Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Job Agency Fined For Religious Discrimination  
User currently offlinesolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 858 posts, RR: 2
Posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2147 times:

From The Local:

http://www.thelocal.se/24862/20100208/

Call me a rasist but this really ticks me off!!

//Mike >:-(   


Airbus SAS - Love them both
60 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineajd1992 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2131 times:

Nothing racist about it.

I'm not a fan of religion anyway but at least I'm sensitive to it. This woman needs her head banging on the wall and some common sense put in her head.


User currently offlinenewark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 29
Reply 2, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2114 times:

The craziest part of this whole thing is that he wasn't even hired yet.   


Why grab a Heine when you can grab a Busch?
User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6965 posts, RR: 76
Reply 3, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2089 times:

"The court ruled that the agency was aware that the man's religious convictions prevented him from shaking hands with women he did not know."

What the??? I wonder if the court looked into whether it was forbidden to shake hands with women the man did not know under the man's religion? Or was it more of a custom to the man's circles/traditions?

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineoly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6843 posts, RR: 11
Reply 4, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2047 times:

Would the woman have necessarily known? Nearly the reverse discussed here....

http://www.aish.com/ci/s/48899622.html

A recent "Ethicist" column in The New York Times Magazine reveals not only the superficiality of what passes for ethical thinking today, but also the limits of multiculturalism as applied to Orthodox Jews.

A woman wrote to the "Ethicist" with the following question. Her otherwise "courteous and competent real-estate agent" refused to shake her hand after signing a brokerage contract, explaining that as an Orthodox Jew he does not touch women. The woman described herself as both "shocked and offended." But since she was a good liberal who, in addition to opposing "sex discrimination of all sorts," also "supports freedom of religious expression," she was in a quandary.


It's a mark of respect, apparently, showing that there is to be no physical contact whatsoever. A handshake could lead to all manner of illicit activities, or so the logic goes.

A ban on touching acknowledges the natural physical attraction between men and women, and serves as a warning. Those who observe the ban convey the message that "the erotic element is excluded from our relationship." Far from showing a lack of "dignity and respect" for those of the opposite gender, observance of the ban reflects a determination to treat members of the opposite sex with the utmost respect - as everything but objects of sexual desire.



wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
User currently offlinesolnabo From Sweden, joined Jan 2008, 858 posts, RR: 2
Reply 5, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2026 times:

.
HE is the a-hole in this story.

Imagine how she feel, not worth the dirt under his shoes.

How degrading for her. Wonder what the %&/ he is doing here?

Will he ever find a job in Sweden with that attitude towards women?

Don´t think so....

//Mike   

[Edited 2010-02-09 08:32:01]


Airbus SAS - Love them both
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20334 posts, RR: 59
Reply 6, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2003 times:

I've always felt that there should be a legal distinction between religious identity and religious behavior.

One does not choose to be born a "Muslim" or a "Jew" or a "Christian." Your parents choose your stated religion at your birth and changing it is difficult for many reasons. If someone refuses to hire me because I'm a Jew and for no other reason, that should, of course, be illegal.

On the other hand, you choose your religious behavior and I do not believe that religious behavior should be protected in anti-discrimination laws. If I have an employee who is unable to work on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays due to their religious behavior, then under current law, I would have difficulty firing that employee, or even choosing to hire an employee whose religious behavior would not interfere with their job.

In other words, it is the responsibility of the applicant to know what requirements there are for the job. As in many things in life, the applicant must make a choice as to which is more important: religion or paying the bills.

Similarly, if you want to live and work in the First World in the West, you must accept that there are men and women and that our society works in an egalitarian way. If you do not wish to work within that system, I don't see why we should protect you. If he didn't have some excuse of "religion" to defend this behavior, he would most certainly have been fired. Sorry, I'm not buying it.

Quoting oly720man (Reply 4):

A woman wrote to the "Ethicist" with the following question. Her otherwise "courteous and competent real-estate agent" refused to shake her hand after signing a brokerage contract, explaining that as an Orthodox Jew he does not touch women.

Again, it's a bunch of bullcrap. At no point in Torah or Talmud is this actually stated. It's something that Chassidic Jews have made up, much like their idolatrous worship of various Rebbis and their patently absurd decisions on Kosher laws. It is not a recognized part of mainstream Judaism and I think that it's absurd that some small group of people can make up a set of societally unacceptable behaviors and defend them as "religion."

I say it again: if your religious practices (not your religion, but your religious practices) are incompatible with adequate job performance (and handshakes are standard workplace practice in the Western world) then you should not have the job.


User currently offline777236ER From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1988 times:

Religion is a choice, therefore should be discriminated against.

User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8974 posts, RR: 39
Reply 8, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1978 times:

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 7):
Religion is a choice, therefore should be discriminated against.

Not by the government. Should the government punish you depending on your opinions? Opinions are choices too.

ps: unless it's a job-qualification type thing, rather than something more along the lines of the other thread. I support the firm this guy was seeking a job with turning him down because of his beliefs.

[Edited 2010-02-09 09:58:17]


"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offlineFuturePilot16 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2035 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1971 times:

I hate to sound like an asshole, but it annoys the hell out of me that people who are extremely religious, expects everyone to accommodate them at every whim. And to be even more frank, it's almost always Muslims who are constantly getting offended. It's absolutely stunning.   


"The brave don't live forever, but the cautious don't live at all."
User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6965 posts, RR: 76
Reply 10, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 1957 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 6):
Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Fridays due to their religious behavior, then under current law, I would have difficulty firing that employee, or even choosing to hire an employee whose religious behavior would not interfere with their job.

Well, if converting was easy, one could... be a Muslim on friday, then a Jew on saturday, and Christian on Sunday... and go and apply to a 7days a week shift job... see how far that goes!   

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 6):
In other words, it is the responsibility of the applicant to know what requirements there are for the job. As in many things in life, the applicant must make a choice as to which is more important: religion or paying the bills.

Indeed... we have not heard of Muslims protesting for being fired from airlines for being forced to work on Fridays... unless I've missed something.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 6):
If you do not wish to work within that system, I don't see why we should protect you.

Goes and in hand with religion or paying the bills, or compromise between the two... the majority of the real world (regardless of faith, but excluding those who do not believe in religion) choose to balance the two.
Got someone applying to an airline (a green newbie) and asked if he can be off duty during friday prayers... he was shown the door pretty quickly... the airline did the same for a christian who refused to accept duty on sundays.
I do wonder if a Muslim in Europe applying for shift work, and demanded he be free of duty on Fridays (no, he won't duty swap, he demands to be off), be shown the door... can he sue for religious discrimination? If so, and the case gets accepted and he wins, something is wrong with the legal system!

Quoting FuturePilot16 (Reply 9):
And to be even more frank, it's almost always Muslims who are constantly getting offended. It's absolutely stunning.

I'd go into more detail on that... why is it always Muslims from a certain part of the world who are constantly getting offended... is it religion? or is it the people? If the latter, of course, these people hide behind religion all the friggin' time...

I absolutely loathe people who deliberately annoys the rest of society by using the "religion card"... may they burn in hell!

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlinenewark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 29
Reply 11, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 1921 times:

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 10):
why is it always Muslims from a certain part of the world who are constantly getting offended...

Probably because where many of them come from, Islam is the law of the land, and they can't adapt to the fact that other people behave differently.



Why grab a Heine when you can grab a Busch?
User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6965 posts, RR: 76
Reply 12, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1891 times:

Quoting newark777 (Reply 11):
Probably because where many of them come from, Islam is the law of the land, and they can't adapt to the fact that other people behave differently.

Those people need to realize they live in a world with other people, other religions, other societies... and start realizing too that what they do, may not offend people, but does make them look stupid (as if they care). The problem is, Muslims who are not "constantly getting offended", get a bad image... I'm getting tired of having my people who share the same religion, and live in the real world, be branded as "siding with the infidels" by these idiots... heck, they even try to blow us up too for it... sad world eh?



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineAesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 6920 posts, RR: 12
Reply 13, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1874 times:

Quoting oly720man (Reply 4):
Would the woman have necessarily known? Nearly the reverse discussed here....

http://www.aish.com/ci/s/48899622.html

A recent "Ethicist" column in The New York Times Magazine reveals not only the superficiality of what passes for ethical thinking today, but also the limits of multiculturalism as applied to Orthodox Jews.

A woman wrote to the "Ethicist" with the following question. Her otherwise "courteous and competent real-estate agent" refused to shake her hand after signing a brokerage contract, explaining that as an Orthodox Jew he does not touch women. The woman described herself as both "shocked and offended." But since she was a good liberal who, in addition to opposing "sex discrimination of all sorts," also "supports freedom of religious expression," she was in a quandary.

It's a mark of respect, apparently, showing that there is to be no physical contact whatsoever. A handshake could lead to all manner of illicit activities, or so the logic goes.

A ban on touching acknowledges the natural physical attraction between men and women, and serves as a warning. Those who observe the ban convey the message that "the erotic element is excluded from our relationship." Far from showing a lack of "dignity and respect" for those of the opposite gender, observance of the ban reflects a determination to treat members of the opposite sex with the utmost respect - as everything but objects of sexual desire.

Isn't the anglo-saxon world already much more touchy than the latin one about physical contact ? And nudity.



New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
User currently offlineTheCommodore From Australia, joined Dec 2007, 3012 posts, RR: 8
Reply 14, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1864 times:

Quoting 777236ER (Reply 7):
Religion is a choice, therefore should be discriminated against.

  

Quoting FuturePilot16 (Reply 9):
I hate to sound like an asshole, but it annoys the hell out of me that people who are extremely religious, expects everyone to accommodate them at every whim. And to be even more frank, it's almost always Muslims who are constantly getting offended. It's absolutely stunning.

How right you are on that point.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 10):
I'd go into more detail on that... why is it always Muslims from a certain part of the world who are constantly getting offended... is it religion? or is it the people? If the latter, of course, these people hide behind religion all the friggin' time...

I absolutely loathe people who deliberately annoys the rest of society by using the "religion card"... may they burn in hell!


Perfectly put.


The laws in Europe seem to be way to liberal sometimes I think, and are far to accommodating to "outsiders".
They are the one's who need to understand that they need to conform to our way of life and of doing things, not the other way round which often seems to be the case nowadays.



Flown 905,468 kms or 2.356 times to the moon, 1296 hrs, Longest flight 10,524 kms
User currently offlinenewark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 29
Reply 15, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 1864 times:

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 12):
Those people need to realize they live in a world with other people, other religions, other societies... and start realizing too that what they do, may not offend people, but does make them look stupid (as if they care). The problem is, Muslims who are not "constantly getting offended", get a bad image... I'm getting tired of having my people who share the same religion, and live in the real world, be branded as "siding with the infidels" by these idiots... heck, they even try to blow us up too for it... sad world eh?

What we call cultural diversity, they call "Westoxification."



Why grab a Heine when you can grab a Busch?
User currently offlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5743 posts, RR: 19
Reply 16, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 1850 times:

A guy who professes discriminatory religious beliefs himself has the nerve to sue an agency for being "discriminated"?
Pot calling a kettle black, anyone???

Quoting solnabo (Reply 5):
HE is the a-hole in this story.

I think we are barking on a wrong tree in this case.
It is the court who is to blame and the ruling of an activist "dhimmi" judge(s?) who totally failed to see the big picture and managed to score own goal to the rest of the secular society** and did the anti-discrimination cause only a huge disservice.

**similar to the German judge who felt domestic violence in a Muslim family is ok because Koran says so


User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6965 posts, RR: 76
Reply 17, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 1811 times:

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 16):
It is the court who is to blame and the ruling of an activist "dhimmi" judge(s?) who totally failed to see the big picture and managed to score own goal to the rest of the secular society** and did the anti-discrimination cause only a huge disservice.

**similar to the German judge who felt domestic violence in a Muslim family is ok because Koran says so

That is what's disturbing me... they awarded the claim of discrimination to a person which have discriminatory practices (and one that I believe is not founded by the reason the person put forth, which is religion)...

The German case of "domestic violence is OK in a Muslim family", is again, ludicrous.

I am worried that Europe has gone way too far in the "legally holier than thou" without the deep understanding of some issues which opens it for abuse by those whom the law is supposed to protect people from! Majority's apologism through the law is a recipe for a future pseudo-apartheid... where the law to protect the minority in effect becomes the law to oppress the majority. Sad eh?

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 14):
The laws in Europe seem to be way to liberal sometimes I think, and are far to accommodating to "outsiders".
They are the one's who need to understand that they need to conform to our way of life and of doing things, not the other way round which often seems to be the case nowadays.

Accommodating is fine and noble, if not done ignorantly... which I unfortunately think Europe has done too many times in the past (I guess for fear of regional and international shame for being branded "racist"). When accommodating outsiders, one should also see whether such action has any undesirable impact on society, either by the others, or by the one you accommodate for. One should also assess, where one would carefully draw the line of "enough accommodation, any more would be too much."

There's a phrase here "you give them a liver and they ask for a heart" to describe those who do not know the meaning of thank you. It is something that is probably valid to some Muslim immigrants in Europe. I guess, in some aspects, Europe some way to go in the field of "equitable and utilitarian tolerance"... we know it's impossible to please everyone, but the "best-est" solution should be sought... I see it as trying to please everyone (but themselves) at the moment for the sake of superficial tolerance and multiculturalism (institutional wise... the people are great!  &nbsp 

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlinePyrex From Portugal, joined Aug 2005, 4059 posts, RR: 30
Reply 18, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1795 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 6):
One does not choose to be born a "Muslim" or a "Jew" or a "Christian."

The word "born" is the only thing that makes that statement true. But there is such a thing as free will - an adult chooses to profess a religion, just as I choose not to eat peas.



Read this very carefully, I shall write this only once!
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 20334 posts, RR: 59
Reply 19, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1792 times:

Quoting Pyrex (Reply 18):

The word "born" is the only thing that makes that statement true. But there is such a thing as free will - an adult chooses to profess a religion, just as I choose not to eat peas.

Well, that's my point. If you don't hire someone because they were baptized as a Jew or because they're "Jews," that shouldn't be permitted. You have no control over that.

But if you don't hire someone because his Orthodox Jewish beliefs won't allow him to work on Friday afternoon or Saturday, and you need him to work those shifts, that shouldn't be protected. And apparently it is, which ticks me off royally.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 26129 posts, RR: 50
Reply 20, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 1790 times:

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 6):
One does not choose to be born a "Muslim" or a "Jew" or a "Christian." Your parents choose your stated religion at your birth and changing it is difficult for many reasons


  Indeed. In much of the world one is born into religion and often what is shown in official documents, and registries. Whether one chooses to practice it, or go shopping for another religion as common in the West often does not change the fact of ones born religion.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 10):
Got someone applying to an airline (a green newbie) and asked if he can be off duty during friday prayers... he was shown the door pretty quickly... the airline did the same for a christian who refused to accept duty on sundays.
I do wonder if a Muslim in Europe applying for shift work, and demanded he be free of duty on Fridays (no, he won't duty swap, he demands to be off), be shown the door... can he sue for religious discrimination? If so, and the case gets accepted and he wins, something is wrong with the legal system!


Thankfully in the US nothing is wrong with the system, and what you describe is clearly discriminatory.

Matter of fact just in December Mesaba Airlines(Northwest Airlines commuter) had a case where it would not work with and accommodate peoples religion scheduling needs.
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/12-23-09.cfm

As the US government found;
"Employees should not be forced to choose between practicing their faith and keeping or getting a job."

[Edited 2010-02-10 00:25:22]


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5743 posts, RR: 19
Reply 21, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 1750 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 20):
As the US government found;
"Employees should not be forced to choose between practicing their faith and keeping or getting a job."

But where do you draw the line between "reasonable accomodation" of one's religious beliefs and everyone just doing as he/she pleases. Where is the responsibility of the employees-to-be. If their religious beliefs are so strong why they bother applying for a job which requires some sort of compromise when it comes to exercising religious rituals?


Quoting mandala499 (Reply 10):
I do wonder if a Muslim in Europe applying for shift work, and demanded he be free of duty on Fridays (no, he won't duty swap, he demands to be off), be shown the door... can he sue for religious discrimination? If so, and the case gets accepted and he wins, something is wrong with the legal system!
Muslim bus driver locks passengers aboard as he stops to pray

A Muslim bus driver knelt in the aisle to pray for five minutes leaving bemused and anxious passengers trapped in ther seats.
The driver pulled over without warning and rolled out a high-visibility jacket as a makeshift prayer mat before removing his shoes, turning to face Mecca and starting to chant in Arabic.
Passengers said they looked on in stunned silence, fearing the driver may be preparing for a terrorist attack on the bus. No one was able to get on or off the vehicle during the five-minute prayer session.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...rs-aboard-as-he-stops-to-pray.html

Truly bizarre. It will be interesting to watch if he gets away with it. The Londoners were inconvenieced yet actually lucky he's just a bus driver, not an ambulance or fire truck driver...


User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6965 posts, RR: 76
Reply 22, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1744 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 20):
Matter of fact just in December Mesaba Airlines(Northwest Airlines commuter) had a case where it would not work with and accommodate peoples religion scheduling needs.
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/12-23-09.cfm

The problem is, in the Mesaba case, the company ALREADY hired the 5 persons. Mesaba also has the "no shift swap" policy. In the cases I mentioned above, the company allows shift swap, but the persons indicated they would not take shift swap when it was discussed. That's where the line was drawn, the company had accommodation provisions for those with such convictions, but the person applying indicated he would not take a duty swap, he just wants to be off during whenever he said he needs to carry out his duty as a faithful (case happened both for a Muslim and a Christian). After failing to obtain jobs (they gotta pay the bills somehow), those persons have yielded and now work (at companies where they've been shown the door before), taking duty swaps whenever they need to.

I do not see what those companies do in the cases I mentioned above as discriminatory.

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 21):
But where do you draw the line between "reasonable accomodation" of one's religious beliefs and everyone just doing as he/she pleases.

Reasonable accommodation is definitely not "OK-ing a man to commit domestic violence because in his religion (Islam) it's OK"... come on, what kind of Islam is it? In the majority of Islamic countries, domestic violence is against the law (secular law, and religious (Islamic) law).
So, reasonable accommodation mean than prior to accommodating, the side giving the accommodation should look into and determine whether or not the demands for accommodation is:
- Possible to fulfil
- Does not put society at harm/inconvenience
- Is justifiable under the reasons used to demand accommodation (eg: Does his religion actually prevent him from touching women, do others (from various backgrounds) in the same religion believe the same, or is it just his understanding or the understanding of a few within his group).

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 21):
If their religious beliefs are so strong why they bother applying for a job which requires some sort of compromise when it comes to exercising religious rituals?

This, needs to be argued by both sides when discussing about the issue. Take a look at the case of the bus driver...

He does this where I am, he'd be imprisoned for holding people against their will. His defence of being religious would not work, because the law here understands that one can delay prayers whilst performing one's duty (especially where service and safety is involved)... and I'm talking about a predominantly Muslim country.

There was a row in neighbouring Malaysia a while back when a photo circulated of a veiled Muslim girl studying to be a vet, was holding a pig. Whilst the uninformed demanded that Muslim girls studying to become a vet should be exempt from the pigs, the religious scholars in the end stated that it was permissible, and that using excuses of religion for one to be exempt from touching/treating the pig, is unreasonable.

Going back to the case in this topic, and the "excusable under religion" domestic violence case in Germany, did they really look into whether the religions claim is valid or not? And if not, was it cultural? Then decide if some cultural habits and traditions from other parts of the world be accepted. ie: separation of culture and tradition from the religion itself, as many claims of religious discrimination may have stemmed from the fusion of culture, tradition and religion...



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 14139 posts, RR: 62
Reply 23, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1738 times:

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 22):
Going back to the case in this topic, and the "excusable under religion" domestic violence case in Germany, did they really look into whether the religions claim is valid or not? And if not, was it cultural? Then decide if some cultural habits and traditions from other parts of the world be accepted. ie: separation of culture and tradition from the religion itself, as many claims of religious discrimination may have stemmed from the fusion of culture, tradition and religion...

To the German case, which BTW has disgusted most Germans and was strongly critizised by German Muslims.
In Germany judges are usually (depending on the state) appointed by a judicary board and have the job for life (unless they commit some serious sins, like committing crimes themselves), this was done to keep them independent from outside pressures.
One basic principle of the German penal system is that the accused had to understand at the time when he committed the crime, that he was breaking the law and doing wrong.
Now some judges interpreted the cultural background of criminals especially in honour killing and domestic violence cases, that the person, having grown up in a culture where tribal (NOT RELIGIOUS!!!) traditions permit or demand such deeds would not understand that he was doing wrong. This was applied to heads of families, who ruled their families like feudal lords, with power of life and death and in who´se opinion it was a loss of honour if the family members were not showing total obedeyance, which they interpreted as "respect".
Unfortunately many of the German left (and this BTW even includes radical feminists!) accept behaviour from members of other, non-western, cultures, which they wouldn´t accept from locals.
I think that part of it comes from the overemphasition of German culture being suprior to all others by the Nazis to the extend of having tried to exterminate any different cultures and peoples and the wish of the modern to be different. I think the judges in these controversial cases are part of this movement.

I reacently read an interesting letter to the editor in the Spiegel magazine. There somebody suggested to print the first, permanent, articles of the German constitution, basically our Bill of Rights, on posters and to hang them in every school classroom.

Jan


User currently offlineL410Turbolet From Czech Republic, joined May 2004, 5743 posts, RR: 19
Reply 24, posted (4 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 1734 times:

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 22):
Reasonable accommodation is definitely not "OK-ing a man to commit domestic violence because in his religion (Islam) it's OK"... come on, what kind of Islam is it?

What I meant was "accomodation" on a workplace. People choose themselves what job they apply for, just as they choose how strictly they will or will not observe rituals and adhere to dogmas of their respective religion. BTW, what happened to professionalism and common sense?
He is certainly not the only muslim bus driver in London or those Mesaba guys the only jewish airport agents in the US and making a precedent by "accomodating" the most extreme ones seems like a start of a very slippery slope, where the end might be a case with judge having to decide what is the supreme interest, whether one's individual religious rituals or a need to get a patient to hospital asap or report to a crime scene, or a fire, etc.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 22):
He does this where I am, he'd be imprisoned for holding people against their will. His defence of being religious would not work, because the law here understands that one can delay prayers whilst performing one's duty (especially where service and safety is involved)... and I'm talking about a predominantly Muslim country.

Not that I paid any special attention to it, but during my visits to predominantly muslim countries I do not recall seeing a public transport coming to a standstill at certain hour of the day and drivers praying en masse in the middle of the road.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 23):
One basic principle of the German penal system is that the accused had to understand at the time when he committed the crime, that he was breaking the law and doing wrong.

How does this principle interact with another basic principle of (not only) continental law which has been part of most European jurisprudences since the Romans, that is "Ignorantia legis neminem excusat" , i.e. presumed knowledge of the law?


25 MD11Engineer : I think the ointerpretation by these judges was that in these cases they would sentence the culprit not to maximum for murder (life), but instead for
26 LAXintl : Well in the Mesaba case there was a legal opinion written about that. In short summary a company must "reasonably accommodate an employee whose since
27 777236ER : No. The government should punish you based on your actions, including religious actions.
28 newark777 : Maybe in Europe, not allowed to in the US. For being so opened minded, Europe sure is aggressively intolerant of different cultural groups. Sad.
29 Slider : Nowhere is Islamic doctrine is there any prohibition on a woman being covered up nor a directive for a man to not have contact with. I hate to keep s
30 PPVRA : They should punish you for any coercive actions you initiate. Anything else, even if ethically reprehensible, should not be punished.
31 solnabo : Becouse Americans are all colonials, exept natives. Wrong or right?
32 Photopilot : You know, I'm friends with an HR Manager at a large firm. Over beers one night he told me that he won't even call for an interview with a person with
33 DocLightning : And I disagree with that. In a situation where the practice of the faith interferes significantly with job function, then guess what? Sorry, but ther
34 TheCommodore : Yes, it's sad that it has come to this but I have actually heard something similar to this before. Its just not worth the grief ! Yes again, when it
35 LAXintl : Well hopefully your friend will end up in some hot water of his shameful practices. I know your open disdain for religion, however I would have figur
36 newark777 : It happens a lot more than you imagine. In this competitive job environment, the flexibility is there to pick and choose who you want, and with every
37 TheCommodore : Religion is a choice, so is working a particular job. No one is forcing you to practice your chosen religion, its up to you. But you can't expect emp
38 LAXintl : Maybe not "bend over backwards", but yes I absolutely would expect them to reasonably accommodate an employees religious beliefs or observances as th
39 TheCommodore : I beg to differ. If I employ someone I want then to do a job in the hours that I'm paying them, Why should I have to give concessions to an employee
40 777236ER : So you wouldn't prosecute the 9/11 attackers? It's amazing you want it to be illegal to prosecute people based on their religiously-motivated actions
41 LAXintl : The 9/11 attackers, or plotters can be prosecuted because of their terroristic actions, not because of their religion. Terrorism, its incitement, or
42 TheCommodore : What rubbish. What a silly thing to say ! Their actions are terrorist related, nothing else. Not religious! Why wouldn't you prosecute for that.
43 777236ER : Wrong. Their actions were clearly motivated by religion. Their actions were motivated by religion. My entire point was that when religious actions be
44 newark777 : Well, I certainly wouldn't prosecute them based on their beliefs. Just their actions. It's not wrong, since we have a Constitution that defends the r
45 Post contains images TheCommodore : My sentiments exactly. Absolutely Again, your right on the mark.
46 JetsGo : What's the difference from me firing you because you refused to show up to work due to a religious function? I didn't fire you because of your religi
47 Post contains images newark777 : Where did you get the impression that I cared about how this was applied to the workplace? If your religion interferes with your ability to perform y
48 Post contains images mandala499 : But then, if the companies don't hire you, they can get sued... Lovely world Keeps places like this busy!
49 TheCommodore : Companies need to be a little more clever in the reasons they give not to hire these sorts of people in the first place.
50 KiwiRob : What's shameful about it? You have to hire people that will work well within your company.
51 777236ER : So you agree with me, great. Actually, that right ends when the action is illegal. I'm glad you've changed your mind over this statement: Of course i
52 LAXintl : As a business in the US, you are required to work to accommodate the religious needs and practices of your employees. If someone needs time off to at
53 csavel : You know I think there is more than meets the eye to this story. I mean, whether or not people should bend over backwards to accomodate religious sens
54 N229NW : What is shameful about throwing out job applications because the names aren't white anglo-saxon? It is shameful because this creates a system in whic
55 TheCommodore : That's exactly why the HR guy throws the Non-Wasp names in the bin. So what is, spending a great deal of time in the courts because people abuse the
56 N229NW : Then he is patently guilty of discrimination and the company should be sued for it. His company should absolutely be hauled to court for such practic
57 TheCommodore : That's why he does it. And if that had happened to me then I think I would do the same as he does, sorry if that offends you but who wants to spend t
58 N229NW : What I'm saying is that he or his company should be in court for what he is doing now, and will end up there eventually, directly or indirectly. So t
59 TheCommodore : He is not being unfair at all, he is is just being discerning in his decision not to take applicants with Non-wasp sounding names, I suppose you coul
60 N229NW : Discrimination based on ethnicity is fair? Not when it is against the law. A free world. Well, there are many countries where discrimination is legal
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
England Captain Fined For Lap Dance Club Visit posted Wed Sep 19 2007 08:57:18 by Andz
Zetsche's Wife Fined For Hosting Party posted Thu Oct 6 2005 04:16:43 by Dtwclipper
Weathermen To Fined For Faulty Forecasts! posted Wed Mar 2 2005 14:43:48 by Alberchico
Ever Gone To A Job Interview Just For Fun? posted Thu Mar 4 2004 17:08:26 by Sabena332
Planning A Trip For Xmas Time But Also Job Hunting posted Thu Sep 3 2009 08:53:13 by KLM672
Woman Sues Abercrombie & Fitch For Discrimination posted Wed Jun 24 2009 17:14:05 by OA260
Want To Find An Acting Coach Job For Local Theater posted Thu Apr 30 2009 00:00:37 by KAUST
Are You Paid Well For Your Current Job? posted Sun Dec 14 2008 15:01:34 by FXramper
Religious Shirt For Plane Plans? posted Wed Sep 24 2008 20:34:24 by Triebwerk
Just Moved To Dallas For New Job posted Fri Jul 18 2008 16:28:06 by CO18Heavy