It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sharia in America: EEOC Sues Transport Company for “failing to accommodate” Muslim Truck Drivers

page: 10
25
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I agree. What struck me though, was what he said.

"No employee should be forced to violate his religious beliefs," Lewis said, "in order to earn a living."

Does that mean that employers can have their religious beliefs violated?

I think he should have said, "No American should be forced to violate his religious beliefs," Lewis said, "in order to earn a living."




posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


"Actually, it's really not. It's based on the idea that government not make laws to favor or establish the practice of one religion over all others."


No , Actually you have it Wrong . No Church or Religion Shall Influence Govermental Policy with Any Legal Authority in the United States . Americans have a Right to Practice their Faith Freely , but it cannot interfere with the Laws of the State .



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


On this one, I would have to wonder what the reason was for the policy change? Was it because of the new hipster facial hair fad that seems to favor scruffy, scraggly, ill-kempt beards, and this guy got caught in the cross fire?

And if so, I applaud (sarc intended) the school district for their equal opportunity religious discrimination.

I think some flexibility should have been shown for genuinely religious facial hair as opposed to hipster facial rags.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Zanti Misfit
reply to post by ketsuko
 


"Actually, it's really not. It's based on the idea that government not make laws to favor or establish the practice of one religion over all others."


No , Actually you have it Wrong . No Church or Religion Shall Influence Govermental Policy with Any Legal Authority in the United States . Americans have a Right to Practice their Faith Freely , but it cannot interfere with the Laws of the State .


Good luck with that. You basically just said that every politician who professes to have faith and hold political office has no business doing so. You do realize that their faith informs their decision making because it has shaped their base morality ... right? You can't take that out of a person. My faith informs my conception of right and wrong, and that goes into my decision making process, just as it does for everyone, including politicians.

All the first amendment was intended to do was keep the government from establishing a state religion like the Church of England.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 06:27 PM
link   

ketsuko
reply to post by beezzer
 


On this one, I would have to wonder what the reason was for the policy change? Was it because of the new hipster facial hair fad that seems to favor scruffy, scraggly, ill-kempt beards, and this guy got caught in the cross fire?

And if so, I applaud (sarc intended) the school district for their equal opportunity religious discrimination.

I think some flexibility should have been shown for genuinely religious facial hair as opposed to hipster facial rags.



I'd like to think this is legit.

But I only wish to point out that the EEOC is not consistent with Christian faiths.

Unless anyone can point out where the EEOC defended something like that.

(I googled, didn't find anything)



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


Oh, I was talking about the school district in question that's being sued by the EEOC. I'm well aware the government wouldn't get within 30 miles of a suit on behalf of someone's Christian anything.



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ketsuko
 


I did not say that . A Politician Cannot let his " Faith " interfere with his Duty of Office . Case in point , JFK being a Catholic , Publically stated he would Not Govern this Country as President within the Confines of the Church of Romes Teachings....



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 07:56 PM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 

I think he should have said, "No American should be forced to violate his religious beliefs," Lewis said, "in order to earn a living."


Well, I can certainly raise a tall mug of carrot juice to that sentiment!



posted on Mar, 6 2014 @ 10:15 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


That's a horse of a different color.

Let's put aside the fact that I've never heard of a police or security agency who allows beards at all. Not that they don't exist, obviously, but I've never ran across one.

If the man had his job and satisfactorily performed his duties for 27 years with a beard, a new policy ought not to affect him. He, and his beard, should have been "grandfathered" in.

I ran into a similar situation once, also over facial hair and new policies. I've had a mustache since I was 15 years old - never have shaved it off. On a job I'd been working 5 years at, a new boss came in, and decided it was a good idea to implement new policies, one of which banned mustaches. I ignored it, got called to his office and wrote up, and was given an ultimatum to have it gone by the following Monday or be fired. I told Old Boy to kiss my fuzzy fanny, that it wasn't going anywhere. He took umbrage at that, and said it had better be done, to which I replied "we'll see about that, won't we?" and he agreed we would indeed see about that.

We never did.

Come Monday morning, it was Old Boy in the unemployment line, not me, and my lip ferret was still intact. A few calls to his bosses made room for some reasonable accommodations, one of which accommodations was his departure on Sunday evening. Even a "boss" can turn out to be an FNG, and attempt to toss around more weight than he actually has.

True, my case wasn't religion-based, it was just sheer cussed stubbornness, but the principle is the same - new policies shouldn't affect established employees - especially the ones who do their job well enough to have some value to the higher-ups - which would seem to be the case of a man who successfully got along with no reprimands for 27 YEARS on a job. They should only be taken into consideration for hires going forward.

In this instance I support the guy, not for religious cause, but for established custom on that job.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in

join