); denial > of reasonable accommodation for sincerely held religious practices, unless > the accommodation would cause an undue hardship for the employer; workplace > or job segregation based on religion; workplace harassment based on > religion; retaliation for requesting an accommodation (whether or not > granted), for filing a discrimination charge with the EEOC, for testifying, > assisting, or participating in any manner in an EEOC investigation or EEO > proceeding, or for opposing discrimination. There may be state or local > laws in your jurisdiction that have protections that are parallel to or > broader than those in Title VII. > 2. Does Title VII apply to all aspects of religious practice or belief? > Yes. Title VII protects all aspects of religious observance, practice, and > belief, and defines religion very broadly to include not only traditional, > organized religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, > Buddhism, and Sikhism, but also religious beliefs that are new, uncommon, > not part of a formal church or sect, only subscribed to by a small number > of people, or may seem illogical or unreasonable to others. > > Religious practices may be based on theistic beliefs or non-theistic moral > or ethical beliefs as to what is right or wrong that are sincerely held > with the strength of traditional religious views. Religious observances or > practices include, for example, attending worship services, praying, > wearing religious garb or symbols, displaying religious objects, adhering > to certain dietary rules, proselytizing or other forms of religious > expression, or refraining from certain activities. Moreover, an employee's > belief or practice can be "religious" under Title VII even if it is not > followed by others in the same religious sect, denomination, or > congregation, or even if the employee is unaffiliated with a formal > religious organization.[1] > The law's protections also extend to those who are discriminated against > or need accommodation because they profess no religious beliefs. For > example, an employer that is not a religious organization (as legally > defined under Title VII) cannot make employees wear religious garb or > articles (such as a cross) if they object on grounds of non-belief. > > Because this definition is so broad, whether or not a practice or belief > is religious typically is not disputed in Title VII religious > discrimination cases. > 3. Does the law apply to dress or grooming practices that are religious > for an applicant or employee, even if other people engage in the same > practice for non-religious reasons? > > Yes. Title VII applies to any practice that is motivated by a religious > belief, even if other people may engage in the same practice for secular > reasons.[2] However, if a dress or grooming practice is a personal > preference, for example, where it is worn for fashion rather than for > religious reasons, it does not come under Title VII's religion protections. > 4. What if an employer questions whether the applicant's or employee's > asserted religious practice is sincerely held? > Title VII's accommodation requirement only applies to religious beliefs > that are "sincerely held." However, just because an individual's religious > practices may deviate from commonly-followed tenets of the religion, the > employer should not automatically assume that his or her religious > observance is not sincere. Moreover, an individual's religious beliefs - or > degree of adherence - may change over time, yet may nevertheless be > sincerely held. Therefore, like the "religious" nature of a belief or > practice, the "sincerity" of an employee's stated religious belief is > usually not in dispute in religious discrimination cases. However, if an > employer has a legitimate reason for questioning the sincerity or even the > religious nature of a particular belief or practice for which accommodation > has been requested, it may ask an applicant or employee for information > reasonably needed to evaluate the request. > > On Thursday, February 26, 2015 at 8:02:09 PM UTC-6, Bill wrote: While > they are at it, I hope the Supreme Court will make decisions regarding > dress codes for work, school and home......after all they don't have > important issues to deal with!  In a message dated 2/26/2015 5:36:56 > A.M. Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] <http://??> writes: > > > > BareNakedIslam posted: "Supremacist Muslim women, encouraged by > designated terrorist group CAIR, have been engaging in a sneaky scheme to > go on job interviews without wearing a bag on their head, only to start > wearing it at work AFTER they have been hired. If the company fires t" > > > *New post on BARE NAKED ISLAM* > > > > * Can you believe the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether employers > have the right to fire Muslim women who decide to defy the company’s > dress code after being hired? > <http://www.barenakedislam.com/2015/02/25/can-you-believe-the-u-s-supreme-court-will-consider-whether-employers-have-the-right-to-fire-muslim-women-who-decide-to-defy-the-companys-dress-code-after-being-hired/>* > > > > by BareNakedIslam <http://www.barenakedislam.com/?author=1> > Supremacist Muslim women, encouraged by designated terrorist group CAIR, > have been engaging in a sneaky scheme to go on job interviews without > wearing a bag on their head, only to start wearing it at work AFTER they > have been hired. If the company fires them, they take the company to court. > A business has the […] > > Read more of this post > <http://www.barenakedislam.com/2015/02/25/can-you-believe-the-u-s-supreme-court-will-consider-whether-employers-have-the-right-to-fire-muslim-women-who-decide-to-defy-the-companys-dress-code-after-being-hired/> > BareNakedIslam <http://www.barenakedislam.com/?author=1> | February 25, > 2015 at 4:38 pm | Categories: EnemyWithin-America > <http://www.barenakedislam.com/?taxonomy=category&term=enemywithin-america> > | URL: http://wp.me/p276zM-1cf4 > > Comment > <http://www.barenakedislam.com/2015/02/25/can-you-believe-the-u-s-supreme-court-will-consider-whether-employers-have-the-right-to-fire-muslim-women-who-decide-to-defy-the-companys-dress-code-after-being-hired/#respond> >    See all comments > <http://www.barenakedislam.com/2015/02/25/can-you-believe-the-u-s-supreme-court-will-consider-whether-employers-have-the-right-to-fire-muslim-women-who-decide-to-defy-the-companys-dress-code-after-being-hired/#comments> > Unsubscribe > <https://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=eaced905935c28c895fe4e47a2730614&email=bovinescatologists%40gmail.com&b=LLV%26%5Bh1%263RKK8ZmsWEM%25L%26i.nOxKfqimvY%5DVB%2BceJCVX42TPCkU> > to no longer receive posts from BARE NAKED ISLAM. Change your email > settings at Manage Subscriptions > <https://subscribe.wordpress.com/?key=eaced905935c28c895fe4e47a2730614&email=bovinescatologists%40gmail.com>. > > Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: > http://www.barenakedislam.com/2015/02/25/can-you-believe-the-u-s-supreme-court-will-consider-whether-employers-have-the-right-to-fire-muslim-women-who-decide-to-defy-the-companys-dress-code-after-being-hired/ > > > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For > options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum  * > Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > <http://www.politicalforum.com/> * It's active and moderated. Register > and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop > receiving emails from it, send an email to > [email protected] <http://??>. For more options, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >  > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >  > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >  > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
