DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Christian evangelists claim Starbucks fanned 'war on Christmas' with minimalist holiday red coffee cups

You seem to believe it's too black and white. I simply don't.

Every job has a job description. Every job has duties you are required to perform. To me it's very simple. Either you are willing to do the requirements of your job, or you find another job.

To you that seems too black and white. To me it's a logical answer to a simple question that people are trying to over complicate.

You seem to believe it's too black and white. I simply don't.

Every job has a job description. Every job has duties you are required to perform. To me it's very simple. Either you are willing to do the requirements of your job, or you find another job.

To you that seems too black and white. To me it's a logical answer to a simple question that people are trying to over complicate.

May sound simple to you but what if they hire a Muslim to drive a truck and deliver shirts but after a year on the job they tell him he must now deliver bacon or he is fired? You think it is just to treat the Muslim that way? Tough luck religious man, we don't care if you feed your family with this job, we have changed your job description now! Is this what you support?

I said implied. That's what I get from what you say.

you've implied that people should leave their religion at home when they go to work.

You seem to believe it's too black and white. I simply don't.

Every job has a job description. Every job has duties you are required to perform. To me it's very simple. Either you are willing to do the requirements of your job, or you find another job.

To you that seems too black and white. To me it's a logical answer to a simple question that people are trying to over complicate.

BY LAW, Employers must reasonably accommodate employees' sincerely held religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer. Examples listed in various case law include but don't limit to swapping shifts, flexible scheduling, or voluntary shift substitutions. The case that led to it's inclusion in the Civil Rights Act is Dewey v Reynolds Metal Co.

The funny thing about all this is proving undue hardship is easy. All you have to do is prove that the accommodations would cost you more than a de minimis cost as an employer and you WIN the case. So if accommodating a muslim or buddhist would cost you, you don't have to do it (as an employer). So star transport not being able to make that case is hilarious!!

This isn't a muslim thing either. The EEOC sued Rent-A-Center a few years back because a manager was a Seventh-Day Adventist. This manager needed to be off on Saturdays to honor the Sabbath. Just so you know Adventists aren't muslim. They are Christian. Ben Carson is one. RAC argued that they need him to work Saturdays because it was their busiest day, and the manager agreed that on the busiest days, he would need to work there. RAC was then able to prove that they would lose money by not having a manager around on that day, and by that, the courts concluded that RAC could let the person go for failure to complete his required job.

Believing that this issue is black and white is like people saying that Christians are just like Muslims. Or like saying Vanilla is just like Chocolate. It's difficult. It's nuanced. But if we want to ensure freedom of religious freedom in this country, it's something that we must be prepared to address. We are seeing fewer and fewer Christians in this country identify as such according to Pew research. Would it be acceptable for an employer to see a cross on someones necklace and refuse to hire them?

What if I told you I am not making up this scenario? Draper v Logan County Public Library was a case where a library employee was FIRED for wearing a cross. The court sided with the employee because the dress code did not outweight the employees right to free speech or free religion. Are you *REALLY* suggesting that people be fired for wearing crosses is acceptable in this country?

god, you probably think there's a muslim guy planting a bomb behind your house, too.

No....I live in The country. Thank God.

Wearing a cross or any other religious representation is different than refusing to do YOUR job.

So if I can swap a day with another employee because I have religious holy days on Saturday, and it literally affects my employer in no way, I should be fired according to you. Thanks for that clarification.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volo...rt-of-your-job/

So if I can swap a day with another employee because I have religious holy days on Saturday, and it literally affects my employer in no way, I should be fired according to you. Thanks for that clarification.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volo...rt-of-your-job/

No, simply saying, if you can't/won't do your job, get another one you can/will do. It is that simple, black and white, commonsensical, straight, plain...whatever you want to call it.

So if you can go 2 blocks down and get literally an identical cake to the one you want me to make, I should be sued out of business for not wanting to make it for you based on religious reasons?

You're smarter than to build strawmen

An interesting non-answer with a strawman deflection.

Just admit you had no answer to his question and we will all move on. No need to try to talk your way around it.

His question as it stands directly has been answered at length by myself and others.

However, he was asking more of a loaded question to pair with my response: if a christian shouldn't be fired for wearing a cross to work, why should a christian business owner have to follow the local civil rights ordinance. And the reason this is a strawman is because in one case you have an employee and in another you have an employer. The business owner signed a contract stating that they would follow the Colorado Civil Rights Acts in accordance with state law in exchange for limited liability protection. There is nothing to "answer" here. The reason why both cases went the way they did is very simple to understand if you read the case notes. Perhaps we are more interested in falsehoods and rhetoric around here?

Or perhaps I was not making a rule of law comment and I was making more of a moral and ethical comment... I'm familiar with the legal explanation for both cases...

But the law has nothing to do with morality... as I've been told.

Come on DC, he apologized and admitted he is wrong. We should move on now.

Should we remove all civil rights laws and allow employers to fire/deny service on race and religion like before?

We need to be able to find the common link between the two cases before we can really dig into it. Until then all there really is to say is that the case results weren't surprising in the face of the laws on the books.

I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to bring though. Can you elaborate more? Should we treat employees and employers the same?

let me try to elaborate more... let me give you two hypotheticals..

the Holy Trinity bakery, a guy comes in and wants a wedding cake for Bob and Steve... the Holy Trinity bakery is owned and operated by a Christian couple and hires primarily Christian employees (maybe even family members).... so based on what you are telling me, and my own understanding of the law, Noah, one of the bakers, is within his rights to object to making that cake based on his religious beliefs and he cannot be fired for that, but the bakery itself is compelled to make the cake by law... is that your understanding as well?

Similarly, the city of WackoWando has three companies under contract to maintain it's parks, they mow the grass, remove the trash, etc.. One Saturday the Klan holds a legally permitted rally in one of the parks, which happens to fall in the jurisdiction of MLK Park Cleaning Service, which is owned by a black couple and employs primarily black people (mainly family members)... and they are called to clean up the racist signs and debris from this rally... so by the same standard, the black people who work for MLK can object to being a part of that clean-up but the company itself is compelled to clean up the park...

Am I correct so far?