Author: Lee Ardis

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously strengthened religious liberty in the workplace Thursday, ruling in favor of a Christian postal worker who lost his job for refusing to work on Sundays.

The Court’s unanimous opinion in Groff v. DeJoy, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, overruled the decision of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that the United States Postal Service (USPS) did not violate the religious accommodation rights of postal worker Gerald Groff under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

“This decision will give those religious minorities a fair shot in court and, one would hope, encourage more employers to adopt more inclusive workplace policies so that religious employees won’t have to choose between their livelihood and their faith,” Joshua McDaniel, director of Harvard Law School’s Religious Liberty Clinic, said.

After clarifying Title VII’s requirements, the Court gave the case back to the Third Circuit to retry the case because of its factual complexity. This means that either Groff or the USPS could eventually prevail, but the USPS — and all employers — must meet a much higher standard to deny a religious accommodation.

Groff, an Evangelical Christian and longtime employee of the USPS, never worked Sundays in line with his religious beliefs and his initial job description. But when the USPS started to deliver packages on Sundays because of a deal with Amazon, the postal service would require him to work on his Sabbath. To avoid conflict, he transferred to a different location.

His new location started delivering on Sundays, and he claimed that USPS “progressive[ly] discipline[d]” him because he refused to work Sundays. He then resigned and sued the USPS for religious discrimination. The Third Circuit rejected his claim.

The controversy in this case surrounded a 50-year-old standard from Trans World Airlines v. Hardison. In that case, the Court held that an employer could deny an accommodation if it causes a “more than de minimis cost” — a legal term meaning that anything more than a “very small” cost would be enough for an employer to legally deny any religious accommodation.

The Court held that Title VII’s “undue hardship” language requires employers to show that the accommodation would impose a burden that “is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business.” Justice Alito stated that a business proving the accommodation would cause a small cost is not enough “to establish ‘undue hardship’ under Title VII.” This means that an employer now needs to show a substantial hardship would be caused by the religious accommodation in order to deny it.

His new location started delivering on Sundays, and he claimed that USPS “progressive[ly] discipline[d]” him because he refused to work Sundays. He then resigned and sued the USPS for religious discrimination. The Third Circuit rejected his claim.

The controversy in this case surrounded a 50-year-old standard from Trans World Airlines v. Hardison. In that case, the Court held that an employer could deny an accommodation if it causes a “more than de minimis cost” — a legal term meaning that anything more than a “very small” cost would be enough for an employer to legally deny any religious accommodation.

The Court held that Title VII’s “undue hardship” language requires employers to show that the accommodation would impose a burden that “is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business.” Justice Alito stated that a business proving the accommodation would cause a small cost is not enough “to establish ‘undue hardship’ under Title VII.” This means that an employer now needs to show a substantial hardship would be caused by the religious accommodation in order to deny it.

Read more at: www.dailywire.com

Earlier this year, the Grocery Gazette reported that the UK was set to be a world-leading developer of lab-grown meat. In the recent past, Guardian climate hysteric George Monbiot claimed lab-grown food “will soon destroy farming – and save the planet“. Alas, such boosterism is being challenged by hard facts. Lab-grown meat is up to 25 times worse for the environment since it needs ‘pharmaceutical-grade’ production to make it fit for human consumption. In particular, there is a need to remove endotoxin from the cultured mix, a substance that in concentrations as low as one billionth of a gram per millilitrie can reduce human IVF pregnancy success rate by up to four fold.

These are the startling conclusions of ground-breaking work recently published by a group of chemists and food scientists from the University of California. It turns out that ‘pharma to food’ production is a significant technological challenge. The major problem with lab meat is that it uses growth organisms that have to be highly purified to help animal cells multiply. Compared with environmental savings on land, water and greenhouses gases, the whole bio-process is noted to be “orders of magnitude” higher than rearing the actual animal.

“Our findings suggest that cultured meat is not inherently better for the environment than conventional beef. It’s not a panacea,” said co-author Edward Spang, an associate professor in the Department of Food Science and Technology. The study found that even across scenarios using lower pharma standards, efficient beef production outperforms cultured meat within a range from four to 25 times. This suggests that investment to advance more ‘climate-friendly’ beef production may yield greater reductions in emissions.

The route to New Zero is littered with improbable technologies that promise much – and give endless opportunities for virtue signalling – but deliver little. While many countries press ahead with plans to destroy conventional animal husbandry, the options for new ways of actually feeding populations look thin on the ground. To be fair to Monbiot, he has picked up on the problems of lab meat, noting in a recent blog post that “the more I’ve read about cultured meat and fish, and the more I’ve come to appreciate the phenomenal complexities involved… the more I doubt this vision will come to pass”. Always the worrier, Monbiot asks, “How can mass starvation best be averted”? Not removing the 337.18 million tonnes of global meat production in favour of flaky factory solutions might be a start.

The California study could throw a major stick into the spokes of the lab-grown meat bandwagon, which to date has had a largely uncritical mainstream media ride. Grocery Gazette’s cheer-leading report noted that the sector was predicted to “rapidly increase its market share within the food industry”. Research was quoted suggesting cell cultured meat was expected to make up almost quarter of global meat consumption by 2035.

The authors in California acknowledge that lab-grown meat ventures have attracted around $2 billion of investment to date. Early reports on feasibility were bullish with some predicting a 60-70% displacement of beef by 2030-2040. But of late, sentiment has waned with more conservative estimates noting a 0.5% share of meat products by 2030. As noted, the huge problem in producing lab meat is the presence of endotoxin which is said have a variety of side effects including harm to in vitro fertilisation. In pharmaceutical labs, animal cell culture is traditional done with endotoxin having been removed. There are many ways to remove the unwanted substance, but the use of these refinement methods “contributes significantly to the economic and environmental costs associated with pharmaceutical products since they are both energy and resource intensive”.

Read more at: www.sott.net

After facing removal, the Bible will remain in Utah’s Davis School District. Tuesday the district’s board of education unanimously voted to keep the Bible in school libraries. The Bible will not be taught in schools, but will still be available for students to read.

Local TV station KSL notes that the district reviewed the Bible and then voted earlier to remove it from elementary and junior high school students. The complaint that started the controversy was from a parent who was angered by a state law that made it easier to remove books that contained what many consider to be obscene material. This complainant pointed out that the Bible contains passages depicting violence and sexual themes, and should therefore be removed along with books that parents found objectionable. And the district concurred.

That sparked outrage among parents and state lawmakers alike. Fox 13 reported that, during a June hearing, State Senator Curt Bramble highlighted explicit content in a book that was approved to remain in the schools after the Bible had been banned. He commented, “Adults can tell the difference between a religious text from the Bible, the Torah, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, even though they depict historic or evidence of various acts, relative to pornography, that which is sexually explicit. I mean, come on, folks!”

Rep. Kera Birkeland queried, “How do we write and change this law to where books where a woman naked over a man with a gun to his head is allowed in the libraries of your junior high, and the Bible is not?”

Read more at: pjmedia.com