Barack Obama: Muslim elders too 'boring' to win Isil propaganda war

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Celeste Chalfonte
    apostate
    • Saturday, October 5, 2013
    • 27897

    #46
    Originally posted by Norm dePlume View Post
    I have heard (or read) people on this board argue for allowing pharmacists to refuse to sell legal drugs that violate the pharmacist's religious beliefs.
    Not I.
    "Since the historic ruling, the Lovings have become icons for equality. Mildred released a statement on the 40th anniversary of the ruling in 2007: 'I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, Black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.'." - Mildred Loving (Loving v. Virginia)

    Comment

    • Norm dePlume
      Err foil
      • Tuesday, October 22, 2013
      • 14904

      #47
      Originally posted by Celeste Chalfonte View Post
      Not I.
      That's true. It wasn't you.

      And some of the complaints I agree with. A person should show their face on their driver's license photo. For those who don't like that, they can join the hundreds of millions of other folks who don't like their drivers license photo.

      But the foot basin thing is not in the realm of reasonable complaint.
      Enjoy.

      Comment

      • phillygirl
        Not superior, just kind
        • Wednesday, October 2, 2013
        • 19840

        #48
        Originally posted by Norm dePlume View Post
        I have heard (or read) people on this board argue for allowing pharmacists to refuse to sell legal drugs that violate the pharmacist's religious beliefs.
        Sort of like a pharmacy store refusing to sell legal tobacco products because it's against their beliefs.
        Not where I breathe, but where I love, I live...
        Robert Southwell, S.J.

        Comment

        • phillygirl
          Not superior, just kind
          • Wednesday, October 2, 2013
          • 19840

          #49
          Originally posted by Norm dePlume View Post
          Is there another case besides this one? Because in this one, it's like I said. The Muslim didn't demand any special wash basin, she just dealt with it as best she could and she got fired for it.
          And the employer was sued for not providing one for her.
          Not where I breathe, but where I love, I live...
          Robert Southwell, S.J.

          Comment

          • Norm dePlume
            Err foil
            • Tuesday, October 22, 2013
            • 14904

            #50
            Originally posted by phillygirl View Post
            And the employer was sued for not providing one for her.
            That's how you see it, counselor? I think her getting fired was more the issue.
            Enjoy.

            Comment

            • phillygirl
              Not superior, just kind
              • Wednesday, October 2, 2013
              • 19840

              #51
              Originally posted by Norm dePlume View Post
              That's how you see it, counselor? I think her getting fired was more the issue.
              She was fired for using patients' rooms to wash her feet. The employer was sued for not providing her with a place to wash her feet for her religious prayers. So, yes, that's how this counselor sees it. It wasn't that someone said "hey, let's provide an accommodation". It was that someone said "hey, these are our rules. If the employee sink is too high for you to wash your feet in, I'm sorry, but you can't go into the patients' rooms and use their showers for it. It says so in the handbook and everything.
              Not where I breathe, but where I love, I live...
              Robert Southwell, S.J.

              Comment

              • Norm dePlume
                Err foil
                • Tuesday, October 22, 2013
                • 14904

                #52
                Originally posted by phillygirl View Post
                She was fired for using patients' rooms to wash her feet. The employer was sued for not providing her with a place to wash her feet for her religious prayers. So, yes, that's how this counselor sees it. It wasn't that someone said "hey, let's provide an accommodation". It was that someone said "hey, these are our rules. If the employee sink is too high for you to wash your feet in, I'm sorry, but you can't go into the patients' rooms and use their showers for it. It says so in the handbook and everything.
                You think there would have been a lawsuit if she hadn't gotten fired?

                Title VII is the statutory source for Tyson's claim of religiously motivated discharge (discussed below) and her claim for failure to accommodate. At the prima facie stage, however, the two claims have different focal points. The discharge inquiry focuses on the extent to which Tyson's religious beliefs and affiliation motivated Clarian's decision to terminate her employment. The accommodation test focuses on the extent to which Tyson's external religious practices influenced the adverse employment action.
                Enjoy.

                Comment

                • phillygirl
                  Not superior, just kind
                  • Wednesday, October 2, 2013
                  • 19840

                  #53
                  Originally posted by Norm dePlume View Post
                  You think there would have been a lawsuit if she hadn't gotten fired?
                  I'm not certain the relevance of your question, given my position:



                  You would be right, if an employer couldn't be sued for failing to provide a place for ablutions. Unfortunately, an employer can be. So the accommodation is mandatory.
                  Not where I breathe, but where I love, I live...
                  Robert Southwell, S.J.

                  Comment

                  • Celeste Chalfonte
                    apostate
                    • Saturday, October 5, 2013
                    • 27897

                    #54
                    Originally posted by Norm dePlume View Post
                    That's true. It wasn't you.

                    And some of the complaints I agree with. A person should show their face on their driver's license photo. For those who don't like that, they can join the hundreds of millions of other folks who don't like their drivers license photo.

                    But the foot basin thing is not in the realm of reasonable complaint.
                    Depends. If it costs money or causes a hazard, it may be. We don't require all government food service facilities to keep kosher to accommodate Jewish employees. If a woman's religion requires her to wear dresses instead of pants, I don't have to hire her as a roofer.If I have a restaurant that's open Wednesday through Sunday, closed Monday and Tuesday, and I need full-time employees, I don't have to let the Christians off on Sunday or the Adventists on Saturday. Working Saturday and Sunday is a requirement of the job. If they can't do that, they need to find a job that's Monday - Friday.


                    I never understood how a man wearing a kippah under his helmet or uniform hat would cause the military a problem, but if he insists on wearing his tallis, there are both performance and good military order issues. A guy who won't cut his beard may be a safety hazard on an assembly line or at a fry cook station.
                    "Since the historic ruling, the Lovings have become icons for equality. Mildred released a statement on the 40th anniversary of the ruling in 2007: 'I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, Black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.'." - Mildred Loving (Loving v. Virginia)

                    Comment

                    • Gingersnap
                      Resident stylistic consultant
                      • Tuesday, October 1, 2013
                      • 24058

                      #55
                      Originally posted by Celeste Chalfonte View Post
                      ETA: This is your cue to say, "Whatever, lady." or some other dismissive phrase instead of responding to the substance. Having been "old left" before I was "new left," I'm quite accustomed to the unexamined misogyny of male lefties. It explains a lot about the 1970s. Funny how those attitudes seem to be perpetuated among politically "enlightened" men, and surface when some uppity bitch disagrees with them.
                      And he hits it out of the ballpark on cue.

                      Using purported psychic powers to determine what a woman "is really saying" and then repackaging the resultant crap on behalf of the woman in question is a standard tactic of dismissive men.

                      I'm happy to clarify any positions or views that I have actually made and I'm willing to do so without resorting to cartoons, dated song lyrics, or references to canceled TV shows or old movies.

                      In this thread, I was clear but apparently not clear enough.

                      At this moment, it is Muslims demanding accommodation for various things but I would not be okay with pagans, Roman Catholics, or Pentecostals demanding their various things. Your business is your business - you don't have to sell pork or bake cakes or work on Saturday or pick up my dog in your taxi.

                      You do have to let me know ahead of time that you won't do those things. That's your business if your own that business

                      You can't conceal your face, work in unsafe clothing, demand special shifts, breaks, or holidays that my business can't accommodate, or refuse to touch women, dogs, or foods/drinks if it's required - that's my business if I own that business.

                      In government facilities, you can't restrict my access because of my sex. You can't manage my food or clothing choices because of religion. You can't use your cultural background to inform and circumvent family law, domestic abuse charges, or child abuse laws (as the Amish know all too well).

                      If public facilities offer foot washing basins, chapels, or religious art, you cannot make me use these items as the various believers would. I can let my service dog drink from a foot-washing basin, play cards in the back of a hospital chapel, or take irreverent selfies in front of a religious icon. As long as I am quiet, do no damage, and don't disrupt others I can eat a pulled pork sandwich in a public library designated food area while wearing a mini skirt and surfing Orthodox Jewish discussion boards in between posting on my preferred fetish site.
                      "Alexa, slaughter the fatted calf."

                      Comment

                      • Celeste Chalfonte
                        apostate
                        • Saturday, October 5, 2013
                        • 27897

                        #56
                        Originally posted by Gingersnap View Post
                        And he hits it out of the ballpark on cue.

                        Using purported psychic powers to determine what a woman "is really saying" and then repackaging the resultant crap on behalf of the woman in question is a standard tactic of dismissive men.

                        I'm happy to clarify any positions or views that I have actually made and I'm willing to do so without resorting to cartoons, dated song lyrics, or references to canceled TV shows or old movies.

                        In this thread, I was clear but apparently not clear enough.

                        At this moment, it is Muslims demanding accommodation for various things but I would not be okay with pagans, Roman Catholics, or Pentecostals demanding their various things. Your business is your business - you don't have to sell pork or bake cakes or work on Saturday or pick up my dog in your taxi.

                        You do have to let me know ahead of time that you won't do those things. That's your business if your own that business

                        You can't conceal your face, work in unsafe clothing, demand special shifts, breaks, or holidays that my business can't accommodate, or refuse to touch women, dogs, or foods/drinks if it's required - that's my business if I own that business.

                        In government facilities, you can't restrict my access because of my sex. You can't manage my food or clothing choices because of religion. You can't use your cultural background to inform and circumvent family law, domestic abuse charges, or child abuse laws (as the Amish know all too well).

                        If public facilities offer foot washing basins, chapels, or religious art, you cannot make me use these items as the various believers would. I can let my service dog drink from a foot-washing basin, play cards in the back of a hospital chapel, or take irreverent selfies in front of a religious icon. As long as I am quiet, do no damage, and don't disrupt others I can eat a pulled pork sandwich in a public library designated food area while wearing a mini skirt and surfing Orthodox Jewish discussion boards in between posting on my preferred fetish site.
                        Meet you at the library? I wanna watch.

                        Seriously, though, I disagree with some of those. If you're granted a taxi license by the government, accept all comers or go home. If you can't accept all comers, open a halal market, work in a computer lab or do something else that isn't a common carrier. Common carriers are governed by different rules.

                        I agree that a kosher or halal market or restaurant can't be compelled to serve pork. They can be compelled to sell the stock they carry to women, gentiles, infidels and queers.
                        Last edited by Celeste Chalfonte; Tuesday, August 18, 2015, 6:02 PM.
                        "Since the historic ruling, the Lovings have become icons for equality. Mildred released a statement on the 40th anniversary of the ruling in 2007: 'I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, Black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.'." - Mildred Loving (Loving v. Virginia)

                        Comment

                        • Gingersnap
                          Resident stylistic consultant
                          • Tuesday, October 1, 2013
                          • 24058

                          #57
                          Originally posted by Celeste Chalfonte View Post
                          Meet you at the library? I wanna watch.
                          Get in line, babe.
                          "Alexa, slaughter the fatted calf."

                          Comment

                          • phillygirl
                            Not superior, just kind
                            • Wednesday, October 2, 2013
                            • 19840

                            #58
                            Originally posted by Celeste Chalfonte View Post
                            Meet you at the library? I wanna watch.

                            Seriously, though, I disagree with some of those. If you're granted a taxi license by the government, accept all comers or go home. If you can't accept all comers, open a halal market, work in a computer lab or do something else that isn't a common carrier. Common carriers are governed by different rules.

                            I agree that a kosher or halal market or restaurant can't be compelled to serve pork. They can be compelled to sell the stock they carry to women, gentiles, infidels and queers.
                            Then why must a Christian pharmacist sell Plan B or RU 486?
                            Not where I breathe, but where I love, I live...
                            Robert Southwell, S.J.

                            Comment

                            • Celeste Chalfonte
                              apostate
                              • Saturday, October 5, 2013
                              • 27897

                              #59
                              Originally posted by phillygirl View Post
                              Then why must a Christian pharmacist sell Plan B or RU 486?
                              I haven't seen a case where the pharmacist was told what to stock. I have seen cases where the chain store carried RU-486 or Plan B, but the pharmacist refused to sell it. If I have a pharmacy degree, I can open a "holistic pharmacy" and only carry herbal remedies, as far as I know. Walgreen's and CVS, however, carry prescription medication. The pharmacist's job is to fill the prescriptions written by a doctor. Would you have a problem if you went to your local Walgreen's with your Rx for, say, your hemophilia meds and the pharmacist said, "Sorry, I won't sell you that. It contains blood products and I'm a Jehovah's Witness."? Or you wanted your migraine Rx and he wouldn't sell it because it contains caffeine and he's Mormon?
                              "Since the historic ruling, the Lovings have become icons for equality. Mildred released a statement on the 40th anniversary of the ruling in 2007: 'I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, Black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.'." - Mildred Loving (Loving v. Virginia)

                              Comment

                              • phillygirl
                                Not superior, just kind
                                • Wednesday, October 2, 2013
                                • 19840

                                #60
                                Originally posted by Celeste Chalfonte View Post
                                I haven't seen a case where the pharmacist was told what to stock. I have seen cases where the chain store carried RU-486 or Plan B, but the pharmacist refused to sell it. If I have a pharmacy degree, I can open a "holistic pharmacy" and only carry herbal remedies, as far as I know. Walgreen's and CVS, however, carry prescription medication. The pharmacist's job is to fill the prescriptions written by a doctor. Would you have a problem if you went to your local Walgreen's with your Rx for, say, your hemophilia meds and the pharmacist said, "Sorry, I won't sell you that. It contains blood products and I'm a Jehovah's Witness."? Or you wanted your migraine Rx and he wouldn't sell it because it contains caffeine and he's Mormon?
                                Two different issues for me. If it's CVS, and there is not a reasonable accommodation that can be made for a pharmacist with a legitimate religious objection to selling plan b (i.e., there are always 2 pharmacists on duty and the other pharmacist can handle the transaction), then I think CVS can tell him tough and fire him. However, if the pharmacist owns the pharmacy and chooses not to stock plan b, I think that is his choice and he can sell all the antibiotics and everything else he wants, but choose not to sell plan b. If i'm the hemophiliac, I'll find the pharmacy that is run by the WASP so I can get my blood products.
                                Not where I breathe, but where I love, I live...
                                Robert Southwell, S.J.

                                Comment

                                Working...