Yes, because their rules are no more arbitrary than religious ones.
Yes, I do have a problem with that. eg. If the rule said we don’t want Sikhs because they wear knives that would be wrong because that excludes Sikhs who don’t wear knives. The rule should be no knives for any reason.
Wait – are you arguing that religious schools – such as a Catholic parochial school – should be against the law?
:dubious: So according to you, in the case of firing a chess player, an employer has to make “a case” that the chess player’s hobby “interferes with [their] job”. But in the case of firing a turban wearer, no such case is necessary: the employer doesn’t have to provide any other justification for prohibiting such behavior besides the statement that they just don’t want it.
That’s quite a blatant double standard you got there. You might have a more convincing argument if you would make up your mind whether or not you think interference with the performance of one’s duties should be a necessary criterion for prohibiting certain behaviors in the workplace.
Of course. Why should separating kids on the basis of their religion be allowed? Send them all to the same school so they have a chance of interrelating with each other. Maybe you’d avoid people making rules based upon the set of ‘Sikh’ rather than ‘hat’ in the future.
Kimstu, I trying to say that wearing a hat outside of work isn’t the employer’s business, neither is playing chess. If you choose to wear a hat and play chess at work against your employer’s rules then he has a case against you. Forget about the term ‘interfere’ as I’m not sure it works with what I’m trying to say. Bad example, in other words.
What if I own a business and my best salesman is antisemitic. Can I fire you if I find out you’re Jewish as that could negatively affect my business? Could I refuse to hire you if you are black as the majority of my clients do not wish to be served by a black man?
Great examples. One question though. What is stopping someone now from doing any of this? Only an idiot would say they were firing someone for being Jewish or Black.
Presently there is a possibility, regardless of how remote, to recover damages from such a situation. In the case that you put forward of being able to terminate someone for “actively interfering with the job” there is no such chance. I was asking in order to find out if you were ok with that result or if there were further stipulations you would like to add other than “interferes with the job”.
Human rights legislation.
And the color of sky in your world is? Rose? Or is that just the shade of your sunglasses?
This is in the U.S., not Canada, but: Court Sustains Race Discrimination Case Against Auto Parts Store
Advance Auto Parts lost a suit in which an African-American employee was terminated. Though the stated reason for the man’s dismissal was a policy violation, he was nonetheless able to convince the court that the true reason was racial discrimination.
While this isn’t always easy, it is possible.
Where do you live, Uzi? Do you seriously wish to debate Canadian law with me?
Worked overseas for nine years and moved out of the Canada a year or two ago? Are you truly current on Canadian human rights law, or is it that you have your opinions and have confused opinion with law?
Er… I made a typo because it was late. Two actually, since I meant to type “not” not “nit”.
However for you to have known Sahih Bukari was a collection of the sayings during that discussion you’d have had to mistype several sentences, not just one word.
It’s a completely different thing.
Beyond that, there is not one proper way to write “Muslim” since its an Arabic word using the Arabic alphabet, though that’s a nitpick.
Uzi, are you seriously saying you’ve never heard of somebody winning a lawsuit against a former employer for wrongful termination on the basis of discrimination?
Certainly, not every such lawsuit is successful (and many of them are specious), but hell yes, it can happen. There is nothing unrealistic about noting that laws against discrimination in employment do sometimes protect employees from being discriminated against.
So your argument along the lines of “we should accept the right of employers to discriminate against anybody for any reason because if they wanted to discriminate they would just do it anyway and lie about it and get away with it”, besides being unethical, servile and poltroonish, is also unsupported by the facts.
What about other private schools? You have a problem with that?
So, there should be no special laws with respect to religion, except the ones specially designed to limit what religious people are allowed to do?
You haven’t really thought this out, have you?
I’d open a school for people who wear hats.
I’m thinking this out in this thread, actually. Like quite a few threads I participate in I do so to flesh out ideas, not to win, but to understand. Unlike the religious, I don’t have all the answers.
But I’ve already stated that no one should be stopping what religious people do legally. They are stopping what hat wearing people are wanting to do when they wish to participate in a voluntary activity that someone else is holding and only during that event.
[QUOTE= Muffin]
Do you seriously wish to debate Canadian law with me?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think my pov or argument in this covers employment. It is probably not a good example because my opinion on what is ‘voluntary’ is grey.
But, I will say that even though the law says something doesn’t mean that it is effective. I’ve seen reports on the affects of diversity training. One of the outcomes is that people mentioned in such training just don’t get hired. Link. Articles like the one in the link support my view that schools shouldn’t be segregated by religion.
Nope, they’re stopping what people who wear a particular type of hat, for religious reasons, are wanting to do.
The Quebec Soccer Federation does not appear ever to have given a jolly jack shit about non-Sikh players wearing headbands or bandannas, so attempting to present this decision as some kind of generic and reasonable ban on hats per se is not very convincing.
They’re not “segregated by religion”. They’re simply private schools that people may choose of their own free will.