[QUOTE=alice_in_wonderland]
This thread is getting really ugly, IMO. In some of the posts I’m detecting a rather strong anti-muslim tone, which I find very dismissive and offensive, so I think I’ll bow out.
[QUOTE]
Oh honey please. I would have this same exact opinion if it were a Jewish, Christian, Mormon, Buddhist, Hindu, Wiccan, Satanic, Amish, or atheist employer.
It doesn’t matter the brand of religion. I view all religions to be the same --and I don’t subscribe to any of them. No matter what the religion, I think it would be wrong and disgusting if an employer fired me for not following his religion’s rules at work. Just as I think it would be wrong and disgusting if an employer fired someone for practicing their religion.
Anyways. The employer could have done it out of philosophical beliefs instead of religion. Something like “no animal-based food in the company”. We wouldn’t have been having this discussion I suspect.
Again, this has nothing to do with her religion. It has to do with her being fired for not following another person’s religion’s rules.
I have asked this before, but let me ask again, specifically to you Mighty_Girl.
What if the Muslim employer had a rule that no female employee could have their hair or limbs uncovered at work? Muslim law mandates that women may not go uncovered. So should the woman wear a headscarf or be fired??
Same. Exact. Thing.
Not eating pork on premisis = not being covered on premisis. Both are things that are banned by Islam.
If you’re correct, then the employer is off free. It would be prohibited firing if it had something to do with her religion.
Whether it’s fair or not is not the issue I’m discussing; I’m only discussing whether it’d be legally prohibited. Your statements lead me to believe that you’d not consider it legally prohibited; am I correct, or did you misspeak above?
Okay, here’s a hypothetical. I work on a military base. Every morning and evening (the time varies with the time of sundown in the evenings) the National Anthem is played. If you are outside or driving between buildings on the base, you are supposed to stop your car or stand at attention, or at least in a respectful way, until it is over. Suppose I was a civilian foreign national hired on a long term work visa here. Hey, it’s not my anthem, why should I interrupt my business? I’m just going to keep on walking/driving.
So the CO gives me warning. Out of deference to the American majority here, we are asking you to observe the rule. (Note: I don’t have to salute the flag, just refrain from doing anything for a couple of minutes.)
I decide to ignore him and am caught doing it again. (In fact, in light of the bacon-nuking, we should probably suppose that I spend the time instead writing “US out of North America” in the dust on everybody’s windshields.) I’m canned.
What do you think? Was I discriminated against due to my nationality?
It has to do with her being forced to follow the rules of a religion not her own. When she didn’t, she was fired. I think this is wrong.
And, I do think this is illegal. Here’s why. We know there is a law allowing religious organizations to discriminate on basis of religion in hiring and to set rules for employees based on religion. It was cited earlier in this thread. Why would this exception exist in law if it wasn’t illegal to discriminate based on religion in non-religious institutions?
Does the employer have a legitimate nonreligious reason to make different work requirements of men and women (e.g., costuming purposes)?
Does the employer have similar requirements for men?
If the answer to either question is yes, then I’d expect that the rule is legal. If the answer to both questions is no, then I’d expect the rule to be illegal.
My answer is not related to religion, however: it’s related to sex-based discrimination. If the employer considered redheads (like myself) to be devilkin and required all redheads to wear burkhas, I do not see that I would have a case against the employer, since redheads, regrettably, are not a protected class.
They are different. One is an order to do something, another is the order NOT to do something. Maybe it’s just me but I notice a difference. The mohawk is a better example.
I think the hypothetical is not close enough to compare. Also since it deals with military rules, and not a private business, it’s apples and oranges. I am pretty sure there are many things you would be required to do in the military that wouldn’t work in the civillian private business world.
Because it’s illegal to discriminate based on the employee’s religion. If you have any evidence that it’s illegal to discriminate based on behavior relevant to the employer’s religion but not the employee’s religion, I beg you to produce it.
But you’ve said repeatedly that it has nothing to do with the employee’s religion in this case; absent any evidence that the employer can’t making personnel decisions based on the employer’s religion, when such decisions AREN’T based on the employee’s religion, I gotta figure that your belief is unsupported.
No, they are the same. One is an order not to eat pork, one is an order not to have your hair uncovered, **not to ** wear skirts above the ankle, and **not to ** wear short sleeves.
If your first statement is true, then my statements would be true too. She was fired based on her refusal to follow her employer’s religion’s rules. Because she wouldn’t act in a Muslim way, she was fired. It’s all related.
One should not be forced to follow another’s religious rules in order to stay employed.
In fact, that’s exactly why I bring up the example. There is a mixture of employees here, some (military) are expected to follow a strict and complicated set of rules about what to wear, how to address people, etc. In fact, they had better be smartly to attention when they hear the trumpet. The rest of us (GS and contractors) don’t have to worry about that stuff. All I have to do is stand still for a couple of minutes if I happen to get caught outside.
I’m not in the military. I’m paid by a private business. However, I do work at a military facility which has a few customs I am asked to respect.
She was working at a Muslim-owned business that had exactly one custom she was asked to respect, not by doing anthing at all, but by refraining from doing something she in no way needed to do in the first place. Not only did she ignore a polite request, she seems to have chosen to flout it in an extremely childish and offensive way.
I could be wrong here. But AFAIK, only members of the LDS church are required to wear the garments. The garments are worn underneath other clothing.
It’s a bad analogy.
The garments symbolize the relationship and covenant between LDS members, and God. As nonmembers have no such relationship and covenant, there is no reason for them to wear garments.
Unless somebody removed your shirt etc to examine you, there is no way to know if you are wearing garments.
Microwaving bacon would render the microwave, and the air itself, unclean.
Do you have to wear a garment that has religious symbols on it? Are there folks whose religion prevents them from wearing a religious symbol of a religion that they don’t believe in? Is this a red herring?
Answer: not allowed, because it requires people to do something that their religion forbids them to do, not merely do something that their religion doesn’t tell them whether or not to do.
If the Mormon employer requires all employees to wear a long-underwear-style suit under their clothes at all times, but allows the substitution of symbol-free long underwear, then guess what? You gotta do what your crazy-ass boss tells you to do.
You made a serious allegation - that this thread was beginning to take an anti-Muslim tone. I have been one of the most vocal posters in this thread against the rule and the woman’s firing. Therefore I responded to your comment. Was this a bad thing? Was this not allowed??
I think the analogy works. Let me take your sentence and apply it to the situation at hand.
Only members of the [Muslim religion] are required [not to eat pork]. Ok I know Jews can’t either.
The [non-eating of pork] symbolizes the relationship and covenant between [Muslims and Allah] because [Allah prohibits the eating of pork]. As [non-Muslims] have no such relationship and covenant [with Allah], there is no reason for them [to refrain from eating pork].
Ok microwaving the bacon was probably stupid and insensitive. I imagined her packing a ready-made BLT.
So, unless somebody [examined the contents of your lunch box], there is no way to know if you [have a ham and cheese sandwich in there].
I’m not using any definition for a halal kitchen. At the time this was brought up, we noted that the article said she was not allowed to bring any pork on company property. She was not allowed to eat a BLT in her car or on the lawn. The halal kitchen is fine if the company provides non-religious accommodations for non-muslim employees (which it claimed to hire freely). That was not the case, and the woman was not permitted to make her own accommodation by eating elsewhere. The rule was NO PORK ON PREMISES.
There is no anti-muslim tone in this thread whatsoever. I’m pretty anti-religion in general, especially when those who subscribe to it push it into others’ lives. The fact that these people are muslim is no big deal. I don’t like christianity or catholicism either. Actions such as those made by the religious zealot in question reinforce my opinion that religion is a divisive, mean-spirited pasttime. A good worker lost her job because of some guy’s perception that *someone else’s * food is unclean? Shame on anyone who defends such a ridiculous act.
I’d like to continue here, but I’ll have to hop back on Monday. Have a good weekend, all.
