Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That doesn't compare to walking off the job several times a day.He's still babbling about morning after pills. He thinks Christians should be compelled by the state to kill off any life that may have developed after unprotected sex. The leftists like that, no one has the right to oppose their agenda.What workplace accommodations are made for Christians. I forget.
The attempted workplace 'accommodations' for such as Kim Davis, the homophobe, or,
the desire for workplace 'accommodations' for so-called Christian pharmacists who don't want to dispense birth control prescriptions for 'religious' reasons,
two examples, overwhelmingly supported by rightwing Christians.
Are there pharmacists who won't fill birth control pills? That Kim Davis fiasco was bad. She should have been canned immediately.
You're proving my point.
No you didn't, you thought you did because you can't understand the issue. A business hires people and shouldn't have to bow to their whims. Neither customers nor employees should force the business to do things their way.That you're an idiot? Yes, I know.He's still babbling about morning after pills. He thinks Christians should be compelled by the state to kill off any life that may have developed after unprotected sex. The leftists like that, no one has the right to oppose their agenda.The attempted workplace 'accommodations' for such as Kim Davis, the homophobe, or,
the desire for workplace 'accommodations' for so-called Christian pharmacists who don't want to dispense birth control prescriptions for 'religious' reasons,
two examples, overwhelmingly supported by rightwing Christians.
Are there pharmacists who won't fill birth control pills? That Kim Davis fiasco was bad. She should have been canned immediately.
You're proving my point.
I proved the point that you automatically flip flop when it's Christians rather than Muslims.
The legitimate prescription doesn't automatically mean the store stocks the item.That doesn't compare to walking off the job several times a day.He's still babbling about morning after pills. He thinks Christians should be compelled by the state to kill off any life that may have developed after unprotected sex. The leftists like that, no one has the right to oppose their agenda.The attempted workplace 'accommodations' for such as Kim Davis, the homophobe, or,
the desire for workplace 'accommodations' for so-called Christian pharmacists who don't want to dispense birth control prescriptions for 'religious' reasons,
two examples, overwhelmingly supported by rightwing Christians.
Are there pharmacists who won't fill birth control pills? That Kim Davis fiasco was bad. She should have been canned immediately.
You're proving my point.
A pharmacist that refuses to fill legitimate prescriptions several times a day is definitely walking off his job several times a day.
Your dodge is stupid.
The point stands. RW'ers broadly flip flop on this issue when one case is Christians and the other is Muslims.
Didn't you just post the article explaining that pharmacists DO NOT have the right to refuse filling birth control pills?That doesn't compare to walking off the job several times a day.He's still babbling about morning after pills. He thinks Christians should be compelled by the state to kill off any life that may have developed after unprotected sex. The leftists like that, no one has the right to oppose their agenda.The attempted workplace 'accommodations' for such as Kim Davis, the homophobe, or,
the desire for workplace 'accommodations' for so-called Christian pharmacists who don't want to dispense birth control prescriptions for 'religious' reasons,
two examples, overwhelmingly supported by rightwing Christians.
Are there pharmacists who won't fill birth control pills? That Kim Davis fiasco was bad. She should have been canned immediately.
You're proving my point.
A pharmacist that refuses to fill legitimate prescriptions several times a day is definitely walking off his job several times a day.
Your dodge is stupid.
The point stands. RW'ers broadly flip flop on this issue when one case is Christians and the other is Muslims.
No you didn't, you thought you did because you can't understand the issue. A business hires people and shouldn't have to bow to their whims. Neither customers nor employees should force the business to do things their way.That you're an idiot? Yes, I know.He's still babbling about morning after pills. He thinks Christians should be compelled by the state to kill off any life that may have developed after unprotected sex. The leftists like that, no one has the right to oppose their agenda.Are there pharmacists who won't fill birth control pills? That Kim Davis fiasco was bad. She should have been canned immediately.
You're proving my point.
I proved the point that you automatically flip flop when it's Christians rather than Muslims.
Just face it, it's too big for you.
Didn't you just post the article explaining that pharmacists DO NOT have the right to refuse filling birth control pills?That doesn't compare to walking off the job several times a day.He's still babbling about morning after pills. He thinks Christians should be compelled by the state to kill off any life that may have developed after unprotected sex. The leftists like that, no one has the right to oppose their agenda.Are there pharmacists who won't fill birth control pills? That Kim Davis fiasco was bad. She should have been canned immediately.
You're proving my point.
A pharmacist that refuses to fill legitimate prescriptions several times a day is definitely walking off his job several times a day.
Your dodge is stupid.
The point stands. RW'ers broadly flip flop on this issue when one case is Christians and the other is Muslims.
Pharmacy owners do not have a constitutional right to refuse to dispense medicines that they object to on religious grounds, according to adecision handed down Thursday by a federal appeals court. Had the plaintiffs in this case prevailed, it would have not only permitted them to refuse to fill many birth control prescriptions (which is what these particular plaintiffs hoped to achieve), but it could have also potentially enabled pharmacists to refuse to fill a long list of prescriptions, including “diabetic syringes, insulin, HIV-related medications, and Valium.”
Court Smacks Down Pharmacy That Refused To Fill Prescriptions On Religious Grounds
I don't think so. I'm a Christian and I don't agree. If someone cannot fulfill the required work or time, they shouldn't have applied for the job. Post a link for your assertion.Didn't you just post the article explaining that pharmacists DO NOT have the right to refuse filling birth control pills?That doesn't compare to walking off the job several times a day.He's still babbling about morning after pills. He thinks Christians should be compelled by the state to kill off any life that may have developed after unprotected sex. The leftists like that, no one has the right to oppose their agenda.
You're proving my point.
A pharmacist that refuses to fill legitimate prescriptions several times a day is definitely walking off his job several times a day.
Your dodge is stupid.
The point stands. RW'ers broadly flip flop on this issue when one case is Christians and the other is Muslims.
Pharmacy owners do not have a constitutional right to refuse to dispense medicines that they object to on religious grounds, according to adecision handed down Thursday by a federal appeals court. Had the plaintiffs in this case prevailed, it would have not only permitted them to refuse to fill many birth control prescriptions (which is what these particular plaintiffs hoped to achieve), but it could have also potentially enabled pharmacists to refuse to fill a long list of prescriptions, including “diabetic syringes, insulin, HIV-related medications, and Valium.”
Court Smacks Down Pharmacy That Refused To Fill Prescriptions On Religious Grounds
Most Christian conservatives side with the pharmacist, but they don't side with Muslims.
Like I said, you do not understand the issue at hand. You're confusing separate issues. Pharmacists should not be forced to sell anything they don't want to. We are losing freedoms daily and you want to move further down the road and force businesses to cater to fundamentalists that would harm their business. Like all libs, you are very free with other people's money.No you didn't, you thought you did because you can't understand the issue. A business hires people and shouldn't have to bow to their whims. Neither customers nor employees should force the business to do things their way.That you're an idiot? Yes, I know.He's still babbling about morning after pills. He thinks Christians should be compelled by the state to kill off any life that may have developed after unprotected sex. The leftists like that, no one has the right to oppose their agenda.
You're proving my point.
I proved the point that you automatically flip flop when it's Christians rather than Muslims.
Just face it, it's too big for you.
But you just took the position that a pharmacist with religious objections shouldn't have to fill a so-called morning after pill prescription.
Which is it?
Should the business have to bow to the pharmacist employee's whims or not?
Like I said, you do not understand the issue at hand. You're confusing separate issues. Pharmacists should not be forced to sell anything they don't want to. We are losing freedoms daily and you want to move further down the road and force businesses to cater to fundamentalists that would harm their business. Like all libs, you are very free with other people's money.No you didn't, you thought you did because you can't understand the issue. A business hires people and shouldn't have to bow to their whims. Neither customers nor employees should force the business to do things their way.That you're an idiot? Yes, I know.You're proving my point.
I proved the point that you automatically flip flop when it's Christians rather than Muslims.
Just face it, it's too big for you.
But you just took the position that a pharmacist with religious objections shouldn't have to fill a so-called morning after pill prescription.
Which is it?
Should the business have to bow to the pharmacist employee's whims or not?
LOL, Little Adolf chimes in once again. Seig Heil!Pharmacists don't have to sell what they don't want to...
...by not becoming pharmacists.
Exactly. But, as ?Retired Sgnt said, several circumstances can override the need to pray 5 times per day, but many Muslims take advantage of the fact that many non Muslims aren't aware of the finer points of their 'religion'. As the. Islam workforce grows, no doubt they begin demanding special segregated places to carry out wudhu - ritual washing before prayers, and they start demanding that they take their prayer breaks together - disastrous for anyone who employs more than a few Muslims.That clears things up. To employ fundamentalist Muslims all one needs to do is hire Stephen Hawking to outline the daily schedules.Just for curiosity, do the times designated for prayers change with the change of the clock in the Spring and Fall?
Salat time calculation:
To calculate prayer times two astronomical measures are necessary, the declination of the sun and the difference between clock time and sundial clock. This difference being the result of the eccentricity of the earth's orbit and the inclination of its axis, it is called the Equation of time. The declination of the sun is the angle between sun's rays and the equator plan.[1]
In addition to the above measures, to calculate prayer times for a specific location we need its spherical coordinates.[2]
In the followingis the time zone, and
the time equation value.
and
are the Longitude and the Latitude of the considered point, respectively.
denotes the Declination of the Sun for a given date.
An other important equation gives the time difference between when the sun hits its highest point in the sky (Dhuhr time) and any other angle, as follow:
If we consider the elevation of the point we should add another correction to the constant
- Midday (Dhuhr) time is easily obtained. When the sun reaches the mid sky, time is given by:
- Sunrise (Chorok) and Sunset (Maghreb) time are given by
, in fact it is the astronomical sunset/sunrise that occurs for
. 0.833 is a slight correction that gives the actual time. So
and
.
.
- For Fajr and Isha many conventions about the angle
exist. It is of 17 and 18 degrees respectively for Fadjr and Isha prayers according to the Muslim World League.- For Asr time according to the majority of Muslim schools, including Shafi'i, Maliki, Ja'fari, and Hanbali, it is when the length of an object shadows became equal to its length plus the length of its shadow at noon. The Hanafi schools states that the time of Asr is when an object's shadow reaches two times the length of the object itself, plus the length of its shadow at noon. The time the shadow of an object reaches
times its length is given by the equation:
.
- It is called for the Maghrib prayer when the sun is completely folded behind the horizon, plus 3 minutes by precaution.
What's the legal theory on that? I didn't go to Mother Goose school.Muslims in non-Muslim countries should be allowed the same religious accommodations as Muslim countries allow non-Muslim ex-pats in Muslim countries.
You know goose/gander?
Why would a company risk the inevitable lawsuits and legal costs if there wasn't issues with how the breaks were impacting production?
1 - Lawsuits aren't inevitable. Complacency can lead some people to take undo risks.
2 - Ignorance. Some managers don't know any better.
3 - Incompetence. Some managers don't know how to implement change effectively.
4 - Hasty decision making. Some managers don't think think it through to envision the possible consequences.
5 - Pride. Some managers don't want anyone, even the law, telling them what to do.
6 - Bona fide prejudice/hatred. If you hate Muslims you might not care what the consequences are.
This kind of stuff happens all the time. You'll see it in spades when you grow up and enter the real world.
I think the workers have the higher burden to meet, as they are the ones with the requirement that adversely impacts work production. This isn't s a sikh wanting to wear a turban with the MTA logo, or a woman wanting to cover her hair when most workers do not. This is time away from production that the employees expect to be allowed while being compensated for working.
If a lawsuit were to happen, it would be very easy for the former employees to make a prima facia case of discrimination. They have a sincere belief in the Muslim religion. The practice of the five daily prayers is part of that belief. The accommodation they were requesting was previously granted. Their separation from employment was directly tied to not being given the requested accommodation. That is sufficient to make their prima facie case. The burden will then shift to the employer.
The reason why the burden will be so difficult for the employer is precisely because the employer had previously granted the requested accommodation to many individuals. Everything that you've been arguing all boils down to hypothetical abstractions about what might happen. But that is not going to cut it in a court of law. No employer has the right to discriminate on the basis of religion simply on hypothetical or abstract problems that might arise from accommodating the employee.
For example, it would be unlawful to discriminate against a Catholic employee on the basis that his being Catholic was suddenly making all the other employees angry, thus causing productivity problems when the other employees refused to work with the Catholic employee. Such an argument is an abstraction; the cause of any problems is due to disciplinary matters and does not warrant impinging on the Catholic man's beliefs. Alternately, a Pagan who does not eat meat for religious reasons might need a reasonable accommodation at their job in a hotel to store a sack lunch in the kitchen's food cooler if the employer normally provides daily meals for employees lunch break and prohibits them from leaving the premises during their lunch. If that accommodation has always been granted, but one day the rule is changed on the hypothetical basis that other people might want to also store food in the cooler and that could or might cause productivity issues, then the employer's reasoning would be discriminatory.
I think the workers have the higher burden to meet, as they are the ones with the requirement that adversely impacts work production. This isn't s a sikh wanting to wear a turban with the MTA logo, or a woman wanting to cover her hair when most workers do not. This is time away from production that the employees expect to be allowed while being compensated for working.
If a lawsuit were to happen, it would be very easy for the former employees to make a prima facia case of discrimination. They have a sincere belief in the Muslim religion. The practice of the five daily prayers is part of that belief. The accommodation they were requesting was previously granted. Their separation from employment was directly tied to not being given the requested accommodation. That is sufficient to make their prima facie case. The burden will then shift to the employer.
The reason why the burden will be so difficult for the employer is precisely because the employer had previously granted the requested accommodation to many individuals. Everything that you've been arguing all boils down to hypothetical abstractions about what might happen. But that is not going to cut it in a court of law. No employer has the right to discriminate on the basis of religion simply on hypothetical or abstract problems that might arise from accommodating the employee.
For example, it would be unlawful to discriminate against a Catholic employee on the basis that his being Catholic was suddenly making all the other employees angry, thus causing productivity problems when the other employees refused to work with the Catholic employee. Such an argument is an abstraction; the cause of any problems is due to disciplinary matters and does not warrant impinging on the Catholic man's beliefs. Alternately, a Pagan who does not eat meat for religious reasons might need a reasonable accommodation at their job in a hotel to store a sack lunch in the kitchen's food cooler if the employer normally provides daily meals for employees lunch break and prohibits them from leaving the premises during their lunch. If that accommodation has always been granted, but one day the rule is changed on the hypothetical basis that other people might want to also store food in the cooler and that could or might cause productivity issues, then the employer's reasoning would be discriminatory.
The difference is their actions are having a direct impact on production that evidently has gotten worse as time went on, and the company cannot reasonably accommodate without screwing up production, which is the goal of said company, i.e. Make shit. Accommodation does not include reducing the companies ability to perform their work profitably and economically.
Plus they still get two 10 minute breaks and a meal break, considering the spread of the prayers, that should be enough for them. It may require them to eat quicker, or skip a smoke break, but its up to them to make the decision between their religion and their other activities.
I think the workers have the higher burden to meet, as they are the ones with the requirement that adversely impacts work production. This isn't s a sikh wanting to wear a turban with the MTA logo, or a woman wanting to cover her hair when most workers do not. This is time away from production that the employees expect to be allowed while being compensated for working.
If a lawsuit were to happen, it would be very easy for the former employees to make a prima facia case of discrimination. They have a sincere belief in the Muslim religion. The practice of the five daily prayers is part of that belief. The accommodation they were requesting was previously granted. Their separation from employment was directly tied to not being given the requested accommodation. That is sufficient to make their prima facie case. The burden will then shift to the employer.
The reason why the burden will be so difficult for the employer is precisely because the employer had previously granted the requested accommodation to many individuals. Everything that you've been arguing all boils down to hypothetical abstractions about what might happen. But that is not going to cut it in a court of law. No employer has the right to discriminate on the basis of religion simply on hypothetical or abstract problems that might arise from accommodating the employee.
For example, it would be unlawful to discriminate against a Catholic employee on the basis that his being Catholic was suddenly making all the other employees angry, thus causing productivity problems when the other employees refused to work with the Catholic employee. Such an argument is an abstraction; the cause of any problems is due to disciplinary matters and does not warrant impinging on the Catholic man's beliefs. Alternately, a Pagan who does not eat meat for religious reasons might need a reasonable accommodation at their job in a hotel to store a sack lunch in the kitchen's food cooler if the employer normally provides daily meals for employees lunch break and prohibits them from leaving the premises during their lunch. If that accommodation has always been granted, but one day the rule is changed on the hypothetical basis that other people might want to also store food in the cooler and that could or might cause productivity issues, then the employer's reasoning would be discriminatory.
The difference is their actions are having a direct impact on production that evidently has gotten worse as time went on, and the company cannot reasonably accommodate without screwing up production, which is the goal of said company, i.e. Make shit. Accommodation does not include reducing the companies ability to perform their work profitably and economically.
Plus they still get two 10 minute breaks and a meal break, considering the spread of the prayers, that should be enough for them. It may require them to eat quicker, or skip a smoke break, but its up to them to make the decision between their religion and their other activities.
It seems whilst they employed a handful of Muslims, it wasnt too much of a problem, but when numbers grew,nand they wanted to pray at specific non-scheduled break times, it obviously interfered with production:
....The crisis began soon after the influx of Somalian Muslims last summer who found work at the bustling plant through an employment fair and applied online.
Up until then, the company says, there were only a handful of Muslim employees who left the production lines to pray.
But with more than 50 additional Muslims demanding time to pray during work time, the management said the position became extremely difficult and they were not expecting new staff to make such demands...
Factory CEO tells Muslim workers to accept ban on extra prayer breaks
Inspirational and Christian POEMS -- The Proper Way to Pray.Looks like another case of give them an inch....
....The Brillion-based company changed the rule on Thursday. Until then, Muslim employees were allowed to leave the production line twice a shift to pray.
But Ariens is now asking employees to pray during scheduled breaks. A company representative told WBAY-TV the 'manufacturing environment does not allow for unscheduled breaks in production.'...
...
It is not in the Muslim tradition, however, to pray during meal times.
'If someone tells you, "You pray on your break," and the break time is not the prayer time? It will be impossible to pray,' said Green Bay Masjid Imam Hasan Abdi....
Wisconsin manufacturing plant takes away Muslim worship breaks
