"You may recall that during the last presidential election in the United States, candidates running under the banner of the Democrat party would routinely call their Republican opponents supporters of “Project 2025.”
This attack was handled in the same way as calling the opposition, “Nazis” or “Fascists.”
There was never any attempt to explain what was wrong with Project 2025; everyone should intuitively know what was rotten with that Project.
Using Project 2025 as an insidious slur was necessary because it is 920 pages long, and no candidate for public office was so resolutely literate as to read anything that long.
Those who took the time to read the relevant section of Project 2025 (titled, “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise,” produced by the Heritage Foundation) would find that it proposed requiring employers to pay overtime to employees who were asked to work on Sunday or Saturday, the protected day depending on the religious belief of the employer. The idea was to discourage employers from requiring weekend work so that employees would have the opportunity to attend religious services on the weekend. Or maybe attend football games.
Reinforcing the suggestion that huge flabby brains are not consistent or logical brains, those shouting that Project 2025 was practically a Sunday law
Using Project 2025 as an insidious slur was necessary because it is 920 pages long, and no candidate for public office was so resolutely literate as to read anything that long.
Those who took the time to read the relevant section of Project 2025 (titled, “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise,” produced by the Heritage Foundation) would find that it proposed requiring employers to pay overtime to employees who were asked to work on Sunday or Saturday, the protected day depending on the religious belief of the employer. The idea was to discourage employers from requiring weekend work so that employees would have the opportunity to attend religious services on the weekend. Or maybe attend football games.
Reinforcing the suggestion that huge flabby brains are not consistent or logical brains, those shouting that Project 2025 was practically a Sunday law
--somehow forgot that the Adventist Church has long supported the religious accommodation provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
That statute, used in countless cases to argue for the Sabbath-keeping needs of Adventists, poses more absolute restraints on employers. It requires employers to reasonably accommodate the religious worship needs of employees on pain of paying not simply overtime, but attorneys’ fees and, in extreme cases, punitive damages.
Project 2025 proposed nothing about paying attorneys’ fees and punitive damages. Employers could continue to have their employees work on the weekend. Title VII provides for court orders barring employers from requiring weekend work."
Bruce N. Cameron is the Reed Larson Professor of Labor Law at Regent University School of Law
Bruce N. Cameron is the Reed Larson Professor of Labor Law at Regent University School of Law
