alaska1415

alaska1415 t1_ja0f6br wrote

You literally did. Now that that’s settled.

It’s also not since:

  1. The action is not coercive.

  2. No one could reasonably see a day off as proselytizing or endorsement.

  3. Christmas (for example) is a holiday, yes, but there are numerous secular holidays as well meaning the government isn’t promoting that they only recognize Christian things, as an example. Saying that giving the day off is a violation would also call into question things like Black History Month as a violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments which ban government preference based on ethnicity or race.

  4. Granting days off that hold societal significance is itself a reasonable enough secular purpose.

From Ganlun v. United States:

Instead, the government’s accommodation simply acknowledges the existence of this religious exercise and avoids stifling it. Zorach, 343 U.S. at 314 (“When the state . . . cooperates with religious authorities by adjusting the schedule of public events to sectarian needs, it follows the best of our traditions. For it then respects the religious nature of our people and accommodates the public service to their spiritual needs.”)

I hope you’re done playing dumb and actually learn something.

1