Message Board Archives

Link Text

lots of people in line waiting for a job...she can go find another

In reply to ray

She deserved to be fired, I am certain she knew at some point a customer/passenger will request alcohol. Moreover, if she is so strong in faith, then giving up the job should be easy and a no brainer,

I will also add, her faith requires her to uphold her duties to which she is getting compensated for, if her job conflicts with her faith, then she should do the honorable thing and resign.

It is un-islamic for her to collect wages while refusing to perform her duties.

There was prior accommodation . The woman did not just up one day and said she was not serving alcohol. If a worker is granted accommodation for whatever reason that arrangement continues until the employee no longer need to be accommodated...

In reply to Kay

Or until the employer revokes that accommodation for whatever reason- that accommodation is not a lifetime right, it was a privilege and the employee should be grateful while it lasted.

In reply to Emir

This is the first time you have been right on anything to do with muslims

Meanwhile in central Europe, tens of thousands of muslims are risking life and limb in a desperate attempt to get to Germany in time for Oktoberfest.

This sounds like a hoax

In reply to JohnDoe

why ,or they also heading to Saudi Arabia?

In reply to JohnDoe

Don't be a jackass and make fun of the refugee crisis.

You know if another person had wrote this you would be cussing and bawling race:

Meanwhile in central Europe, tens of thousands of BLACKS are risking life and limb in a desperate attempt to get to Germany in time for Oktoberfest

In reply to camos

B/c the leaders of Saudi Arabia are also persecuting Muslims and they are directly responsible for the Syrian crisis- they are arming and funding terrorism against Muslims.

The Syrians will rightfully stay and die in Syria instead of going to their persecutors arms.

Now you know

In reply to JohnDoe

As a Muslim, I support the idea of Oktoberfest

In reply to JohnDoe

That is a good One .

In reply to Emir

Do you disagree with cricketers/sportsmen like Hashim Amla and Riyad Emrit not wearing alcohol sponsor jerseys?

Should talented promising sportsmen just abandon sport because almost all sport is sponsored by Beer/Alcohol Companies?

In reply to BenGman

I agree the sportsman have a right to refuse to endorse so called sin products such as drugs- tobacco.alcohol/gambling/sex etc.

It is a very different case from than of an employee of the firm. As cricketers or sportsmen, they are not employees of the advertiser at all. Moreover, refusing to wear a sponsor's logo in sports by various sportsmen in many American sports is the norm.

Reason include political, social, religious and cultural:

A Hindu sportsman refusing to wear McDonalds Logo in NJ
A Jewish tennis player refusing to endorse a company that sells pork bacon
A fundamentalist Christian refusing to play for a charity because the charity has African American and mixed race advocacy.

All of these whether you agree with the cause or not, the sportsman has the right to refuse because he or she does not work nor are they employed by the advertiser.

I will end by reminding you that with respect to the cricketers, not single alcohol advertiser has objected, because they understand and accept the player's right.

In reply to POINT

What is good about that?

In reply to Emir

What about say Royal Challengers Bangalore or other teams owned by an Alcohol company... a player should not enter the draft at all?

Or a clerk working for the government. One should not take a clerk job just incase sometime in the future the laws change and the clerk will have to issue a marriage license? Discrimination is both ways... the person who wants a marriage license/company serving the alcohol AND the person who refuses to serve alcohol/issue a marriage license. I disagree with your statement that the person should not have accepted the job at all.

In reply to BenGman

You are comparing apples and oranges. A sportsman and an employee of a firm are two different things- It is universally recognized that sportsmen are in a unique category of employment, unlike all other job relationships.

A person truly strong in faith will not take a job that compromise his or her faith, and they will do so with a smile.

The outlaw clerk Davis is taking tax payers dollars and refusing to uphold the law- in this case her duties she is being paid for.

Amla, Rayard and Kohli do not refuse to bat and or bowl or field because the a sponsor sells beef-burgers or rum- they do their job without exception.

In reply to ray

Now Americans/Republicans like Huckabee have a problem. They are supporting Kim Davis in Kentucky based on religious grounds. But religious grounds are religious grounds and should apply to Christians and Muslims. It will be interesting to see if this now becomes an issue.

In reply to bobby

Well let me explain it to you. Religious rights for HUCKABEE and the Christian fundamentalist caste, the right wing mis fits, mean rights only for their warped version of Christianity. They do not recognize other faiths as deserving the same rights granted to fundamentalist Christianity.

In reply to Emir

Does your employer has the right to change your job functions/duties without giving you a choice

In reply to Petrus2

Daivs is a federal employee and is subject to federal laws...and those laws can always change...part of the job

In reply to ray

I don't think she is a federal employee but the Supreme Court ruling takes precedence over state laws.

In reply to Petrus2

Yes.

Two choices are given- accept the change or leave.

This is a wonderful thing, the world is dynamic and no job stays the same.

In the USA, the doctrine of "employment at will" generally means an employers can terminate an employee at anytime and for no particular reason. Discrimination based on certain protected status such as race, religion etc not covered and the employer must apply a consistent standard for all employees.\


Now, this doctrine is regarded by economist as a wonderful thing- as it has been proven for over 100 years now and in contrast to Western Europe where an employer cannot easily fire an employee.

In reply to Emir

Didn't the clerk have the job before the laws changed?

Any job spec can change after you gain employment so you can't say I won't take any job because I may be asked to do something in the future I don't want to do. A person can take any job until they no longer want to do what is requested or pursue litigation if they feel wronged.

I understand the desire for nationalism. In Primary and Secondary school I felt left out because I wasn't of the same religious persuasions as those institutions. It was hard as a child. When I entered a tertiary institution the same as my beliefs I could breathe for the first time. I didn't have to explain to teachers why I will prefer to take zero on a test instead of doing an exam on Sabbath, or cause the team to loose because their best player would not play Friday night. Now the school fights those battles for us. Sports leagues make arrangements for the whole team not just individuals and even my lecturer for an internship I did this summer (not that I needed defending).

It's the same thing in the working environment...you not drinking alcohol at the office party or going to the boss's birthday party or having to leave a job. Right now I just accept that it's ok not to belong. Some people fight though. My stance is work for yourself if you want your own rules, but no man is an island. You have to interact with other people sometime, just choose your battles.

In reply to BenGman

Makes no difference. The employer reserves the right to change or terminate the job and the employee has a right to leave the job for any reason and at anytime.