In the USA, the civil rights act says as follows:

http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/statutes/titlevii.cfm

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

DISCUSSION. Can anyone see anything in the above which is not 'employment' focused ?

For example, (Hyperthetical) an unbaptized Sikh person applies for a position with "Correctional Services" as a prison guard and was accepted.
He then is baptized into the faith fully, and is required to carry his "Kirpan" dagger on his person at all times.

The prison authorities inform him that this is dangerous in that environment and refuse to allow it. -Discrimination?

In the above scenario, the man is 'limited' by the State, based on his religious obligations.

It might be argued that the issue is 'safety'?

But if his 'religious obligations' required him to carry out some other practice..let's say "Not work with women" but the Prison authorities refuse to "accomodate"... he quits, then sues for discimination under the civil rights act.

QUESTION. Isn't this a little unworkable and cumbersome and does the law actually stipulate he must be accomodated?

But the bigger question is this, DOES such refusal to 'accomodate' in fact deny him employment opportunity? He is not being denied employment, he is simply being directed to carry out that employment in ways which are in keeping with the Law. It is in fact his own religion which discriminates in a 'sexist' manner.

There is a case in the USA right now, where these questions are being raised, but not in regard to the Sikh faith.

Boazy

Does your post have any relevance for Australia? If so, then please illustrate. If not, why not?

Hi Johnny..well I could pick lot's of examples for Australia, but the particular one I have in mind, is not one I noted in the opening post.

The thing most relevant to Australia is this "EVIL OPPORTUNISM COMMISSARS and INHUMAN REICH" commission.

OOPS...sorry..let me give you the official version :)

"Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission"

The cases I wish to look at are dealt with under US law, but we have similar if not identical "progressive" laws here. The process of law is the same, specially when 'progressive' judicial bias is applied.

Have a chew on this quote, just for background information, and see if you can see what the basic flaw in the argument is? This IS...a test :) (hint. 3rd last and 2nd last lines)

QUOTE:
For since in gambling the many
must lose in order that the few may win ; since dishonesty
is mere shadowgrasping where everyone is dishonest ; and
since inequality is bitter to all except the highest, and miserably
lonely for him, men come greatly to desire that these capricious
gifts of Nature might be intercepted by some agency having
the power and the goodwill to distribute them justly according
to the labor done by each in the collective search for them.
This desire is Socialism. (G.B. Shaw)
UNQUOTE

The "Gambling" referred to above is operation of freedom and a free market society.

That quote has relevance to the bigger picture of which my opening post is a small part. The Burqa issue is relevant and is Aussie in current context.

The slippery slope is a reality.

SEXUAL LIBERATIONS LAST FRONTIER....THE CHILDREN.

https://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/00-020_last_frontier.htm

SUMMARY
Bruce Rind, Philip Tromovitch, and Robert Baserman are among the few who have begun to question the supposed long-term effects of child-adult sexual activity on the children involved. It is appropriate to undertake such research if only to wrest the terms of the debate from conservatives who have used pedophilia as a way to silence all attempts at sexual tolerance.

If ANYone thinks Gay Marriage is the last final frontier ? they are in lalalulu land.

Gay marriage is just one of a number of 'sexual liberation' ideas which all stem from the Frankfurt school of social theorists and Marxism

György Lukács thought he could 'liberate' Hungary from it's unmarxist ideas about sex.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236#
see 1.42

Marcuse popularized them to the American Counter culture.

(Repressive Tolerance Essay.)

The Evergreen Review and Grove publishing took filth through the courts, and trampled the American public underfoot..

and now..NOW...we have Father Dave, having absorbed it all... a puppet with invisible strings, all connected (whether he knows it or not) to those same disgusting Marxists and diabolical Social theorists.

Oops..wrong thread.. should have been the gay marraige one.

This is becoming repetitive, Boaz.

10/10 for persistence, fair enough. But overall 0/10, for your inability to get it right.

You cannot read a simple sentence, it seems, without smelling a Fabian conspiracy.

>>The "Gambling" referred to above is operation of freedom and a free market society.<<

No it is not.

The "Gambling" Shaw refers to is just... gambling.

It is crystal clear from the context. The sentences immediately prior to your quote go like this:

"Another man, searching for some more of this tempting gold, comes upon a great hoard of coal, or taps a jet of petroleum. Thus is Man mocked by Earth his stepmother, and never knows as he tugs at her closed hand whether it contains diamonds or flints, good red wheat or a few clayey and blighted cabbages. Thus too he becomes a gambler, and scoffs at the theorists who prate of industry and honesty and equality. Yet against this fate he eternally rebels."

Shaw is describing the sort of capitalism that takes advantage of a single act of good fortune, in order to oppress and exploit the working man.

It is very much "of its time".

During the twentieth century, much of this exploitation was ameliorated by the concessions wrung out of the bosses by the activities of labour organizations, under the banner of Socialism.

Dramatic though it is, Shaw's impassioned rhetoric has about as much resonance today as this bit of drama, which was highly popular around the time GBS was born (in Ireland, by the way):

"Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
'Forward, the Light Brigade!
Charge for the guns' he said:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred."

Times change, Boaz.

Shaw 's purple prose was entirely relevant when he wrote it.

But let's be realistic: if anyone wrote stuff like this in 2010, they'd be laughed out of town.

Mining is in the hands of international conglomerates, mineworkers are well paid, and there is no need for Socialist agitation, either Fabian or Revolutionary.