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.

 

Secular+Other Religions vs. Christianity

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 12:12 PM
link   
This is going to cause people not to be hired.

The bottom line for me is this seems stupid. I feel like someone went to be a bartender and then decided the didn't want to be around alcohol.

There are pre hire questionaires that ask if you can do the job. When routes are open and need to be filled it's not a secret. While I think I support religious freedom I am becoming more aware of how others "freedoms" cause actual problems for those around them.




posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Iamthatbish
This is going to cause people not to be hired.

The bottom line for me is this seems stupid. I feel like someone went to be a bartender and then decided the didn't want to be around alcohol.

There are pre hire questionaires that ask if you can do the job. When routes are open and need to be filled it's not a secret. While I think I support religious freedom I am becoming more aware of how others "freedoms" cause actual problems for those around them.

What you said right there. In order for companies to protect themselves, they must rely on these questionnaires more heavily in the future. If a person signs it, and agrees to it. They have no case in the future. I've only had a few jobs that required my signature on one of these, but I'll bet it's about to get more common.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: stolencar18
So my point is...
Muslim employee of a private business wants a religious exemption? Government steps in and makes it happen.
Christian employees and owner of a private business want a religious exemption? Nope. Government steps in and penalizes them.


There is a huge difference between the 2 situations.

1. For the Muslim, he is not using his religion to put other people down or oppress others. Alcohol as a whole goes against his beliefs so all he asks is that he doesn't have to transport it. It's not the end of the world.

2. For the Christian, they are simply making a cake. Who are they to judge who can get a wedding cake or who can't? They aren't lawmakers, and denying to serve somebody simply because they disagree with gay marriage is no excuse. It is legal, and trampling on somebody's legal rights because of bigotry is wrong. It's like somebody refusing to bake a cake for an inter-racial couple. It's not their place to judge.

I wouldn't deny a religious person to fix their computer if they asked me, regardless of how strongly I disagree with the religion. It's bad business. I also wouldn't tell somebody they HAVE to do something that conflicts with their beliefs, but in the same light, there is no real Christian basis for the anti gay viewpoint in the first place, it's strictly outdated old testament gibberish that they choose to cherry pick and take literally based on hate while countless other commandments are flat out ignored including Jesus' teachings about empathy.

It's night and day, although for both cases the employees should seek different jobs that do not conflict with their views. However one view is bigoted and the other is not.

Can any Christian in here justify the reasoning behind the anti gay position with New Testament bible quotes? How is it the hateful position is the one that sticks for thousands of years, while the other commandments are treated as silly or outdated? I would like to hear some Christian justification for this view, first of all, before claiming it goes against your beliefs. Truth is, it doesn't. Jesus never spoke out against homosexuals and everything he taught suggests we should treat everybody equally including perceived "sinners".

I just don't understand how a religion that is supposedly based on Jesus and the golden rule, could champion a cause that discriminates against others. It really does not compute for me in the least. Why is it so difficult to treat everyone equally?
edit on 27-10-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Klassified
Except in the case that a person changes their religion after the fact...



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 12:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The company may have been able to accommodate them, but the other employees shouldn't be forced to change routes because of anothers religious beliefs.


That all depends on how flexible the routes are. But that is something the company can take into account when it makes a claim of reasonable accommodation. Remember, the ruling of the case said NO reasonable accommodation was even considered let alone tried.


By protecting one person you are violating another person. This is not what these laws are for.


No one would be forcing them to change their routes. Don't confuse the narrative. The company can ASK them to change their routes. If the other drivers weren't open to changing their routes then the company say that reasonable accommodation was attempted and they'd have a legit reason to fire the guy.


If a convenience store with no hat/hair policy tried to prevent a female from wearing a hijab or a male from wearing a turban this would be religious discrimination. Wearing a religious hair covering causes no inconvenience to other employees, nor does it violate pre-existing company policy.

This is an example for the reason behind the law. Religious tolerance does not mean you get special treatment that directly effects other employees.


The case is about religious accommodation not just religious discrimination.
edit on 27-10-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 01:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

They took employment from a company that delivers alcohol. Once they took the job they agreed to deliver anything the company delivers.

They are hypocrites for working for a company that they know delivers alcohol whether they participate in the delivery or not.

I don't want businesses to have to accommodate hypocrisy hidden behind a veil of religious morality.


edit on 27-10-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Krazysh0t

They took employment from a company that delivers alcohol. Once they took the job they agreed to deliver anything the company delivers.


This is more or less true, but there is nothing wrong with someone asking his boss to not to have to deliver a product, and the law says that if it is a reasonable change that doesn't make things too difficult on the employer then the employer needs to at least ATTEMPT to make the change. If they can't do it, then they have the right to fire. That's how the law is described in the EOCC link.


They are hypocrites for working for a company that they know delivers alcohol whether they participate in the delivery or not.


Possibly, but you or I don't know the circumstances that led this person to work at this company.


I don't want businesses to have to accommodate hypocrisy.


Well that's how things work.
edit on 27-10-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The request is not reasonable. Employers are only required to honor reasonable requests.

Like I said the next step is the cashier at 7-11 refusing to sell alcohol and tobacco because their are two employees on duty. This would be as (un)reasonable as the request to not deliver certain products that the company you work for delivers.


edit on 27-10-2015 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: deadeyedick
a reply to: Klassified
Except in the case that a person changes their religion after the fact...


This is a valid point. It's questionable whether a pre-hire questionnaire would hold up in court under those circumstances, but I'm going to assume it would if the company were unable to accommodate them. Hard to say. I expect we'll be seeing more court cases along these lines.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: Krazysh0t

The request is not reasonable. Employers are only required to honor reasonable requests.


How are you defining reasonable here? An employer asking its other employees if any of them would mind working a different route so the other guy doesn't have to deliver alcohol is unreasonable? Since when is asking a question and giving an optional request to people unreasonable?


Like I said the next step is the cashier at 7-11 refusing to sell alcohol and tobacco because their are two employees on duty. This would be as (un)reasonable as the request to not deliver certain products that the company you work for delivers.


In such a case a reasonable accommodation wouldn't be able to be given to the employee so 7-11 would be allowed to fire the person for not wanting to sell alcohol or tobacco.

I'm not sure you are understanding what "giving reasonable accommodation" means in this case...



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

the gov. does not have any right to run a persons business in this manner.

this has Obama written all over it



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

We already went over this. Obama is in the EXECUTIVE branch and this case occurred in the JUDICIAL branch. We have separation of powers to PREVENT dynastic rule remember? So blaming Obama for something that occurred in a branch unrelated to what he is in charge of just shows innate bias against the man.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Technically you are not wrong about that however the eeoc does have much reporting and taking orders from obamas cronies by way of the holder and lynch

to make a claim that he has zero to do with this is just wrong cause he is the man in charge and if the ruling bothered him then he has enough power to shed light on the subject



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

Translation: "Any small thread I can grasp on to throw Obama under the bus will do."



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: deadeyedick

Translation: "Any small thread I can grasp on to throw Obama under the bus will do."


If by under the bus you mean responsible for the state of the country during his presidency then yes again



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: deadeyedick

Like I said, go restudy Social Studies. Especially brush up on Separation of Powers and the Checks and Balances system. Obama isn't a dictator. I know the right likes to pretend that is the case, but it isn't true. Hence I really don't like entertaining such ideas.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
They are hypocrites for working for a company that they know delivers alcohol whether they participate in the delivery or not.


Surely you hold the same standard for the bakery, right? They are hypocrites for working for a company that they know bakes cakes for weddings in a place where gay marriage is legal?

As long as we are on the same page there, no problem. I agree that both folks should work somewhere without a conflict of interest.
edit on 27-10-2015 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 03:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
They took employment from a company that delivers alcohol. Once they took the job they agreed to deliver anything the company delivers.

They are hypocrites for working for a company that they know delivers alcohol whether they participate in the delivery or not.


They didn't necessarily know they were going to be transporting alcohol. Star Transport delivers "freight" of whatever kind their customers want. These guys didn't necessarily know that they would one day be required to transport beer.

I do see your point, but I don't think we can assume that they're hypocrites.



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: stolencar18

the key words in the whole thing is:4




If an employer can reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practice without an undue hardship, then it must do so.


and the courts generally are quite lenient towards the business owners. in the case of the little country court clerk that every one was griping about, I have a hard time not seeing the legislature getting called into session to find another avenue for the people in a few countries as an undue hardship for the taxpayers, and I see having people travel to adjoining counties as also being not an undue hardship for those taxpayers who are wanting the marriage license, not to mention to the adjoining counties who had to handle the extra workload.
as far as bakeries making cakes, first, I would like to point out that business owner's rights are not the same a employee rights, especially in the modern world where so many of the businesses are really franchises of larger corporations. the gov't is by the people, for the people, not by the business, for the business and those constitutional rights were given to the people!! So, one could also say that any business who demanded that their employees refuse to make a gay wedding cake might also have a moral problem with carrying out their employer's wished because they see the action as mean and hateful, couldn't we?

ya know around the country, I bet on a daily basis, there are many bosses telling their secretaries to lie to their wives about their whereabouts, or to their clients, ect. I have yet to hear of any courtcases where the christian have challenged this behavior as going against their religious freedom. Wonder why that is???

Nice example. Mind if I borrow that one?

As an exchange, here's an example I like to use. Deuteronomy 24:14-15 says this:


14 Do not take advantage of a hired worker who is poor and needy, whether that worker is a fellow Israelite or a foreigner residing in one of your towns.

15 Pay them their wages each day before sunset, because they are poor and are counting on it. Otherwise they may cry to the LORD against you, and you will be guilty of sin.

Right here



posted on Oct, 27 2015 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t
What I would like to know is the following:

1) What is in the employee handbook and the job description.
2) Did the people driving know and understand that they, as part of the job, would be transporting all sorts of items,including alcohol.
3) Did the truck drivers, inform the employer that they would require accommodation due to religious nature?

These questions are very important to ask and get answers to these questions. If neither side let the other know, or chose to ignore such, then it could cause problems, and companies could end up losing law suits like this.

When I was hiring and firing, I would walk a person around the store, through all of it, explaining that they would have to do certain tasks, from emptying trash, to cleaning bathrooms, to stocking, including beer and soda, along with other products. It was at that time frame that the employee would have to put forth that they would need accommodation or not. If they did not state such, and it was in the job description as to what all was required in the job, and they refused, they could be fired, and ultimately, there would be write ups and paperwork to sign.




top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join