Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Fair points but these cases have to be pretty rare, I doubt we will ever see a headline that indicates "Christian Awarded".
You mean like this one posted earlier?
Quote:
Originally Posted by middle-aged mom
Beverly Butcher worked as a laborer for the company for 33 years when the company switched to a biometric hand scan to record employee hours. She refused because biometric hand scanning violated her religious beliefs as an Evangelical Christian. The company refused to accommodate her and she filed a complaint with references to the sign of the beast, with the EEOC.
In August, a jury awarded Beverly $587,000 for failure to accommodate her religious beliefs.
Hmmm, she was awarded more than twice as much as these two Muslims, but I don't recall a thread in here bemoaning that judgement. Perhaps I missed it?
If your company is a trucking company that delivers alcohol then in the interview the question regarding islam is valid. "Are you muslim and if so, do you have problem delivering alcohol?" If they answer they won't deliver alcohol then it's not religious discrimination. It's not hiring someone not willing to do the job.
Well that's a creative response.
First of all you cannot ask a persons religion during an interview, that is a violation.
Secondly you only need to explain the duties and expectations of the job, if the person accepts that responsibility then they have no case. Even if alcohol is brought up they cannot deny a person a position unless it is a beer company or similar where the freight is entirely alcohol.
I am not arguing Christians have not been protected under the same law. I am arguing no one should be protected by this law. It is unnecessary.
I can understand it is a clear case of discrimination if one was denied a chance of employment because of his or her religious background, but the law should END AND STOP RIGHT THERE.
If you cannot do the job, then you should seek other employment. It should be that simple.
First of all you cannot ask a persons religion during an interview, that is a violation.
Secondly you only need to explain the duties and expectations of the job, if the person accepts that responsibility then they have no case. Even if alcohol is brought up they cannot deny a person a position unless it is a beer company or similar where the freight is entirely alcohol.
This is a token gesture and means nothing- the company went out of business last year.
Per article:
"Chief US District Judge James Shadid had found in favour of the commission in March, after the company admitted liability."
As a business owner, why waste resources on such a case when you know there can be no recovery?
There is no comparison to the "Kim Whoever" case since that was a *publicly funded* job which obviously was NOT going out of business like this company was. This company had no investment in the case either way. That is the massive difference. It's like winning because the other side didn't show up.
The plaintiffs will not be collecting this money.
It is unfortunate that this is just yet another issue to divide the country on......
Did the company pay the money ? if so,then bankruptcy did not change anything
So you would be alright if Walmart only hired Christians, how would the free market address that issue.
I already expressed my opinion on this. Go back and read.
If you are too lazy, here goes it again
I am not arguing Christians have not been protected under the same law. I am arguing no one should be protected by this law. It is unnecessary.
I can understand it is a clear case of discrimination if one was denied a chance of employment because of his or her religious background, but the law should END AND STOP RIGHT THERE.
If you cannot do the job, then you should seek other employment. It should be that simple.
You even agreed, remember? To be honest with you, yes, I would be alright if Walmart only hired Muslims. But that is just me. However, I also know this is not realistic, so I posted.
I can understand it is a clear case of discrimination if one was denied a chance of employment because of his or her religious background, but the law should END AND STOP RIGHT THERE.
Not like I have changed my mind about it
Private businesses should make ALL the decisions as long as they are aware of the fact this is a global market, as long as they can compete with everybody else, go for it. I agree with the Libertarian views when it comes to privately owned businesses. I simply don't believe too much power given to government when it comes to businesses.
How would free market address this issue? I have the freedom to hire whoever I want to hire, you have the freedom not buying my product. (trash me on social media network, write me negative yelp review, etc, etc) If my business is booming, then let me be, if my business has to file bankruptcy, then oh well. Businesses make the decisions, no need to use a lawsuit to ruin other people's businesses. Let free market make the decision. Eventually, all the racism, discrimination will be resolved because let's face it, no businesses can really afford being a real "bigot".
Last edited by lilyflower3191981; 11-04-2015 at 05:21 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
