Share faith...lose your job

[Si modo]

Where are the outcomes?

Irrelevant. The legal grounds for suits exist, which validates Si Modo's point that companies risk being sued for suppressing religious expression.

QED

yea, the outcome SURE IS irrelevant! I mean, it takes so much to be litigious! Hell, who needs RESULTS when Jack Thompson is ready to SUE!




what a fucking idiot. Hate to break it to you, clone, but companies don't pussy foot around dogma junkies just to avoid lawsuits when their productivity is on the line. sorry to burst your lil pussyfart bubble.

IF they can document and/or substantiate that their productivity is suffering, then they should fire the employee.

 

[eagleseven]

what a fucking idiot. Hate to break it to you, clone, but companies don't pussy foot around dogma junkies just to avoid lawsuits when their productivity is on the line. sorry to burst your lil pussyfart bubble.

Correction: You "don't pussy foot around dogma junkies just to avoid lawsuits when their productivity is on the line."

I pity your coworkers.

 

[Shogun]

No, whether it goes to court and the outcome of the trial is relevant. Thousands (perhaps more) frivolous lawsuits are filed every year.

The EEOC would not sue companies without legal precedent, as they are a federal agency.

...and federal agencies are never wrong about the application of laws? No wonder you think the results of litigation are irrelevant.


WOW.


Time to find out if your alma mater has a refund policy.

 

[Shogun]

what a fucking idiot. Hate to break it to you, clone, but companies don't pussy foot around dogma junkies just to avoid lawsuits when their productivity is on the line. sorry to burst your lil pussyfart bubble.

Correction: You "don't pussy foot around dogma junkies just to avoid lawsuits when their productivity is on the line."

I pity your coworkers.

I pity whoever issued your educational documentation. Face it, bitch, you wouldn't be forced to insist that litigation results do not matter if you had more evidence than you do fluids leaking from your vagina.

 

[Si modo]

Irrelevant. The legal grounds for suits exist, which validates Si Modo's point that companies risk being sued for suppressing religious expression.

QED

Thank you for your sanity.

translation: "WAAAAH WAAAAAH someone support my OPINION because I'm full of shit and am being called out for smelling like poop!"

Do you dispute my opinion (not one you made up for me) that employers will weigh their risks in terminating an employee for religious reasons?

 

[KittenKoder]

No, whether it goes to court and the outcome of the trial is relevant. Thousands (perhaps more) frivolous lawsuits are filed every year.

The EEOC would not sue companies without legal precedent, as they are a federal agency.

Too much trust in the government, just because it's a federal agency doesn't mean they don't screw up or even ... ignore the law.

 

[eagleseven]

No, whether it goes to court and the outcome of the trial is relevant. Thousands (perhaps more) frivolous lawsuits are filed every year.

The EEOC would not sue companies without legal precedent, as they are a federal agency.

...and federal agencies are never wrong about the application of laws? No wonder you think the results of litigation are irrelevant.


WOW.


Time to find out if your alma mater has a refund policy.

Are you seriously in Human Resources? If so, there must be dozens of ex-employees who would enjoy castrating you...

 

[Shogun]

Thank you for your sanity.

translation: "WAAAAH WAAAAAH someone support my OPINION because I'm full of shit and am being called out for smelling like poop!"

Do you dispute my opinion (not one you made up for me) that employers will weigh their risks in terminating an employee for religious reasons?

Yes. In fact, employers won't bend over and allow anything that they are not legally required to do when it comes to their bottom line. Even if this means reminding a dogma junkie that they were hired to perform a job task instead of proselytize at the work place.

 

[del]

And, my point is that an employer would think long and hard about firing someone over this as they are not fans of getting into EEOC suits.

Unless someone can clearly prove an undue hardship on the other employees to justify that termination, the EEOC suit would be at a minimum a hassle and costly to the employer.

you need to learn to read or shut the fuck up.

Do tell, what have I gotten wrong here? Or is your MO just to continue with the 'I'm right, you're wrong so shut the fuck up' argument? If so, it's just an intellectually lazy pissing contest.

Clearly communicate your misunderstanding, or argue with my points, or just keep pissing. I suspect you'll just keep pissing. I concede pissing contests, so you'll win that one.

well, we'll start with where you say "Unless someone can clearly prove an undue hardship on the other employees to justify that termination, the EEOC suit would be at a minimum a hassle and costly to the employer." and the law says "Employers must permit employees to engage in religious expression, unless the religious expression would impose an undue hardship on the employer. Generally, an employer may not place more restrictions on religious expression than on other forms of expression that have a comparable effect on workplace efficiency.".

okay, fucknozzle?

chew on that for awhile and get back to me with yet another masterpiece of pseudointellectual hauteur and all around whining.

i look forward to it.

 

[Si modo]

translation: "WAAAAH WAAAAAH someone support my OPINION because I'm full of shit and am being called out for smelling like poop!"

Do you dispute my opinion (not one you made up for me) that employers will weigh their risks in terminating an employee for religious reasons?

Yes. In fact, employers won't bend over and allow anything that they are not legally required to do when it comes to their bottom line. Even if this means reminding a dogma junkie that they were hired to perform a job task instead of proselytize at the work place.

[Emphasis added] I didn't say reminding, I said terminating said employee.

 

[Shogun]

The EEOC would not sue companies without legal precedent, as they are a federal agency.

...and federal agencies are never wrong about the application of laws? No wonder you think the results of litigation are irrelevant.


WOW.


Time to find out if your alma mater has a refund policy.

Are you seriously in Human Resources? If so, there must be dozens of ex-employees who would enjoy castrating you...

Yes, I do. Perhaps you'll learn all about HR in your next internet lecture from the U. of Pheonix online.

My ex employees won't be the first people to get angry with their employment. In the meantime, there is a business to run which doesn't require input from laughable clones who clearly don't know what the fuck they are talking about.

 

[eagleseven]

Yes, I do. Perhaps you'll learn all about HR in your next internet lecture from the U. of Pheonix online.

My ex employees won't be the first people to get angry with their employment. In the meantime, there is a business to run which doesn't require input from laughable clones who clearly don't know what the fuck they are talking about.

Running HR in a Mexican Drug Cartel doesn't count...

 

[Si modo]

you need to learn to read or shut the fuck up.

Do tell, what have I gotten wrong here? Or is your MO just to continue with the 'I'm right, you're wrong so shut the fuck up' argument? If so, it's just an intellectually lazy pissing contest.

Clearly communicate your misunderstanding, or argue with my points, or just keep pissing. I suspect you'll just keep pissing. I concede pissing contests, so you'll win that one.

well, we'll start with where you say "Unless someone can clearly prove an undue hardship on the other employees to justify that termination, the EEOC suit would be at a minimum a hassle and costly to the employer." and the law says "Employers must permit employees to engage in religious expression, unless the religious expression would impose an undue hardship on the employer. Generally, an employer may not place more restrictions on religious expression than on other forms of expression that have a comparable effect on workplace efficiency.".

okay, fucknozzle?

chew on that for awhile and get back to me with yet another masterpiece of pseudointellectual hauteur and all around whining.

i look forward to it.

OK. That's a great gotcha. Congrats. However, as the original example brought up by ravi, and others continued, was a hardship on the employees, which would include a hardsip on the employer - not a real hard intellectual leap consider the example ravi brought up - I went with applying her example.

Anything else?

 

[Shogun]

Do you dispute my opinion (not one you made up for me) that employers will weigh their risks in terminating an employee for religious reasons?

Yes. In fact, employers won't bend over and allow anything that they are not legally required to do when it comes to their bottom line. Even if this means reminding a dogma junkie that they were hired to perform a job task instead of proselytize at the work place.

[Emphasis added] I didn't say reminding, I said terminating said employee.

Again, yes. private business is not going to roll over just so you can tell dorothy about how wonderful jesus is just because you threaten a lawsuit. Companies have lawyers and HR reps expressly meant to administer policy under legal requirement. As it stands, making you work instead of hold an impromptu revival is not a legal requirement on employment policy. Up to and including termination.

 

[Shogun]

Yes, I do. Perhaps you'll learn all about HR in your next internet lecture from the U. of Pheonix online.

My ex employees won't be the first people to get angry with their employment. In the meantime, there is a business to run which doesn't require input from laughable clones who clearly don't know what the fuck they are talking about.

Running HR in a Mexican Drug Cartel doesn't count...

neither does your educational background but who is counting?

 

[del]

Do tell, what have I gotten wrong here? Or is your MO just to continue with the 'I'm right, you're wrong so shut the fuck up' argument? If so, it's just an intellectually lazy pissing contest.

Clearly communicate your misunderstanding, or argue with my points, or just keep pissing. I suspect you'll just keep pissing. I concede pissing contests, so you'll win that one.

well, we'll start with where you say "Unless someone can clearly prove an undue hardship on the other employees to justify that termination, the EEOC suit would be at a minimum a hassle and costly to the employer." and the law says "Employers must permit employees to engage in religious expression, unless the religious expression would impose an undue hardship on the employer. Generally, an employer may not place more restrictions on religious expression than on other forms of expression that have a comparable effect on workplace efficiency.".

okay, fucknozzle?

chew on that for awhile and get back to me with yet another masterpiece of pseudointellectual hauteur and all around whining.

i look forward to it.

OK. That's a great gotcha. Congrats. However, as the original example brought up by ravi was a hardship on the employees, which would include a hardsip on the employer - not a real hard intellectual leap consider the example ravi brought up - I went with applying her example.

Anything else?

of course you did.

my bad for leaving *patronizing* out of " masterpiece of pseudointellectual hauteur and all around whining".

i won't make that mistake again.

 

[manifold]

My lords and ladies, for your entertainment I present a graphic representation of Si Modo's participation in this thread...























wait for it...




















Backpedal fail!

 

[Si modo]

Yes. In fact, employers won't bend over and allow anything that they are not legally required to do when it comes to their bottom line. Even if this means reminding a dogma junkie that they were hired to perform a job task instead of proselytize at the work place.

[Emphasis added] I didn't say reminding, I said terminating said employee.

Again, yes. private business is not going to roll over just so you can tell dorothy about how wonderful jesus is just because you threaten a lawsuit. Companies have lawyers and HR reps expressly meant to administer policy under legal requirement. As it stands, making you work instead of hold an impromptu revival is not a legal requirement on employment policy. Up to and including termination.

OK, then - you think employers do not weight their risks in terminating an employee for a religious issue. You and I do disagree on that and that happens.

 

[Si modo]

My lords and ladies, for your entertainment I present a graphic representation of Si Modo's participation in this thread...

wait for it...

Backpedal fail!

Another moron who cannot read.

If you were my employee and harassed the other employees over this or any subject I'd fire you, too.

As a private sector organization, you certainly could do that.

Personally, if I received no complaints from anyone, I would not do a thing to the employee as I would not want any possible EEO lawsuits on my hands. If I did receive complaints, I would talk to the employee and if that effected no change, I still would think long and hard about those EEO laws before firing anyone.

EEO laws are in place, so this OP seems rather like fear-mongering.

And a Christian wouldn't expect a Muslim to be fired over sharing their views.

This is exactly the shit that freedom of speech is supposed to prevent.

There is one flaw, freedom of speech is to prevent the government from restricting speech. While in a private business you actually do not have such a freedom. They can expel you just for saying a word they don't like.

They certainly can. But, this is a bit more shady as there are EEO laws to protect discrimination based on religion. So, a wise employer would weigh the risk of litigation, I would imagine.

 

[manifold]

Spin it anyway you want, you're not fooling me. I was there.