That is just it, though. This woman doesn't have the right to eat whatever she wants. Period.
You asked "Why not respect their religious ideologies?", and I responded to the issue of respect for those ideologies, not the woman's rights to eat something or not.
Certainly in her own home, and in general, I'd say that this woman does have the right of "freedom of eats", if you will. No, there are no specific food-oriented amendments in the US constitution, but I think it's fair to construe the ninth amendment as applying here, in a case where the state has no compelling or abiding interest in regulating or vetoing the personal dietic choices of its citizenry.
How her right to eat what she wishes and her employer's right to establish rules of conduct for his place of business should be balanced is a trickier issue. But how to balance these rights is also besides the point for whether or not I "respect" the employer's beliefs, or whether I think he's being asshole. It may very well turn out that in a legalistic sense he has the right to fire her, but I don't have to respect him for firing her, not respect the so-called religious beliefs which are being used as an excuse for his behavior.
See, the problem is, the "no pork" rule wasn't written in the company's code of conduct. If it was, the business owner would have no problem in court. Since he fired her based on a verbal rule, I think she'll win.
I do think the no Pepsi at the Coca Cola company would be valid, but I bet you dollars to donuts the policy would be in writing.
Such "no Pepsi" rules have been applied to employees who work for companies that do work for Coca Cola, eg. lawyers, ad firms, etc. Had to do with bigwigs from Coke visiting our little company that was hoping to grab a bigger piece of their spending. I was victim to one in the past. I basically told the middle-management type to stuff it and that he should have the Coke machines we got doling out the soft drinks for free, but if it was my money, I was going to spend it how I chose to.
Obviously I was pushing an envelope at work, and they decided not to pursue what they felt "was within their rights", but I feel if someone expects me to comprimise, they have to as well. I'll drink your Coke if it's free! I won't eat pork if you've got a free lunch for me!
You asked "Why not respect their religious ideologies?", and I responded to the issue of respect for those ideologies, not the woman's rights to eat something or not.
Certainly in her own home, and in general, I'd say that this woman does have the right of "freedom of eats", if you will. No, there are no specific food-oriented amendments in the US constitution, but I think it's fair to construe the ninth amendment as applying here, in a case where the state has no compelling or abiding interest in regulating or vetoing the personal dietic choices of its citizenry.
How her right to eat what she wishes and her employer's right to establish rules of conduct for his place of business should be balanced is a trickier issue. But how to balance these rights is also besides the point for whether or not I "respect" the employer's beliefs, or whether I think he's being asshole. It may very well turn out that in a legalistic sense he has the right to fire her, but I don't have to respect him for firing her, not respect the so-called religious beliefs which are being used as an excuse for his behavior.
when i say respect her religious beliefs, it means just that -- respect that they are the person's beliefs.
Edit: And btw, I don't believe the 9th amendment applies to businesses... At least it hasn't been extended to businesses.
I dont understand muslems at all. I may just have to read the Koran to get a better understanding for their refined sense of respect for others. Hell, I may just do that...while I'm eating a ham sandwich, sitting on the toilet (crapping out my BLT from lunch), and petting my house-broken pet pig. This is a clear-cut case of discrimination.
This is the kind of story I think about whenever I see some Muslem kids family suing the schoolboard because theres an american flag hanging in their kids classroom and it offends their child. "You live in F--king America!!" Our judicial system is set up to protect citizens from discrimination not from getting your f--king feelings hurt because you dont like america or its culture.
Totally! What is with them imposing their beliefs on everyone else?! They want to put the 10 commandments in every government building and school?! Teaching the bible as if it's science?! Pushing to change the constitution to fit their religious beliefs?! If they don't like america they can geeeeiiit the fck out!
Ohhhhhhh.....you were ranting about a different religion. Sorry.
Without a written policy, the company is in the wrong. But where do you draw the line? If she went out for lunch and ate a BBQ pork sandwich then came back and 'breathed' near anyone who could smell it, would they still fire her? Wouldn't that be just as 'unclean' as if she ate the sandwich at work? What if she dribbled pork from that sandwich on her clothes? Wouldn't that make her 'unclean' and prevent her from returning to work? The policy is unreasonable, and probably unconstitutional, whether in writing or not. Of course if she signed something when she was hired, that would be different.
Totally! What is with them imposing their beliefs on everyone else?! They want to put the 10 commandments in every government building and school?! Teaching the bible as if it's science?! Pushing to change the constitution to fit their religious beliefs?! If they don't like america they can geeeeiiit the fck out!
Ohhhhhhh.....you were ranting about a different religion. Sorry.
Giant, although it isnt against the law would it not be assenine of me to ride with you to work every day (in your car, you driving, and using your gas) and turn your radio off as soon as I get in? If simply couldent listen to music because it offended me. I get the same kind of feelings when I hear these types of stories and cant even comprehend moving to India starting a business and then firing an employee because they smelled bad. "I told them to shower, because cow urine oder is offensive to me, but he just kept showing up smelling that way". It would be stupid for me to do that so why is it not the same here?
The policy is unreasonable, and probably unconstitutional, whether in writing or not.
Unreasonable, yes. Unconstitutional in the US? Not likely. I don't know about the specifics of various US state constitutions, but the US federal constitution, where it deals with individual rights, deals with relationships between the State and the citizenry, not with relationships between one citizen and another when neither are acting on behalf of the State.
There is federal civil rights legislation that deals with such issues, but as far as I know you can't really say, for example, that an employer has violated the constitutional rights of an employee, only that he has violated the employee's legal rights, rights which exists through acts of law rather than by way of constitutional protections.
Unreasonable, yes. Unconstitutional in the US? Not likely. I don't know about the specifics of various US state constitutions, but the US federal constitution, where it deals with individual rights, deals with relationships between the State and the citizenry, not with relationships between one citizen and another when neither are acting on behalf of the State.
There is federal civil rights legislation that deals with such issues, but as far as I know you can't really say, for example, that an employer has violated the constitutional rights of an employee, only that he has violated the employee's legal rights, rights which exists through acts of law rather than by way of constitutional protections.
Actually, that isn't exactly right shet. The supreme court has and does apply the federal constitution to places of business. only it does it one amendment at a time.
I hear these types of stories and cant even comprehend moving to India starting a business and then firing an employee because they smelled bad. "I told them to shower, because cow urine oder is offensive to me, but he just kept showing up smelling that way" It would be stupid for me to do that...
Or bother to write such racist crap.
Quote:
Originally posted by Aurora
The company is a bunch of muslim fanatics, i would eat a BLT and then throw the bacon everywhere along with ham sandwiches and a few ribs. more B.S. by the fanatics. some of these ideas are just stupid and sounds like these fanatics are not living in the 21st century. zealots have many forms and they all suck including this company. Pork for everyone screw this companies faith and idiotic practice of missing out on Pork BBQ!
Yeah, all those jew fanatics and their idiotic practices, according to you.
At least we know who the anti-semites and racists in AO are.
Totally! What is with them imposing their beliefs on everyone else?! They want to put the 10 commandments in every government building and school?! Teaching the bible as if it's science?! Pushing to change the constitution to fit their religious beliefs?! If they don't like america they can geeeeiiit the fck out!
Ohhhhhhh.....you were ranting about a different religion. Sorry.
Please dont let money-grubbing-holier-than-thou blowhard freaks like Pat Robertson, Jerry fall-well and others of that ilk represent the Christian community at large, for example, a ton of faithfull, church-going Christians laughed at the disney boycot of the mid-90s all of the way to the theater to catch Toy Story. I could go on at a greater length about how a few rotten freaks give Christianity a bad rap, but this isnt the place.
Actually, that isn't exactly right shet. The supreme court has and does apply the federal constitution to places of business. only it does it one amendment at a time.
Can you cite any cases where this has been done? I'm not doubting that such cases might exist -- I don't claim any expertise in constitutional law -- but I'd be curious which amendments could apply in such cases, and if there are connections to government, such businesses working on federal contracts, involved.
My guess is that the only federal constitutional issues involved in civil rights cases concerning private businesses doing non-government work, and how those businesses treat their employees, would be cases dealing with the constitutionality of the laws which enforce the observance of civil rights upon the employers, not any direct-from-the-constitution obligations upon employers to observe specific constitutional rights of their employees.
Giant, although it isnt against the law would it not be assenine of me to ride with you to work every day (in your car, you driving, and using your gas) and turn your radio off as soon as I get in? If simply couldent listen to music because it offended me. I get the same kind of feelings when I hear these types of stories and cant even comprehend moving to India starting a business and then firing an employee because they smelled bad. "I told them to shower, because cow urine oder is offensive to me, but he just kept showing up smelling that way". It would be stupid for me to do that so why is it not the same here?
Blimey.
Did you know that in India they have cities, air conditioning, weather reports with computer graphics in and even MP3 players? It's great there.
Furthermore, I used to go out with a girl from South India and I can report that neither she nor her parents smelled of cow urine.
2. The rule is CLEARLY based on religion. Imposing it on people who do not practice said religion is ILLEGAL.
Employers can make policies. These policies should be written, or employees can claim that they don't exist. Secondly, an employer cannot make a policy that is based on his religious beliefs and then make adherence to that policy a condition of employment.
Seriously...someone refute that.
If this was a Cathlolic banning beef on Good Friday, how would you feel?
This is nothing other than propoganda war against Muslims.
Why don't we start reporting on the fanatical churches down south?
That's crazy. A propoganda war? How so? And really...speaking of propoganda, what is this with the "fanatical churches" down south? If I made a statement like this about muslims, I'd be called a racist shitbag.
Comments
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
That is just it, though. This woman doesn't have the right to eat whatever she wants. Period.
You asked "Why not respect their religious ideologies?", and I responded to the issue of respect for those ideologies, not the woman's rights to eat something or not.
Certainly in her own home, and in general, I'd say that this woman does have the right of "freedom of eats", if you will. No, there are no specific food-oriented amendments in the US constitution, but I think it's fair to construe the ninth amendment as applying here, in a case where the state has no compelling or abiding interest in regulating or vetoing the personal dietic choices of its citizenry.
How her right to eat what she wishes and her employer's right to establish rules of conduct for his place of business should be balanced is a trickier issue. But how to balance these rights is also besides the point for whether or not I "respect" the employer's beliefs, or whether I think he's being asshole. It may very well turn out that in a legalistic sense he has the right to fire her, but I don't have to respect him for firing her, not respect the so-called religious beliefs which are being used as an excuse for his behavior.
I do think the no Pepsi at the Coca Cola company would be valid, but I bet you dollars to donuts the policy would be in writing.
Such "no Pepsi" rules have been applied to employees who work for companies that do work for Coca Cola, eg. lawyers, ad firms, etc. Had to do with bigwigs from Coke visiting our little company that was hoping to grab a bigger piece of their spending. I was victim to one in the past. I basically told the middle-management type to stuff it and that he should have the Coke machines we got doling out the soft drinks for free, but if it was my money, I was going to spend it how I chose to.
Obviously I was pushing an envelope at work, and they decided not to pursue what they felt "was within their rights", but I feel if someone expects me to comprimise, they have to as well. I'll drink your Coke if it's free! I won't eat pork if you've got a free lunch for me!
Originally posted by shetline
You asked "Why not respect their religious ideologies?", and I responded to the issue of respect for those ideologies, not the woman's rights to eat something or not.
Certainly in her own home, and in general, I'd say that this woman does have the right of "freedom of eats", if you will. No, there are no specific food-oriented amendments in the US constitution, but I think it's fair to construe the ninth amendment as applying here, in a case where the state has no compelling or abiding interest in regulating or vetoing the personal dietic choices of its citizenry.
How her right to eat what she wishes and her employer's right to establish rules of conduct for his place of business should be balanced is a trickier issue. But how to balance these rights is also besides the point for whether or not I "respect" the employer's beliefs, or whether I think he's being asshole. It may very well turn out that in a legalistic sense he has the right to fire her, but I don't have to respect him for firing her, not respect the so-called religious beliefs which are being used as an excuse for his behavior.
when i say respect her religious beliefs, it means just that -- respect that they are the person's beliefs.
Edit: And btw, I don't believe the 9th amendment applies to businesses... At least it hasn't been extended to businesses.
This is the kind of story I think about whenever I see some Muslem kids family suing the schoolboard because theres an american flag hanging in their kids classroom and it offends their child. "You live in F--king America!!" Our judicial system is set up to protect citizens from discrimination not from getting your f--king feelings hurt because you dont like america or its culture.
Ohhhhhhh.....you were ranting about a different religion. Sorry.
Originally posted by giant
Totally! What is with them imposing their beliefs on everyone else?! They want to put the 10 commandments in every government building and school?! Teaching the bible as if it's science?! Pushing to change the constitution to fit their religious beliefs?! If they don't like america they can geeeeiiit the fck out!
Ohhhhhhh.....you were ranting about a different religion. Sorry.
Giant, although it isnt against the law would it not be assenine of me to ride with you to work every day (in your car, you driving, and using your gas) and turn your radio off as soon as I get in? If simply couldent listen to music because it offended me. I get the same kind of feelings when I hear these types of stories and cant even comprehend moving to India starting a business and then firing an employee because they smelled bad. "I told them to shower, because cow urine oder is offensive to me, but he just kept showing up smelling that way". It would be stupid for me to do that so why is it not the same here?
Originally posted by rogue master
The policy is unreasonable, and probably unconstitutional, whether in writing or not.
Unreasonable, yes. Unconstitutional in the US? Not likely. I don't know about the specifics of various US state constitutions, but the US federal constitution, where it deals with individual rights, deals with relationships between the State and the citizenry, not with relationships between one citizen and another when neither are acting on behalf of the State.
There is federal civil rights legislation that deals with such issues, but as far as I know you can't really say, for example, that an employer has violated the constitutional rights of an employee, only that he has violated the employee's legal rights, rights which exists through acts of law rather than by way of constitutional protections.
Originally posted by shetline
Unreasonable, yes. Unconstitutional in the US? Not likely. I don't know about the specifics of various US state constitutions, but the US federal constitution, where it deals with individual rights, deals with relationships between the State and the citizenry, not with relationships between one citizen and another when neither are acting on behalf of the State.
There is federal civil rights legislation that deals with such issues, but as far as I know you can't really say, for example, that an employer has violated the constitutional rights of an employee, only that he has violated the employee's legal rights, rights which exists through acts of law rather than by way of constitutional protections.
Actually, that isn't exactly right shet. The supreme court has and does apply the federal constitution to places of business. only it does it one amendment at a time.
Originally posted by Playmaker
I hear these types of stories and cant even comprehend moving to India starting a business and then firing an employee because they smelled bad. "I told them to shower, because cow urine oder is offensive to me, but he just kept showing up smelling that way" It would be stupid for me to do that...
Or bother to write such racist crap.
Originally posted by Aurora
The company is a bunch of muslim fanatics, i would eat a BLT and then throw the bacon everywhere along with ham sandwiches and a few ribs. more B.S. by the fanatics. some of these ideas are just stupid and sounds like these fanatics are not living in the 21st century. zealots have many forms and they all suck including this company. Pork for everyone screw this companies faith and idiotic practice of missing out on Pork BBQ!
Yeah, all those jew fanatics and their idiotic practices, according to you.
At least we know who the anti-semites and racists in AO are.
And just think of the bad PR that this shop is getting, and yes, there is such a thing as bad pub., just ask Mickeal Jackson, or Kobe Bryant.
Originally posted by giant
Totally! What is with them imposing their beliefs on everyone else?! They want to put the 10 commandments in every government building and school?! Teaching the bible as if it's science?! Pushing to change the constitution to fit their religious beliefs?! If they don't like america they can geeeeiiit the fck out!
Ohhhhhhh.....you were ranting about a different religion. Sorry.
Please dont let money-grubbing-holier-than-thou blowhard freaks like Pat Robertson, Jerry fall-well and others of that ilk represent the Christian community at large, for example, a ton of faithfull, church-going Christians laughed at the disney boycot of the mid-90s all of the way to the theater to catch Toy Story. I could go on at a greater length about how a few rotten freaks give Christianity a bad rap, but this isnt the place.
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Actually, that isn't exactly right shet. The supreme court has and does apply the federal constitution to places of business. only it does it one amendment at a time.
Can you cite any cases where this has been done? I'm not doubting that such cases might exist -- I don't claim any expertise in constitutional law -- but I'd be curious which amendments could apply in such cases, and if there are connections to government, such businesses working on federal contracts, involved.
My guess is that the only federal constitutional issues involved in civil rights cases concerning private businesses doing non-government work, and how those businesses treat their employees, would be cases dealing with the constitutionality of the laws which enforce the observance of civil rights upon the employers, not any direct-from-the-constitution obligations upon employers to observe specific constitutional rights of their employees.
Why don't we start reporting on the fanatical churches down south?
Originally posted by Playmaker
Giant, although it isnt against the law would it not be assenine of me to ride with you to work every day (in your car, you driving, and using your gas) and turn your radio off as soon as I get in? If simply couldent listen to music because it offended me. I get the same kind of feelings when I hear these types of stories and cant even comprehend moving to India starting a business and then firing an employee because they smelled bad. "I told them to shower, because cow urine oder is offensive to me, but he just kept showing up smelling that way". It would be stupid for me to do that so why is it not the same here?
Blimey.
Did you know that in India they have cities, air conditioning, weather reports with computer graphics in and even MP3 players? It's great there.
Furthermore, I used to go out with a girl from South India and I can report that neither she nor her parents smelled of cow urine.
For instance many companies bad employees from smoking. As long as there is a written rule about this it is acceptable.
If a company run by vegetarians had a no meat policy, in writing, then would it be a problem?
Its an interesting situation - of course as the policy wasn't in writing, but if it were its had to see what complaint you could have.
2. The rule is CLEARLY based on religion. Imposing it on people who do not practice said religion is ILLEGAL.
Employers can make policies. These policies should be written, or employees can claim that they don't exist. Secondly, an employer cannot make a policy that is based on his religious beliefs and then make adherence to that policy a condition of employment.
Seriously...someone refute that.
If this was a Cathlolic banning beef on Good Friday, how would you feel?
Originally posted by talksense101
This is nothing other than propoganda war against Muslims.
Why don't we start reporting on the fanatical churches down south?
That's crazy. A propoganda war? How so? And really...speaking of propoganda, what is this with the "fanatical churches" down south? If I made a statement like this about muslims, I'd be called a racist shitbag.