BREAKING: Solicitor General Asks Supreme Court to Hear Sabbath Accommodation Case

[Stan 1,950]

The Solicitor General of the United States, Noel Francisco, has recommended that the United States Supreme Court agree to consider a Sabbath accommodation case involving a Seventh-day Adventist. 

The post BREAKING: Solicitor General Asks Supreme Court to Hear Sabbath Accommodation Case appeared first on ReligiousLiberty.TV / Founders' First Freedom - Celebrating Liberty of Conscience.

View the full article

[Gregory Matthews 6,436]

As this is an important case, I provide below sources of additional information.  All are open to the public, without fee.  I han=ve not included sources that are typically used by  lawyers and payment of a fee.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca11/16-16923/16-16923-2018-03-09.html

https://wagenmakerlaw.com/blog/accommodating-religious-practices-work-patterson-v-walgreens

http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/files/201616923.pdf

https://certpool.com/dockets/18-349

https://www.law360.com/cases/5bbf74511da9fb3f0bc2e013

https://www.becketlaw.org/case/patterson-v-walgreens/

https://www.schaerr-jaffe.com/news-alert-us-supreme-court-asks-solicitor-general-to-weigh-in-on-patterson-vs-walgreens-co

https://www.law360.com/cases/549b060e3bcdbf05a4000001

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/patterson-v-walgreen-co/

https://www.mylife.com/site/ob/init/ps-bgc.pubview?obFirstName=darrell&obLastName=patterson&obAge=&obCity=&obState=&obZip&msclkid=65a74aa9ca63132bceea17466c0eceb5&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=2017-GR-Name%20Searches-9&utm_term=Darrell%20Patterson&utm_content=Darrell%20Patterson

[Gregory Matthews 6,436]

NOTE: If I remember the details of this case, I have some reservations as to whether it is beneficial to "Sabbath-keepers" to have the Supreme Court hear this case.

[Gregory Matthews 6,436]

Yes, I do have concerns about this case.  the following quote informs as to the basis for my concern:

I have Bolded and underlined the point of my concern.

 

Quote

This dispute centers around Walgreens’ need for emergency training that required Patterson to perform his duties as a Training Instructor on Saturday. Several other employees could have filled in for Patterson, but Patterson did not contact them. Instead, after contacting only one co-worker who was unable to swap shifts, Patterson simply chose not to report to work. At that point, Walgreens offered Patterson the opportunity of a transfer to a different position within the company with a larger pool of employees that would make it easier for him to swap shifts. Patterson categorically refused, insisting that the only accommodation he would accept would be maintaining his current position together with an ironclad guarantee that he never work on Saturday, regardless of whether an emergency arose.