NEW: Supreme Court Hands Down Another HISTORIC Ruling On Religious Liberty

Today, the Supreme Court decided on a major religious liberty case involving a mail carrier who refused to work on Sundays. He is a devout Christian. The case is about Groff v. DeJoy, the Postmaster General.

According to Mr. Groff, his religious beliefs don't allow him to work on Shabbat, which is a Sunday. He claims that doing so goes against what the Bible says about the seventh day of the week. The 10 Commandments state that rest should not involve work.

In April, Groff's lawyer asked the Supreme Court to revisit a ruling made over 50 years ago regarding how companies should accommodate their employees' religious practices. He argued that the 1964 Civil Rights Act's requirement for businesses to accommodate employees' beliefs should be interpreted in a way that doesn't create undue hardship.

In support of his argument, Groff's lawyer asked the court to throw out a standard that was established in 1977 in a case involving religious accommodations. This allowed businesses to deny him accommodations if they believed that they would cost more than a minimal amount.

After agreeing with Groff's lawyer's arguments, the court ruled that the standard for accommodating religious accommodations didn't hold up. Justice Sotomayor and Justice Jackson agreed with the court's decision. They noted that the phrase "more than a de minimis cost" was merely loose language.

In his opinion, Justice Alito stated that merely showing that a company would have to spend a lot of money to accommodate a religious accommodation is not enough to show that the accommodation would have an undue effect on the employee's religious beliefs. He suggested that the court should rely on Title VII's text to determine what the employer must prove in order to justify its decision not to accommodate a religious practice.

The decision has been hailed by the legal community as a significant victory for religious freedom. It could potentially affect other cases involving employers' refusal to accommodate employees' religious beliefs. Robert Barnes, a constitutional lawyer, noted that the ruling means that religious employees can no longer be discriminated against.

It is with a sense of pride that I see the Supreme Court once again standing up for religious liberty. I am glad to see them protect the rights of individuals like Groff, who have been discriminated against due to their religious beliefs.