Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I don't think those people should have won. Instead, they should have been told to look elsewhere for work, since their views aren't in line with the goals of the company.
I mean...............most jobs have qualifications that you have to meet. Hauling beer was one of the requirements for this job.
They should have won, but shouldn't have won. Insofar as letter-of-the-law goes, it was the right verdict. But if Muslims are going to object to that sort of thing thye shouldn't be taking those kinds of jobs where they may be called upon to do such a thing. Like taking a job at a wine store or something. If alcohol's forbidden you and you're gonna object don't take that job. But if some moron hires you, and it comes up, it's open and shut.
Working for a trucking company is not the same as working for a "wine store".
There would be no reason to assume that getting a job as a trucker would require one to transport alcohol.
my feeling still is that if you take a job, you have to meet the requirements of that job. you can't be a pharmacist and refuse to dispenses the morning after pill; you can't be a flight attendant and refuse to serve alcohol because you're a muslim. I think the same should have gone for these people except for one thing that was pointed out in discussing this case... which was that the trucking company routinely allowed employees to refuse certain cargo. but I could be remembering that in error.
I have no problem with a pharmacist refusing to dispense the morning after pill, or a flight attendant refusing to serve alcohol, as long as they're someone else there that can can step in and do it for them, like another pharmacist on duty, or another flight attendant.
The EEOC rules are based on "reasonable accommodation" - and according to the investigators and the court, reassigning another driver to the route would have posed no undue burden to the company. As far as I'm concerned, I'm fine with the ruling.
I don't think those people should have won. Instead, they should have been told to look elsewhere for work, since their views aren't in line with the goals of the company.
I mean...............most jobs have qualifications that you have to meet. Hauling beer was one of the requirements for this job.
They should have won, but shouldn't have won. Insofar as letter-of-the-law goes, it was the right verdict. But if Muslims are going to object to that sort of thing thye shouldn't be taking those kinds of jobs where they may be called upon to do such a thing. Like taking a job at a wine store or something. If alcohol's forbidden you and you're gonna object don't take that job. But if some moron hires you, and it comes up, it's open and shut.
Working for a trucking company is not the same as working for a "wine store".
There would be no reason to assume that getting a job as a trucker would require one to transport alcohol.
my feeling still is that if you take a job, you have to meet the requirements of that job. you can't be a pharmacist and refuse to dispenses the morning after pill; you can't be a flight attendant and refuse to serve alcohol because you're a muslim. I think the same should have gone for these people except for one thing that was pointed out in discussing this case... which was that the trucking company routinely allowed employees to refuse certain cargo. but I could be remembering that in error.
I have no problem with a pharmacist refusing to dispense the morning after pill, or a flight attendant refusing to serve alcohol, as long as they're someone else there that can can step in and do it for them, like another pharmacist on duty, or another flight attendant.
The EEOC rules are based on "reasonable accommodation" - and according to the investigators and the court, reassigning another driver to the route would have posed no undue burden to the company. As far as I'm concerned, I'm fine with the ruling.
In small towns there may be one pharmacist in a 20 mile radius. You can't have a system where they get to pick and choose.
An Orthodox Jew or Muslim shouldn't work in a pork store. Anything else is an undue burden on not only the customer but on the employer.
Were they civil servants?
Was the award of $240K a just award?
They should have won, but shouldn't have won. Insofar as letter-of-the-law goes, it was the right verdict. But if Muslims are going to object to that sort of thing thye shouldn't be taking those kinds of jobs where they may be called upon to do such a thing. Like taking a job at a wine store or something. If alcohol's forbidden you and you're gonna object don't take that job. But if some moron hires you, and it comes up, it's open and shut.
Working for a trucking company is not the same as working for a "wine store".
There would be no reason to assume that getting a job as a trucker would require one to transport alcohol.
my feeling still is that if you take a job, you have to meet the requirements of that job. you can't be a pharmacist and refuse to dispenses the morning after pill; you can't be a flight attendant and refuse to serve alcohol because you're a muslim. I think the same should have gone for these people except for one thing that was pointed out in discussing this case... which was that the trucking company routinely allowed employees to refuse certain cargo. but I could be remembering that in error.
I have no problem with a pharmacist refusing to dispense the morning after pill, or a flight attendant refusing to serve alcohol, as long as they're someone else there that can can step in and do it for them, like another pharmacist on duty, or another flight attendant.
The EEOC rules are based on "reasonable accommodation" - and according to the investigators and the court, reassigning another driver to the route would have posed no undue burden to the company. As far as I'm concerned, I'm fine with the ruling.
In small towns there may be one pharmacist in a 20 mile radius. You can't have a system where they get to pick and choose.
An Orthodox Jew or Muslim shouldn't work in a pork store. Anything else is an undue burden on not only the customer but on the employer.
I don't disagree with you, which is why I was careful to specify "as long as they're someone else there that can can step in and do it for them, like another pharmacist on duty, or another flight attendant".
But in this case, I don't see any reason to think assigning the route to another driver would have been an undue burden, and court seems to agree.
Was the award of $240K a just award?
It's an irrelevant award, since the company doesn't exist anymore, and therefore won't actually pay it.
I don't think those people should have won. Instead, they should have been told to look elsewhere for work, since their views aren't in line with the goals of the company.
I mean...............most jobs have qualifications that you have to meet. Hauling beer was one of the requirements for this job.
They should have won, but shouldn't have won. Insofar as letter-of-the-law goes, it was the right verdict. But if Muslims are going to object to that sort of thing thye shouldn't be taking those kinds of jobs where they may be called upon to do such a thing. Like taking a job at a wine store or something. If alcohol's forbidden you and you're gonna object don't take that job. But if some moron hires you, and it comes up, it's open and shut.
Working for a trucking company is not the same as working for a "wine store".
There would be no reason to assume that getting a job as a trucker would require one to transport alcohol.
my feeling still is that if you take a job, you have to meet the requirements of that job. you can't be a pharmacist and refuse to dispenses the morning after pill; you can't be a flight attendant and refuse to serve alcohol because you're a muslim. I think the same should have gone for these people except for one thing that was pointed out in discussing this case... which was that the trucking company routinely allowed employees to refuse certain cargo. but I could be remembering that in error.
I have no problem with a pharmacist refusing to dispense the morning after pill, or a flight attendant refusing to serve alcohol, as long as they're someone else there that can can step in and do it for them, like another pharmacist on duty, or another flight attendant.
The EEOC rules are based on "reasonable accommodation" - and according to the investigators and the court, reassigning another driver to the route would have posed no undue burden to the company. As far as I'm concerned, I'm fine with the ruling.
That's funny, the gay bakers were put out of business and have no assets with which to pay the award.It's a fake victory, the company went out of business a year ago, and has no assets in which to pay any awards.
They won't see a penny.
That's funny, the gay bakers were put out of business and have no assets with which to pay the award.It's a fake victory, the company went out of business a year ago, and has no assets in which to pay any awards.
They won't see a penny.
Homos won't see a penny.
Were they civil servants?
Irrelevant. Both centered around claims of religious beliefs. The Christian was told no and the Muslims are pandered to.
I don't think those people should have won. Instead, they should have been told to look elsewhere for work, since their views aren't in line with the goals of the company.
I mean...............most jobs have qualifications that you have to meet. Hauling beer was one of the requirements for this job.
They should have won, but shouldn't have won. Insofar as letter-of-the-law goes, it was the right verdict. But if Muslims are going to object to that sort of thing thye shouldn't be taking those kinds of jobs where they may be called upon to do such a thing. Like taking a job at a wine store or something. If alcohol's forbidden you and you're gonna object don't take that job. But if some moron hires you, and it comes up, it's open and shut.
Working for a trucking company is not the same as working for a "wine store".
There would be no reason to assume that getting a job as a trucker would require one to transport alcohol.
my feeling still is that if you take a job, you have to meet the requirements of that job. you can't be a pharmacist and refuse to dispenses the morning after pill; you can't be a flight attendant and refuse to serve alcohol because you're a muslim. I think the same should have gone for these people except for one thing that was pointed out in discussing this case... which was that the trucking company routinely allowed employees to refuse certain cargo. but I could be remembering that in error.
I have no problem with a pharmacist refusing to dispense the morning after pill, or a flight attendant refusing to serve alcohol, as long as they're someone else there that can can step in and do it for them, like another pharmacist on duty, or another flight attendant.
The EEOC rules are based on "reasonable accommodation" - and according to the investigators and the court, reassigning another driver to the route would have posed no undue burden to the company. As far as I'm concerned, I'm fine with the ruling.
Of course you are.
The queers who sought to force the Christian bakers to bake for them were posed no undue burden, either. They were provided the name of bakers who would happily construct homo celebration pastries for them.
Hypocrite.
Yes she wasThe constitution says thI'll compare
Kim Davis was elected to uphold the Constitution
Er..no, she wasn't.I'll compare
Kim Davis was elected to uphold the Constitution
Yet again you prove that the left has no idea what the fuck they're talking about at any time of the day.
Do you have a copy of the contract they signed with a list of the items they would be required to transport? Didn't think so.Working for a trucking company is not the same as working for a "wine store".
There would be no reason to assume that getting a job as a trucker would require one to transport alcohol.
my feeling still is that if you take a job, you have to meet the requirements of that job. you can't be a pharmacist and refuse to dispenses the morning after pill; you can't be a flight attendant and refuse to serve alcohol because you're a muslim. I think the same should have gone for these people except for one thing that was pointed out in discussing this case... which was that the trucking company routinely allowed employees to refuse certain cargo. but I could be remembering that in error.
I have no problem with a pharmacist refusing to dispense the morning after pill, or a flight attendant refusing to serve alcohol, as long as they're someone else there that can can step in and do it for them, like another pharmacist on duty, or another flight attendant.
The EEOC rules are based on "reasonable accommodation" - and according to the investigators and the court, reassigning another driver to the route would have posed no undue burden to the company. As far as I'm concerned, I'm fine with the ruling.
In small towns there may be one pharmacist in a 20 mile radius. You can't have a system where they get to pick and choose.
An Orthodox Jew or Muslim shouldn't work in a pork store. Anything else is an undue burden on not only the customer but on the employer.
I don't disagree with you, which is why I was careful to specify "as long as they're someone else there that can can step in and do it for them, like another pharmacist on duty, or another flight attendant".
But in this case, I don't see any reason to think assigning the route to another driver would have been an undue burden, and court seems to agree.
We can't expect Muslims to do their damn job?
Were they civil servants?
Irrelevant. Both centered around claims of religious beliefs. The Christian was told no and the Muslims are pandered to.
Of course it's true. Their money is for their attorney fees. Tyrants like you keep suing them.That's funny, the gay bakers were put out of business and have no assets with which to pay the award.It's a fake victory, the company went out of business a year ago, and has no assets in which to pay any awards.
They won't see a penny.
Homos won't see a penny.
That is, of course, not the slightest bit true, since they were able to raise nearly half a million dollars from rubes like yourself.
You have a copy of that contract?Do you have a copy of the contract they signed with a list of the items they would be required to transport? Didn't think so.my feeling still is that if you take a job, you have to meet the requirements of that job. you can't be a pharmacist and refuse to dispenses the morning after pill; you can't be a flight attendant and refuse to serve alcohol because you're a muslim. I think the same should have gone for these people except for one thing that was pointed out in discussing this case... which was that the trucking company routinely allowed employees to refuse certain cargo. but I could be remembering that in error.
I have no problem with a pharmacist refusing to dispense the morning after pill, or a flight attendant refusing to serve alcohol, as long as they're someone else there that can can step in and do it for them, like another pharmacist on duty, or another flight attendant.
The EEOC rules are based on "reasonable accommodation" - and according to the investigators and the court, reassigning another driver to the route would have posed no undue burden to the company. As far as I'm concerned, I'm fine with the ruling.
In small towns there may be one pharmacist in a 20 mile radius. You can't have a system where they get to pick and choose.
An Orthodox Jew or Muslim shouldn't work in a pork store. Anything else is an undue burden on not only the customer but on the employer.
I don't disagree with you, which is why I was careful to specify "as long as they're someone else there that can can step in and do it for them, like another pharmacist on duty, or another flight attendant".
But in this case, I don't see any reason to think assigning the route to another driver would have been an undue burden, and court seems to agree.
We can't expect Muslims to do their damn job?
Kim Davis had such a contract, and had to swear to perform the duties therein. So you're singing her praises for violating her oath? Not surprising.
I'll compare
Kim Davis was elected to uphold the Constitution
Simple.
If RWnut Christians were consistent, they would praise the Muslims.
