Are all black men chauvenistic pigs?

[Jay]

Kizzy threads are the best.

[The Kizzy]

Here is the actual LAW, I will bold the important part for you

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of l964 prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing, and other terms and conditions of employment. Title VII covers employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments. It also applies to employment agencies and to labor organizations, as well as to the federal government.

Under Title VII:

Employers may not treat employees or applicants more or less favorably because of their religious beliefs or practices - except to the extent a religious accommodation is warranted. For example, an employer may not refuse to hire individuals of a certain religion, may not impose stricter promotion requirements for persons of a certain religion, and may not impose more or different work requirements on an employee because of that employee's religious beliefs or practices.
Employees cannot be forced to participate -- or not participate -- in a religious activity as a condition of employment.
Employers must reasonably accommodate employees' sincerely held religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer. A reasonable religious accommodation is any adjustment to the work environment that will allow the employee to practice his religion. An employer might accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices by allowing: flexible scheduling, voluntary substitutions or swaps, job reassignments and lateral transfers, modification of grooming requirements and other workplace practices, policies and/or procedures.
An employer is not required to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs and practices if doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employers' legitimate business interests. An employer can show undue hardship if accommodating an employee's religious practices requires more than ordinary administrative costs, diminishes efficiency in other jobs, infringes on other employees' job rights or benefits, impairs workplace safety, causes co-workers to carry the accommodated employee's share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work, or if the proposed accommodation conflicts with another law or regulation.
Employers must permit employees to engage in religious expression, unless the religious expression would impose an undue hardship on the employer. Generally, an employer may not place more restrictions on religious expression than on other forms of expression that have a comparable effect on workplace efficiency.
Employers must take steps to prevent religious harassment of their employees. An employer can reduce the chance that employees will engage unlawful religious harassment by implementing an anti-harassment policy and having an effective procedure for reporting, investigating and correcting harassing conduct.
It is also unlawful to retaliate against an individual for opposing employment practices that discriminate based on religion or for filing a discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under Title VII.

So they are not breaking the law if they are not hiring you because of your religion you refuse to work on weekends and other employees are forced to work the weekends just so you don't have to. Who is ignoring the law now?

[Tikker]

quit pointing out how mindia only espouses portions of law/rule/religion that benefit him

[Tikker]

They were hiring full-time lumber department people. "Weekends" = 16-20 hours.

how were you going to manage to work 16-20 hours in a single day (since you'd already overruled working saturday)

LOL holy shit. Let's do some simple math for a moment shall we?

If you're on a 5/8 schedule, that means you work 5 days at 8 hours per day. If you're on a 4/10 schedule, that means you work 4 days at 10 hours per day. So if your schedule is say, for instance, Wednesday-Sunday. How many hours did you work on the weekend?

feel free to explain how you're going to fill your quota of hours while you're veto'ing most of 2 days that fall within the required time period

[Narrock]

Here is the actual LAW, I will bold the important part for you

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of l964 prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing, and other terms and conditions of employment. Title VII covers employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments. It also applies to employment agencies and to labor organizations, as well as to the federal government.

Under Title VII:

Employers may not treat employees or applicants more or less favorably because of their religious beliefs or practices - except to the extent a religious accommodation is warranted. For example, an employer may not refuse to hire individuals of a certain religion, may not impose stricter promotion requirements for persons of a certain religion, and may not impose more or different work requirements on an employee because of that employee's religious beliefs or practices.
Employees cannot be forced to participate -- or not participate -- in a religious activity as a condition of employment.
Employers must reasonably accommodate employees' sincerely held religious practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer. A reasonable religious accommodation is any adjustment to the work environment that will allow the employee to practice his religion. An employer might accommodate an employee's religious beliefs or practices by allowing: flexible scheduling, voluntary substitutions or swaps, job reassignments and lateral transfers, modification of grooming requirements and other workplace practices, policies and/or procedures.
An employer is not required to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs and practices if doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employers' legitimate business interests. An employer can show undue hardship if accommodating an employee's religious practices requires more than ordinary administrative costs, diminishes efficiency in other jobs, infringes on other employees' job rights or benefits, impairs workplace safety, causes co-workers to carry the accommodated employee's share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work, or if the proposed accommodation conflicts with another law or regulation.
Employers must permit employees to engage in religious expression, unless the religious expression would impose an undue hardship on the employer. Generally, an employer may not place more restrictions on religious expression than on other forms of expression that have a comparable effect on workplace efficiency.
Employers must take steps to prevent religious harassment of their employees. An employer can reduce the chance that employees will engage unlawful religious harassment by implementing an anti-harassment policy and having an effective procedure for reporting, investigating and correcting harassing conduct.
It is also unlawful to retaliate against an individual for opposing employment practices that discriminate based on religion or for filing a discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under Title VII.

So they are not breaking the law if they are not hiring you because of your religion you refuse to work on weekends and other employees are forced to work the weekends just so you don't have to. Who is ignoring the law now?

The FAA tried to pull that crap with one of their employees. He sued and won. So, yes... they are breaking the law and being discriminatory.

[The Kizzy]

In that ONE case, and as I said before, (if you would have read the article) he had already been there for 10+ years and then the new boss came in and said YOUR RELIGIOUS EXCUSE IS BS, and that is why he won. Quit comparing apples to oranges.

[Narrock]

They were hiring full-time lumber department people. "Weekends" = 16-20 hours.

how were you going to manage to work 16-20 hours in a single day (since you'd already overruled working saturday)

LOL holy shit. Let's do some simple math for a moment shall we?

If you're on a 5/8 schedule, that means you work 5 days at 8 hours per day. If you're on a 4/10 schedule, that means you work 4 days at 10 hours per day. So if your schedule is say, for instance, Wednesday-Sunday. How many hours did you work on the weekend?

feel free to explain how you're going to fill your quota of hours while you're veto'ing most of 2 days that fall within the required time period

Sunday-Thursday on an 5/8 schedule, or Sunday through Wednesday on a 4/10 schedule. It's really not that difficult. I don't really care anymore about the discriminatory manager at our Home Depot, because I got a better job, and a better-paying job at that, with a company that respects religious beliefs and obeys EEOC laws.

Like I said, I still like the Home Depot, because they are way better than Lowe's or any other hardware/home-improvement store I can think of, and I'm not going to sue them... although I have the grounds to do so.

[Narrock]

In that ONE case, and as I said before, (if you would have read the article) he had already been there for 10+ years and then the new boss came in and said YOUR RELIGIOUS EXCUSE IS BS, and that is why he won. Quit comparing apples to oranges.

There are a lot of other cases like that Kizzy. There's no BS about it.

[Gaazy]

Any way you can google an example similiar to this of a court case? I really find it hard to believe someone could actually win in court based on that, unless she actually would have said something directly against your religion like oh hey a seventh day atheist or whatever the fuck it is, we pass.

Not saying anything against you're beliefs, I mean if thats what you believe then go on, but maybe that 'evil grimace' was her thinking "wtf using religion as an excuse to be lazy and get out of work on weekends?"

[Tikker]

They were hiring full-time lumber department people. "Weekends" = 16-20 hours.

how were you going to manage to work 16-20 hours in a single day (since you'd already overruled working saturday)

LOL holy shit. Let's do some simple math for a moment shall we?

If you're on a 5/8 schedule, that means you work 5 days at 8 hours per day. If you're on a 4/10 schedule, that means you work 4 days at 10 hours per day. So if your schedule is say, for instance, Wednesday-Sunday. How many hours did you work on the weekend?

feel free to explain how you're going to fill your quota of hours while you're veto'ing most of 2 days that fall within the required time period

Sunday-Thursday on an 5/8 schedule, or Sunday through Wednesday on a 4/10 schedule. It's really not that difficult.

you keep missing the point, so it must be somewhat difficult


they need to have XX hours covered between friday and sunday

you're not willing/able to do so



your argument is like saying the hospital is discriminating against you and not hiring you, because you don't have a medical degree

[Jay]

nm misread

[Guntaag Gorefeast]

I should go apply at walmart or something and tell them i can only work 1hr a day because I'm a 11th Hour Lethargist. They wont hire me and i will sue

[Narrock]

I should go apply at walmart or something and tell them i can only work 1hr a day because I'm a 11th Hour Lethargist. They wont hire me and i will sue

[Yamori]

Please do cite some court cases - because I call bullshit on this one Mindia.

As in, court cases where a 7th day adventist applied/got rejected for a job that had availability on fri-sat as part of the description, and successfully sued as a result.

Not someone who is a longstanding established employee who is faced with new schedual changes that knowingly conflict with his previous agreements.

Btw, if you can't see the difference between rejecting someone because they are black, and rejecting someone because they won't work on weekends... wow.

Discriminating against religion is saying that you refuse to hire any non-christians because they are immoral (hmm... I've heard some ideas similar to this from someone before... but who?), or that you won't hire muslims because they dress creepy and are probably members of terrorist cells. It is NOT akin to choosing not to hire someone because they don't meet the basic requirements of the job.

[Sithos]

You keep saying they did this and lost, they did that and lost yet the ONLY proof you can pull up for us is a well documented case wherin a person had been employeed for a long while and when a new boss came in he/she said to bad about your beliefs and thus a lawsuit came about.

I want to see an example that shines light on YOUR type of situation specifically. You can quote the law all you want but as was posted by Kizzy (I believe) there is a clause that covers your specific grievance.You have yet to show me any convincing proof beyong you own assertations that you would have a legitimate concern or cause.

How is your case any different than say someone who did well on an interview for the job but when asked about hours of availability stated that they have 2 kids and cannot find a babysitter from fri night to sat night?

Plain and simple just because you used your religious beliefs as the reasoning that you couldn't work during that time period has absolutely no bearing on why they didn't hire you. It's no different than that example I cited above about having children.They were NOT beholden to you to hire you.They needed the weekends covered you couldn't make those times. It's as plain and simple as that. If you would stop being so obtuse you would see that. But you would rather be basking in the "I am right you are wrong" limelight as per usual.

[Jay]

I'm in charge ofhiring surveyers here and I will make it a point to not hire 7th Day Adventists thanks to this thread.

[Narrock]

Please do cite some court cases - because I call bullshit on this one Mindia.

As in, court cases where a 7th day adventist applied/got rejected for a job that had availability on fri-sat as part of the description, and successfully sued as a result.

Not someone who is a longstanding established employee who is faced with new schedual changes that knowingly conflict with his previous agreements.

Btw, if you can't see the difference between rejecting someone because they are black, and rejecting someone because they won't work on weekends... wow.

Discriminating against religion is saying that you refuse to hire any non-christians because they are immoral (hmm... I've heard some ideas similar to this from someone before... but who?), or that you won't hire muslims because they dress creepy and are probably members of terrorist cells. It is NOT akin to choosing not to hire someone because they don't meet the basic requirements of the job.

Ok, here's another one:

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

472 U.S. 703

Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc.
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. 83-1158 Argued: November 7, 1984 --- Decided: June 26, 1985

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Petitioner's decedent, Donald E. Thornton, worked in a managerial position at a Connecticut store owned by respondent, which operated a chain of New England retail stores. In 1979, Thornton informed respondent that he would no longer work on Sundays, as was required by respondent as to managerial employees. Thornton invoked the Connecticut statute which provides:

No person who states that a particular day of the week is observed as his Sabbath may be required by his employer to work on such day. An employee's refusal to work on his Sabbath shall not constitute grounds for his dismissal.
Thornton rejected respondent's offer either to transfer him to a management job in a Massachusetts store that was closed on Sundays, or to transfer him to a nonsupervisory position in the Connecticut store at a lower salary. Subsequently, respondent transferred Thornton to a clerical position in the Connecticut store; Thornton resigned two days later and filed a grievance with the State Board of Mediation and Arbitration, alleging that he was discharged from his manager's position in violation of the Connecticut statute. The Board sustained the grievance, ordering respondent to reinstate Thornton, and the Connecticut Superior Court affirmed the Board's ruling, concluding that the statute did not offend the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed.

Held: The Connecticut statute, by providing Sabbath observers with an absolute and unqualified right not to work on their chosen Sabbath, violates the Establishment Clause. To meet constitutional requirements under that Clause, a statute must not only have a secular purpose and not foster excessive entanglement of government with religion, its primary effect must not advance or inhibit religion. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602. The Connecticut statute imposes on employers and employees an absolute duty to conform their business practices to the particular religious practices of an employee by enforcing observance of the Sabbath that the latter unilaterally designates. The State thus commands that Sabbath religious concerns automatically control over all secular interests at the workplace; the statute takes no account of the convenience or interests of the employer or those of other employees who do not observe a Sabbath. In granting unyielding weighting in favor of Sabbath observers over all other interests, the statute has a [p704] primary effect that impermissibly advances a particular religious practice. Pp. 708-711.

191 Conn.336, 464 A.2d 785, affirmed.

BURGR, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, POWELL, STEVENS, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. O'CONNOR, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which MARSHALL, J., joined, post, p. 711. REHNQUIST, J., dissented.

Want another one? Or are you going to dismiss this one as bullshit too? I've got more...

[Lueyen]

In that ONE case, and as I said before, (if you would have read the article) he had already been there for 10+ years and then the new boss came in and said YOUR RELIGIOUS EXCUSE IS BS, and that is why he won. Quit comparing apples to oranges.

There are a lot of other cases like that Kizzy. There's no BS about it.

Read what she wrote again. She wasn't saying the case or ruling was BS, she was paraphrasing the stance the new boss took.

Unlike your situation there was at the very least precedence, possibly even verbal and or written agreement. In your case there was no precedence, as there was no history.

Unlike your case there was definitive proof of a negative reaction by the employer toward not only the lack of availability of work days, but negativity toward the reason behind them. The boss's words gave proof beyond doubt that there was a negative attitude toward the person, and that this attitude was due at least in part to a bias against their religious beliefs. While you may have a facial expression to site, words in this case at least are far more concrete and direct.

There are cases of religious discrimination in the work place, there are cases where refusal to grant certain days off would fall under religious discrimination, from what you have cited however yours is not one of them.

[Narrock]

Here's a blurb from an attorney's site too:

The report discusses other forbidden questions that invite lawsuits and EEOC investigations such as:

"Have you ever had a substance abuse problem?"
“Do your religious beliefs prevent you from working on weekends or certain holidays?"
“Have you made provisions for child care?" (even if a woman volunteers that she has children)

[Tossica]

He already had the fucking job you numbskull. That's what you are not getting.

[Lueyen]

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

472 U.S. 703

Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc.
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CONNECTICUT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. 83-1158 Argued: November 7, 1984 --- Decided: June 26, 1985

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Petitioner's decedent, Donald E. Thornton, worked in a managerial position at a Connecticut store owned by respondent, which operated a chain of New England retail stores. In 1979, Thornton informed respondent that he would no longer work on Sundays, as was required by respondent as to managerial employees. Thornton invoked the Connecticut statute which provides:

No person who states that a particular day of the week is observed as his Sabbath may be required by his employer to work on such day. An employee's refusal to work on his Sabbath shall not constitute grounds for his dismissal.
Thornton rejected respondent's offer either to transfer him to a management job in a Massachusetts store that was closed on Sundays, or to transfer him to a nonsupervisory position in the Connecticut store at a lower salary. Subsequently, respondent transferred Thornton to a clerical position in the Connecticut store; Thornton resigned two days later and filed a grievance with the State Board of Mediation and Arbitration, alleging that he was discharged from his manager's position in violation of the Connecticut statute. The Board sustained the grievance, ordering respondent to reinstate Thornton, and the Connecticut Superior Court affirmed the Board's ruling, concluding that the statute did not offend the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed.

Held: The Connecticut statute, by providing Sabbath observers with an absolute and unqualified right not to work on their chosen Sabbath, violates the Establishment Clause. To meet constitutional requirements under that Clause, a statute must not only have a secular purpose and not foster excessive entanglement of government with religion, its primary effect must not advance or inhibit religion. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602. The Connecticut statute imposes on employers and employees an absolute duty to conform their business practices to the particular religious practices of an employee by enforcing observance of the Sabbath that the latter unilaterally designates. The State thus commands that Sabbath religious concerns automatically control over all secular interests at the workplace; the statute takes no account of the convenience or interests of the employer or those of other employees who do not observe a Sabbath. In granting unyielding weighting in favor of Sabbath observers over all other interests, the statute has a [p704] primary effect that impermissibly advances a particular religious practice. Pp. 708-711.

191 Conn.336, 464 A.2d 785, affirmed.

BURGR, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, POWELL, STEVENS, and O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. O'CONNOR, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which MARSHALL, J., joined, post, p. 711. REHNQUIST, J., dissented.

Want another one? Or are you going to dismiss this one as bullshit too? I've got more...

Um.. you just owned yourself.

The case you cited struck down the Connecticut state law saying "In granting unyielding weighting in favor of Sabbath observers over all other interests, the statute has a primary effect that impermissibly advances a particular religious practice."

[Narrock]

From another attorney site:

Discrimination
It is illegal to discriminate in hiring, promotions, termination (known as wrongful termination) or other aspects of employment on the basis of a person’s race, gender, national origin, religion, disability, or age, or to retaliate against an individual for opposing such practices, or consulting an attorney or the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) or equivalent state entity (in Illinois, the Illinois Department of Human Rights (IDHR) in Chicago or Springfield). In addition, various states, counties, and cities, also outlaw employment discrimination and wrongful termination on the basis of other classifications such as: marital status, military service, parental status, etc. Although they can also be wrongful termination claims, because they are not as common, they have not been discussed in this website. But if you have a question about employment discrimination or wrongful termination, please call an employment lawyer.

In the case of religious discrimination, and disability discrimination, it may also be illegal for an employer to deny reasonable accommodations to an employee. For example, absent extenuating circumstances, an employer cannot require a person to violate his or her religious beliefs such as working on the Sabbath, eating a forbidden food, or using alcohol if doing so is against the person’s religious principles. Instead, the employer must make an accommodation enabling the employee to do his job without violating his religion. Similarly, an employer must accommodate the disabilities of its employees if those disabilities meet certain standards. If a company terminates an employee without considering an accommodation, this too can be wrongful termination.

I can go on and on and on. I've proven, through documented cases and quoting laws, that discrimination based on religious beliefs is unlawful. That includes hiring discrimination. If you have a problem with that then write your congressman. But you can't ignore the facts. You can take the side of an unlawful employer and try to play the "burden" card to conceal the fact that you don't want to employ Sabbath-keepers. Whatever. This is boring me to tears.

[Lueyen]

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?id=1851

[Lueyen]

Here's a blurb from an attorney's site too:

The report discusses other forbidden questions that invite lawsuits and EEOC investigations such as:

"Have you ever had a substance abuse problem?"
“Do your religious beliefs prevent you from working on weekends or certain holidays?"
“Have you made provisions for child care?" (even if a woman volunteers that she has children)

"Are you willing to work weekends and holidays?"
"Are you unable to work weekends or holidays?"

Are both legal and legitimate questions, regardless of your reason for answering no, the decision not to hire can be based on the yes or no responses of those two question alone.

[Narrock]

Here's a blurb from an attorney's site too:

The report discusses other forbidden questions that invite lawsuits and EEOC investigations such as:

"Have you ever had a substance abuse problem?"
“Do your religious beliefs prevent you from working on weekends or certain holidays?"
“Have you made provisions for child care?" (even if a woman volunteers that she has children)

"Are you willing to work weekends and holidays?"
"Are you unable to work weekends or holidays?"

Are both legal and legitimate questions, regardless of your reason for answering no, the decision not to hire can be based on the yes or no responses of those two question alone.

And you can take them to court if you can prove that you were qualified for the job and that they did not hire you based on the fact that you don't work on a Sabbath day.