Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/06 18:33:26
Subject: Woman files lawsuit against Jetblue for Discrimination
|
 |
[DCM]
The Main Man
|
Ghazkuul wrote:on a related note how do you all feel about the army trying to accommodate muslims/sihks by letting them wear religious headgear while in uniform. similar to the current topic but in this case i thin it has a bit more importance then not getting your whiskey rye on an airplane 
I don't have a problem with it at all. Sikhs have worn turbans in combat for centuries, including in both the US, British, and Indian armies. They were allowed to wear turbans and beards in the US army in the past for many years, from WWI on. Sometime in the 80s it was disallowed, so allowing them to wear turbans and beards again isn't treating them like special snowflakes, it's just going back to the way things always were (and should have remained). Sikhs have served honorably in the US military for decades, and disallowing beards and turbans has made it so Sikhs who would have otherwise served have effectively been barred from service. It's pretty petty to not allow them to wear a turban and beard for their sincerely held religious beliefs, especially considering that it had previously been allowed for decades, many Sikhs bring something valuable to the fight, including medical, dental, and linguistic skills, and wearing a turban and beard has no effect on combat capability (you can easily wear a kevlar helmet over top of a turban, and you can get a good seal on a gas mask even with a beard). "No shave" chits are already a thing, so it would not be difficult to grant Sikhs one (as has already been done in several cases).
Anyone who thinks Sikhs shouldn't have the right to serve in the US military and keep their beard and turban ought to do a little reading on the history of Sikhs in the US military. There is already precedent that they have been allowed to wear religious clothing in the past while serving, and many of them have served with distinction. If you (the general you, not you specifically Ghazkuul) think that Sikh's wearing beards and turbans in the military is some form of new PC nonsense, you seriously need to check yourself and do some homework on the subject. As far as I'm concerned, they've earned their right to serve, and keep their beards and turbans.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/06 19:31:39
Subject: Re:Woman files lawsuit against Jetblue for Discrimination
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Today's US Military is SAFETY first before whatever.
Go to the range wear ACH
Riding in a tactical vehicle wear ACH
Airborne OPS wear ACH
On flight line no headgear allowed...also a No Salute Area
In a high risk lead catching area wear ACH......body armor to
In Garrison wear the appropriate head gear that falls under current AR 670-1 (with updates/memorandum)
Edit
Stanley, 40, started working for ExpressJet nearly three years ago. About two years ago she converted to Islam. This year she learned her faith prohibits her from not only consuming alcohol but serving it, too, Masri said.
Something not right here..............
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/06 19:34:24
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog
Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/06 19:47:43
Subject: Re:Woman files lawsuit against Jetblue for Discrimination
|
 |
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine
|
If your religion forbids you from serving alcohol, don't take a position where you are required to serve alcohol.
As for the idea that muslims can't sell booze, well ummm.... I know a lot of small businesses owned and operated by muslim families who make most of their money selling alcohol and tobacco products. It was certainly a common thing in the Bay Area.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/06 19:49:52
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/06 20:12:29
Subject: Woman files lawsuit against Jetblue for Discrimination
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Strict muslims consider selling alcohol, or any intoxicant for that matter, haramm, i.e. forbidden. The question is how close you stick to that, same as with every Christian who does not follow anything the bible says either.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/06 20:36:27
Subject: Woman files lawsuit against Jetblue for Discrimination
|
 |
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine
|
|
Help me, Rhonda. HA! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/06 21:00:33
Subject: Re:Woman files lawsuit against Jetblue for Discrimination
|
 |
Did Fulgrim Just Behead Ferrus?
|
Peter Wiggin wrote:If your religion forbids you from serving alcohol, don't take a position where you are required to serve alcohol.
Except it's actually the other way around in this story. She already had the job, and then took a religion that forbids her from doing part of the job.
|
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/06 21:40:48
Subject: Re:Woman files lawsuit against Jetblue for Discrimination
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Tannhauser42 wrote: Peter Wiggin wrote:If your religion forbids you from serving alcohol, don't take a position where you are required to serve alcohol.
Except it's actually the other way around in this story. She already had the job, and then took a religion that forbids her from doing part of the job.
It's not the other way around. If you make any choice out of free will, you have to live with all the consequences. If you willingly put yourself in a position where you cannot do your job anymore, then you no longer belong in that position.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/06 22:45:40
Subject: Re:Woman files lawsuit against Jetblue for Discrimination
|
 |
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan
|
Sigvatr wrote:If you willingly put yourself in a position where you cannot do your job anymore, then you no longer belong in that position.
I'd agree with that, but it depends on how easily the beliefs are to accomodate.
If you have 10 stewardesses on a flight, and the other 9 are OK with serving alcohol, then that's a reasonable accommodation. Yes, it does create a bit more work for the other people but... that's how employment functions. A guy in a wheelchair might be doing less of one specific thing than someone who is not.
If you're the only stewardess on a puddle jumper and your refusal to serve alcohol means that none of the passengers can have drinks, then you have functionally resigned your job. That cannot be accommodated.
To go a step further, I know there have been cases where a Somali woman (I believe) working at a grocery store refused to ring up anyone buying alcohol. At that point, the belief cannot reasonably be accommodated anymore, since ringing up people is essentially the entirety of the job function of a cashier, where distributing drinks is only a tiny portion of a stewardesses. So, it's not ANY accommodation, but when it's reasonable, it should happen.
Also, point of fact, the airline in question is Expressjet, not Jetblue.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/06 22:46:54
lord_blackfang wrote:Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.
Flinty wrote:The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/06 23:07:45
Subject: Woman files lawsuit against Jetblue for Discrimination
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
I wholeheartedly agree - see my second-last post Religious freedom is a basic freedom in all modern states and it is a worthy one to protect. On the other hand, as stated, freedom of choice means freedom of consequences as well. As an employer, you should offer a solution, such as the one I mentioned above. If that's not possible for everyone involved, then the most basic work law applies: no qualification, no job. Try to find another job in the same company or write a nice resumee at the end. After all, she must have done a good job so far.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/09/06 23:08:45
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/06 23:12:01
Subject: Woman files lawsuit against Jetblue for Discrimination
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
It seems like the airline screwed the pooch from the beginning by punting the reasonable accommodation back to the employees instead of actually providing the accommodation themselves. Telling the employees "work it out amongst yourself" is different than "this is now the policy and this is how you will work it out".
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/06 23:29:41
Subject: Re:Woman files lawsuit against Jetblue for Discrimination
|
 |
[DCM]
The Main Man
|
Jihadin wrote:Today's US Military is SAFETY first before whatever.
Go to the range wear ACH
Riding in a tactical vehicle wear ACH
Airborne OPS wear ACH
On flight line no headgear allowed...also a No Salute Area
In a high risk lead catching area wear ACH......body armor to
In Garrison wear the appropriate head gear that falls under current AR 670-1 (with updates/memorandum)
With the exception of being on a flight line, none of that is prevented by wearing a turban and beard.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/06 23:39:48
Subject: Woman files lawsuit against Jetblue for Discrimination
|
 |
[MOD]
Not as Good as a Minion
|
"FTFY lulz" isn't what we do here, there have been at least 2 warnings in recent OT threads about that. Don't do it
|
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own... |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/06 23:58:59
Subject: Re:Woman files lawsuit against Jetblue for Discrimination
|
 |
Did Fulgrim Just Behead Ferrus?
|
Sigvatr wrote: Tannhauser42 wrote: Peter Wiggin wrote:If your religion forbids you from serving alcohol, don't take a position where you are required to serve alcohol.
Except it's actually the other way around in this story. She already had the job, and then took a religion that forbids her from doing part of the job.
It's not the other way around. If you make any choice out of free will, you have to live with all the consequences. If you willingly put yourself in a position where you cannot do your job anymore, then you no longer belong in that position.
No, it literally is the other way around, exactly like I said. Peter Wiggin said don't take a job your religion prevents you from doing, when in this instance she already had the job before converting to a new religion. This is purely a matter of semantics and the specific facts regarding the order of events in this case, so I don't see what it is you are trying to argue/disagree with in my post, as what I said is factually true.
Note: I am not disagreeing with your other statements, solely the underlined portion above.
|
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/07 01:27:38
Subject: Re:Woman files lawsuit against Jetblue for Discrimination
|
 |
Krazed Killa Kan
Homestead, FL
|
Hordini wrote: Jihadin wrote:Today's US Military is SAFETY first before whatever.
Go to the range wear ACH
Riding in a tactical vehicle wear ACH
Airborne OPS wear ACH
On flight line no headgear allowed...also a No Salute Area
In a high risk lead catching area wear ACH......body armor to
In Garrison wear the appropriate head gear that falls under current AR 670-1 (with updates/memorandum)
With the exception of being on a flight line, none of that is prevented by wearing a turban and beard.
I actually have to disagree with you on that one. When you get in country you start looking for things out of place, its one of the things that helps you stay alive. Team that up with the stress and confusion that happens during a fire fight, the chances of a Sikh or Muslim in the US Military being killed by friendly fire is almost unacceptable. You never EVER want to see Blue on Blue and this could ruin unit cohesion.
In country I don't see a need for them to shave or take off the Turban....but at the same time the Military preaches unity and this makes people stand out.
|
I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you mess with me, I'll kill you all
Marine General James Mattis, to Iraqi tribal leaders |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/07 01:38:18
Subject: Re:Woman files lawsuit against Jetblue for Discrimination
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
I think he does not know what a ACH is....
Advance Combat Helmet
Also known Kevlar, Brain Bucket, Fritz helmet, dome protector....
|
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog
Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/07 01:52:43
Subject: Re:Woman files lawsuit against Jetblue for Discrimination
|
 |
Krazed Killa Kan
Homestead, FL
|
Jihadin wrote:I think he does not know what a ACH is....
Advance Combat Helmet
Also known Kevlar, Brain Bucket, Fritz helmet, dome protector....
I never did figure out why they made us wear Kevlars in Humvees when in the states....not like it was going to protect you from anything then
|
I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you mess with me, I'll kill you all
Marine General James Mattis, to Iraqi tribal leaders |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/07 02:00:42
Subject: Woman files lawsuit against Jetblue for Discrimination
|
 |
Posts with Authority
|
One of my favorite memories was convoying, and some gak just casually tossed an at-4 in the back somewhere. So the first time the driver stops kind of hard, something bumps me in the back of the head, I turn around and it's an anti-armor rocket.
I hit my buddy who had loaded it in there and he said something to the effect of "What are you worried for, you had your kevlar on."
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/07 02:55:16
Subject: Re:Woman files lawsuit against Jetblue for Discrimination
|
 |
[DCM]
The Main Man
|
Jihadin wrote:I think he does not know what a ACH is....
Advance Combat Helmet
Also known Kevlar, Brain Bucket, Fritz helmet, dome protector....
I am well aware of what an ACH is. That's why I specifically mentioned the ability to wear a kevlar helmet over top of a turban in my first post in this thread. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ghazkuul wrote: Hordini wrote: Jihadin wrote:Today's US Military is SAFETY first before whatever.
Go to the range wear ACH
Riding in a tactical vehicle wear ACH
Airborne OPS wear ACH
On flight line no headgear allowed...also a No Salute Area
In a high risk lead catching area wear ACH......body armor to
In Garrison wear the appropriate head gear that falls under current AR 670-1 (with updates/memorandum)
With the exception of being on a flight line, none of that is prevented by wearing a turban and beard.
I actually have to disagree with you on that one. When you get in country you start looking for things out of place, its one of the things that helps you stay alive. Team that up with the stress and confusion that happens during a fire fight, the chances of a Sikh or Muslim in the US Military being killed by friendly fire is almost unacceptable. You never EVER want to see Blue on Blue and this could ruin unit cohesion.
In country I don't see a need for them to shave or take off the Turban....but at the same time the Military preaches unity and this makes people stand out.
Why would someone be more likely to go blue on blue with a Sikh or Muslim in the US military wearing US military uniform with a kevlar? Have we had a spate of blue on blue due to US service members shooting bearded SOCOM operators? Or allied Afghan soldiers with beards for that matter?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/07 02:57:12
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/07 03:11:36
Subject: Woman files lawsuit against Jetblue for Discrimination
|
 |
Krazed Killa Kan
Homestead, FL
|
actually yes, because several Talibs tried to storm onto Leatherneck wearing US uniforms but were given away because they still had beards
|
I come in peace. I didn't bring artillery. But I'm pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you mess with me, I'll kill you all
Marine General James Mattis, to Iraqi tribal leaders |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/07 03:41:39
Subject: Woman files lawsuit against Jetblue for Discrimination
|
 |
[DCM]
The Main Man
|
Ghazkuul wrote:actually yes, because several Talibs tried to storm onto Leatherneck wearing US uniforms but were given away because they still had beards One instance doesn't really qualify as a spate in my book. There are a variety of examples of how US service members aren't completely uniform both in country and in garrison. A lot of SOCOM operators (and even conventional units in remote FOBs) grow beards in country. You have LS Marines who wear red patches on their uniforms. You have each branch that wears different camouflage uniforms, and individual service members that wear different gear based on either different unit SOPs and/or individual preference. Local terps attached to US units often have beards and you don't see them getting waxed by blue on blue at a higher rate. I don't think having the odd Sikh service member with a beard is going to meaningfully increase blue on blue incidents, especially considering if there is one in a unit, most of the members of that unit are probably going to know about it one way or the other via either direct contact or the LCpl underground and whatever the Army equivalent is. I'm pretty sure the Talibs were also given away because they were shooting at US troops. Claiming that Sikhs in them military is too dangerous because their beards are going to cause them to get killed due to friendly fire is nothing more than a cop-out, considering that we operate with a variety of bearded service members and allies already and it doesn't cause any insurmountable issues. Also, it doesn't count as blue on blue if the ones wearing US uniforms are actual enemy.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/09/07 03:42:43
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/07 04:59:22
Subject: Woman files lawsuit against Jetblue for Discrimination
|
 |
[MOD]
Not as Good as a Minion
|
I was going to say "go create a sikhs in the military topic if you want to discuss it", but as it was the OP that brought it up I'm just going to turn this into a "generic religion/work clash thread" to stop there being 3 topics that cover this same issue
|
I wish I had time for all the game systems I own, let alone want to own... |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/07 08:50:57
Subject: Re:Woman files lawsuit against Jetblue for Discrimination
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Ouze wrote:To go a step further, I know there have been cases where a Somali woman (I believe) working at a grocery store refused to ring up anyone buying alcohol. At that point, the belief cannot reasonably be accommodated anymore, since ringing up people is essentially the entirety of the job function of a cashier, where distributing drinks is only a tiny portion of a stewardesses. So, it's not ANY accommodation, but when it's reasonable, it should happen.
Ringing up alcohol is an interesting one. I've had it a few times here where a cashier has been unable to a ring up alcohol purchases because they are not legally old enough to sell alcohol, someone else has to come over and authorise it, it's usually not a big deal. It does make me wonder what level of involvement is actually forbidden. Is she allowed to handle the bottle, for example? Can she hand them the drink but someone else has to take the money? Can she relay an order to another stewardess, or is she forbidden from assisting in any way? Perhaps, in the airline's view, triggering a complaint from another employee was what moved her requirement into the realms of "unreasonable".
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/07 09:08:19
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/07 09:03:51
Subject: Woman files lawsuit against Jetblue for Discrimination
|
 |
Posts with Authority
|
I am on the side of not exempting Sikhs or anyone else from grooming standards without a medical exemption. I had a beard and long hair before I joined the army, I shaved that gak when I joined up. Frankly, we don't need the tiny number of Sikhs who would have joined if the exemption continued. And if we are saying that Sikhs get to ignore grooming standards based on their religion, why can't I ignore them based on my deeply held personal philosophical beliefs that a beard makes me a better person?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/07 14:13:55
Subject: Woman files lawsuit against Jetblue for Discrimination
|
 |
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer
Somewhere in south-central England.
|
dogma wrote:But the airline didn't explicitly accommodate the attendant, it basically said "Figure it out with your coworkers, we don't care."
That comes to the same thing. If they didn't care then about her serving drinks they have to a significant degree abandoned the responsbility of caring later on.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/07 14:44:39
Subject: "When work and religion clash" thread
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
You think bosses saying 'So-and-so can't do X because of religion, figure it out' is bad probably has never been a single person in a team full of people with kids.
You want to know what excuse basically destroys every emergency, after-hours, overtime, scheduling issue?
"I Have Kids."
I would much rather take on an extra duty for a co-worker because of a religious issue than people who constantly ditch out on work responsibilities for kids.
I have had muslim co-workers who fast during Ramadan and we totally worked with them to avoid subjecting them to exhaustive labor while daytime fasting. Know what's not reasonable? "School ended and I have a week until summer camp kicks in, so my kids are coming in and going to color in the corner so I can't do X Y and Z because I need to watch my kids."
|
My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA." |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/07 15:47:46
Subject: Re:Woman files lawsuit against Jetblue for Discrimination
|
 |
Member of the Ethereal Council
|
Smacks wrote: Ouze wrote:To go a step further, I know there have been cases where a Somali woman (I believe) working at a grocery store refused to ring up anyone buying alcohol. At that point, the belief cannot reasonably be accommodated anymore, since ringing up people is essentially the entirety of the job function of a cashier, where distributing drinks is only a tiny portion of a stewardesses. So, it's not ANY accommodation, but when it's reasonable, it should happen.
Ringing up alcohol is an interesting one. I've had it a few times here where a cashier has been unable to a ring up alcohol purchases because they are not legally old enough to sell alcohol, someone else has to come over and authorise it, it's usually not a big deal. It does make me wonder what level of involvement is actually forbidden. Is she allowed to handle the bottle, for example? Can she hand them the drink but someone else has to take the money? Can she relay an order to another stewardess, or is she forbidden from assisting in any way?
Perhaps, in the airline's view, triggering a complaint from another employee was what moved her requirement into the realms of "unreasonable".
18 and under cannot handle alchohol.
18 to 21, can sell and serve alchohol. but cannot poor it
21 and older. Can do all the above and pour it.
Now a company can have its own rules.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/07 16:04:23
Subject: Re:Woman files lawsuit against Jetblue for Discrimination
|
 |
Dwarf High King with New Book of Grudges
United States
|
hotsauceman1 wrote:
18 and under cannot handle alchohol.
18 to 21, can sell and serve alchohol. but cannot poor it
21 and older. Can do all the above and pour it.
Those laws vary quite a bit by state, county, and municipality. For example, In Illinois no one under the age of 21 can legally sell or serve alcohol, with the possible exception of off-site events.
|
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/07 16:34:13
Subject: "When work and religion clash" thread
|
 |
Wolf Guard Bodyguard in Terminator Armor
|
As far as I know (and I'm not an expert), Muslims are only not allowed to drink alcohol. Serving others same is not prohibited AFAIK...
As opposed to pork, which apparently they're not even allowed to touch. I presume it's because alcohol comes in bottles or glasses and doesn't require direct contact when handing/selling to others.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/09/07 16:35:18
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/07 17:02:34
Subject: "When work and religion clash" thread
|
 |
Member of the Ethereal Council
|
nkelsch wrote:You think bosses saying 'So-and-so can't do X because of religion, figure it out' is bad probably has never been a single person in a team full of people with kids.
You want to know what excuse basically destroys every emergency, after-hours, overtime, scheduling issue?
"I Have Kids."
I would much rather take on an extra duty for a co-worker because of a religious issue than people who constantly ditch out on work responsibilities for kids.
I have had muslim co-workers who fast during Ramadan and we totally worked with them to avoid subjecting them to exhaustive labor while daytime fasting. Know what's not reasonable? "School ended and I have a week until summer camp kicks in, so my kids are coming in and going to color in the corner so I can't do X Y and Z because I need to watch my kids."
Wow. I hate kids and even I think this ppst is excessive.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/09/07 17:23:56
Subject: "When work and religion clash" thread
|
 |
Confessor Of Sins
|
Bran Dawri wrote:As far as I know Muslims are only not allowed to drink alcohol. Serving others same is not prohibited AFAIK... As opposed to pork, which apparently they're not even allowed to touch.
IIRC the pork too is just not to be eaten. Jews are forbidden from handling the meat as well, the Quran doesn't mention that.
A muslim that refuses to have anything to do with alcohol or pork (as in selling it to people) are just doing the same as certain christians do when refusing to sell contraceptives - they avoid an item their religion doesn't approve of, even if the buyer doesn't subscribe to that religion. They extend the ban on using it to handling the item. In essence, since they're not allowed to have it they don't want anyone else to have it either.
|
|
 |
 |
|