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.

There are a bevy of rights in the real world, sometimes they conflict but thankfully commonsense usually wins and in the case of the prison guard I would think the carrying of a dagger would be exempt under religious discrimination in the interests of safety. There would be few religious people that would disagree.

If a person under his religious beliefs was not allowed to work with women then perhaps he needs to rethink his choice of residence and respect the laws and freedoms of his chosen country or he could seek work in an all-male field (there might be some left). Laws are made to protect all people and protecting a religious right does not imply ignoring all other rights or 'rules' to ensure religion first place in that priority.

How does wearing a burqa infringe your rights (excepting the usual security scenarios) for example? Forcing of the wearing of the burqa is a different thing and in breach of a women's right, but voluntary?

If a religion required wives to whip their husbands, clearly that is a breach of his rights, which most would agree overrides those religious rights or practices.

The law is not perfect but most would have faith in being able to judge based on reason and rationality in these sorts of cases no matter how you spin it.

Sorry Pericles.. I kinda summarized Shaw's point in modern terms.

He speaks about the man faced with natural resources and life without any guidance other than "Opportunity"... he shows how people tend to exploit this for the benefit of 'the winners'..his gambling thing was referring to that process.... his primary thought was about how wealth is acquired by individuals for their own interests.

But let's not waste a lot of time on that here..
The point of including something from Shaws writings was to link the present back to the fundamental idea of "An Agency which has the POWER and 'good will' to distribute things justly"

THAT concept has carried through into Political Correctness and the work of the socialist social theorists who have infected academia in an almost terminal way.

The Equal employment commissars are very much wearing Grandma's clothes when they speak of 'equal' and 'just'.

Now..PELLY.. you say:

The law is not perfect but most would have faith in being able to judge based on reason and rationality in these sorts of cases no matter how you spin it.

Reason says "No one can wear a weapon in a prison" Agree ?

Here is the case in point which is the focus of this topic.

http://www.suntimes.com/photos/galleries/2831921-418/district-khan-muslim-teacher-hajj.html

Now.. the important point re the Civil Rights Act is that the complainant must demonstrate some employment related disadvantage as a result of the alleged discrimination.

The facts of this case are as follows:

1/ The HAJ is a rite which only has to be performed ONCE in a LIFEtime. (any time)

2/ The woman was not sacked...she quit.

3/ The woman claimed discrimination..... how is this possible in the light of fact 1?

FINAL POINT. Given the very flimsy case the woman has, it shows and confirms my long 'ranted' point that minorities will seek to bend, extend and change the law to suit the interests of their own community to the detriment of the host society.

ie.. MultiCulturalism AS PRACTICED and UNDERSTOOD by minorities is dangerous and harmful to our society.

Once again, Boaz, you are absolutely, precisely and categorically... wrong.

>>THAT concept has carried through into Political Correctness and the work of the socialist social theorists who have infected academia in an almost terminal way. The Equal employment commissars are very much wearing Grandma's clothes when they speak of 'equal' and 'just'.<<

Political correctness is a thoroughly modern concept. Grandma would be dumbfounded at some of the present day practices. And it has no connection at all with Fabianism, however hard you try to squint.

There is also absolutely no comparison, whatsoever, with what the equal employment commissars (whoever they may be) consider today as equality and justice, and those same concepts in prior generations.

Certainly not back in good ol' GBS' day.

A long bow, Boaz. A very long bow indeed.

It just snapped.

As for the example you gave, that's also rather threadbare.

Unpaid leave, denied, on the basis that it was "not related to her professional duties"... yeah, right.

Since when has the granting of unpaid leave been dependent upon its relationship to the job?

Sounds much more like petty vindictiveness to me. It will be interesting to see what is presented in evidence, when it gets to court.

>>...it shows and confirms my long 'ranted' point that minorities will seek to bend, extend and change the law to suit the interests of their own community to the detriment of the host society.<<

Sorry - who is doing the bending here?

The suit is being presented by... The U.S. Department of Justice.

Presumably, they are of the opinion that it is the school district that is bending the rules on what does and does not constitute reasonable granting of unpaid leave.

Take another look at it, Boaz.

Without your Glenn Beck glasses on, this time.

Am I the only one here who finds this
obsession with some kind of persistent
Fabian socialist uber-conspiracy theory
rather weird? Tangled up as it is in a
confusing web of other weirdness about gays
and Muslims, among others.

Why is this nonsense considered worthy of
repetitive 'discussion'?

Why is this nonsense considered worthy of
repetitive 'discussion'?
Posted by talisman, Wednesday, 15 December 2010 9:44:10 PM

Its not...........:) This is Al,s way of getting off on him self:)

BLUE

Dear Pericles
your viewpoint is always of high value, because it illustrates part of the problem.

Now.. the connection here with Fabianism is actually quite mild if at all, but the 'wolf in sheeps clothing' aspect of Fabian origins does help to make the point in my view.

The stronger connection by far is with the Frankfurt school of social theorists.

In the early 60s, these "post" Marxist socialist academics, looked for a surrogate for the working classes as the object of their revolutionary zeal. i.e..they recognized (as you do in spades) that the chance of stirring up the "oppressed working classes" into violent revolt against 'evil' capitalist regimes, was buckleys and none.

This didn't cause them to lose interest or heart about what they felt was 'appropriate' for how a fair and just society should work.

So they changed their focus to all manner of 'oppression' and inequality, and ended up with

-The environment
-Gay rights
-MultiCulturalism (Minority rights/affirmative action)
-Destroying national borders/sovereignty of states.
-Animal rights

In other words, they shifted from ECONOMIC to CULTURAL revolution.

If you look at the writings of Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse,Gregory Lukacz and Jurgen Habermas, this will become clear.

Now..to the case in point of the Muslim woman demanding time off for the Haj.

You seem to have missed the point about the Haj being a "once in a lifetime" requirement and thus I put the shoe on the other foot of this woman simply seeking to find an 'issue' over which she can '
a) Assert her religion.
b) Make a lot of cash with a lawsuit.

If there is no religious obligation to take time off for that purpose 'then'.....the school is quite within it's rights to deny it.

The contract between the Teachers Union and the School board provides up to 3 days for 'religious holidays' and also 3 days for 'pressing personal business' but NO provision for 3 weeks for a religious act which is not an obligation

Pericles, Talisman, Deep-Blue, Pelican and others who can see that Boazy has a single agenda which he sets up like loaded dice for every topic he is permitted - topics which are frequent, contribute nothing and denigrate people who hold different values to the religious fundamentalist of Boazy.

Of course, that is "freedom of speech" isn't it? However, there are far fewer contributions from people who believe in freedom from religion, an end to discrimination to gays and equality of opportunity in general - look at the disparagement of women (by the same names) on any topic that focuses upon families, sexual objectification, parental responsibilities and anything that deviates from heterosexual unions (for procreation purposes only).

Thanks to our Dark Ages policy on refugees another 30 plus people have lost their lives drowning upon the rocky shores of Christmas (irony, much?) Island trying to escape persecution.

Meanwhile AGIR/Boazy, Proxy, Runner a given carte blanche to push their agenda and anyone who has the temerity to question this disparity is labelled "aggressive" of all things.

Equal Opportunity? Need a map and a magnifying glass to find it on what was once a reasonable forum.

CLASSIC CASE. Not the Muslim woman, but 2 similar Americans.

LAW

In 1964 Congress passed Public Law 82-352 (78 Stat. 241). The provisions of this civil rights act forbade discrimination on the basis of sex as well as race in hiring, promoting, and firing.

NOTE carefully those words "FORBADE"......'sex'

Now..you can see exactly how this actually BECOMES discrimination as follows:

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1986/1986_85_1129

The Transportation Agency, Santa Clara, California promoted Diane Joyce to road dispatcher over Paul Johnson. Both candidates were qualified for the job. As an affirmative action employer, the Agency took into account the sex of the applicants in making the promotion decision.

SEE IT ? "took into account....the SEX"

The LAW says. "you CAN'T" the reality is "You CAN" and the courts confirm this.

This is patently absurd. "You canNOT"....but "you CAN"

The argument offered in support of this is 'to remedy past discrimination'

RUBBISH! How can 'past discrimination' be quantified ? ? ? without a very detailed examination of a veritable universe full of facts?

How can it be determined when 'equality' has been achieved ? Will it be when some social bean counter can add up the number of women and men and find "they are the same...aaaah...equality reigns" ?

Will whites be fired and blacks or other minorities replace them because a particular workplace does not have percentages of each group which fit the proportions of each in the last national CENSUS?

What has that to do with anything at all, Boaz?

>>You seem to have missed the point about the Haj being a "once in a lifetime" requirement<<

She asked for leave without pay.

The reason why she wanted leave without pay should have been irrelevant.

Her employers made it relevant by saying "it isn't work-related".

Why should it be a requirement that the employer approves how their employees spend their free time? What is this, some kind of Big Brother police state?

>>...the connection here with Fabianism is actually quite mild if at all, but the 'wolf in sheeps clothing' aspect of Fabian origins does help to make the point in my view.<<

You're on about that "Fabian window" again, aren't you?

Get over it. It's a window, not Das Kapital.

>>The stronger connection by far is with the Frankfurt school of social theorists<<

Oh dear, we've switched horses. I wonder where Glenn Beck will take you next, Boaz.

You are remarkable easily led, aren't you?

Sorry Pericles... I don't get my information only from Glenn Beck... you seem fixated on him now :) silly me for even mentioning him.

I do my own research and if Beck says something I ABSOLUTELY to it because I don't want to look a complete idiot by just parroting an opinion of his which turns out to be fantasy.

I've been following the Fabian/Frankfurt school for quite some time now.

The *point* about the woman and the haj... is that she "asked" for unpaid leave and was denied it. This is quite ok because it was 3 WEEKS..not 3 days. The agreements between the teachers union and boards of education do recognize reasonable requests..her's was not.
It was UNreasonable because she claimed she 'had' to do it for her religion... when the knew full well she did not.

Interesting, Boaz.

>>The *point* about the woman and the haj... is that she "asked" for unpaid leave and was denied it. This is quite ok because it was 3 WEEKS..not 3 days. The agreements between the teachers union and boards of education do recognize reasonable requests..her's was not.
It was UNreasonable because she claimed she 'had' to do it for her religion... when the knew full well she did not.<<

Do you have a source for this, or did you just invent it?

The assertions that need substantiation are:

- the union agreement states that three weeks is an unreasonable request for unpaid leave

- she claimed she "had" to do it.

The part you have missed out, of course, is where they introduce the "it's not work-related" concept. Once again, what business is it of theirs?

>>I don't get my information only from Glenn Beck... you seem fixated on him now<<

It's good that you are diversifying your selection of sources. You're right of course. There's a limit to how much one can take of Mr Beck.

Dear Pericles,
my background reading for the opinion I am offering here has been quite extensive and includes court summaries of other cases.

One case involved a man who became a member of the loony "WorldWide Church of god" which is a Herbert W Armstrong cult. He requested 3 days extra off from the 3 allowed for specifically 'religious' holidays, and was denied. The reason he was denied, is that the court found, the employer had made reasonable efforts to accomodate his religious obligations already... and that once the employer has done this, it is under no obligation to further acceed to such requests/demands.

In this case the man offered to PAY for a substitute worker, but the court still found in favor of his employer. (I'm trying to relocate that source)

World Wide Church of god members are required to observe around 10 religious holidays per year. (every year) As long as an employer has made 'reasonable' attempts to accomodate in other ways, they are not required to give extra days over and above the 3 day limit already set by employment agreements. Further, there are 3 days allowed for 'pressing personal business' and this man wished to use them for his religious holidays... but the court found otherwise..."no, you can't"

http://www.queensu.ca/humanrights/legislationgroup/highlights/religiousaccommodation.html

That's not the case, but it includes some interesting cases on the subject.

Here is an interesting case.

http://www.theemploymentlawyers.com/Articles/Religion.htm

"This court rules that Catholic dogma does not require worshippers to abstain from working on Holy Days. The only requirement the church absolutely imposes upon its followers is to attend mass. Plaintiffs were not denied the opportunity to attend mass, and therefore, plaintiffs cannot establish that they were forced to forgo a practice required by their religion."

On the basis of that case, I would strongly argue that the Muslim woman cannot show that the Haj needed to be performed 'that' year, and thus is not a binding requirement or obligation of her faith.

Remember Haj= "once in a lifetime"

But they need to be relevant, Boaz

>>my background reading for the opinion I am offering here has been quite extensive and includes court summaries of other cases.<<

Writing stuff that you haven't properly researched is your standard operating procedure, we know.

But every so often, I will call you on it.

>>He requested 3 days extra off from the 3 allowed for specifically 'religious' holidays, and was denied.<<

You have assumed that the Hajj request was made under the same allowance, haven't you? I suspect that if this had been the case, the US Department of Justice would not become involved, since the conditions appear to be quite specific.

>>On the basis of that case, I would strongly argue that the Muslim woman cannot show that the Haj needed to be performed 'that' year, and thus is not a binding requirement or obligation of her faith.<<

Another assumption on your part. This time, that she offered the "Hajj imperative" as the reason for her unpaid leave request.

So, once again it would appear that you have invented your own scenario, in order to suggest that the rules are being bent.

The facts as we know them are these:

i) she asked for three weeks unpaid leave, ii) they declined to grant it because "it wasn't work related", iii) she resigned, for her own reasons and iv) the US Department of Justice took up the case on her behalf, to get her re-instated and v) to point out to the employer that personal prejudices against someone's religious beliefs are not a good enough reason to bully them.

Ok, so I invented v)

The rest, though, are reported as fact.

Facts trump your fictions, every time.

I agree Pericles, but I happen to think you have rather slanted facts :)

I'll keep trying to dig up the specific case...it would help put this one to bed on your side.

FOUND IT! ook....good.

Philbrook vs Ansonia Board of Education.

http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/757/757.F2d.476.84-7548.397.html

Appellant's legal battle seeking accommodation of his religious practices began in 1973 when he filed a complaint against the school board and the union with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities ("CHRO") and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). The CHRO found probable cause to believe that the school board's refusal to allow personal business leave to be used for religious observance constituted religious discrimination, and attempted conciliation.

Welcome to the evil world of "Human Rights" commissions.

Now let's see how (after numerous excursions through various courts) the final decision is made by the Supreme court.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/479/60.html

//Under the approach articulated by the Court of Appeals, however, the employee is given every incentive to hold out for the most beneficial accommodation, despite the fact that an employer offers a reasonable resolution of the conflict.//

Then: (re the above)

//This approach, we think, conflicts with both the language of the statute and the views that led to its enactment.//

The Decision:

"We accordingly hold that an employer has met its obligation under 701(j) when it demonstrates that it has offered a reasonable accommodation to the employee." 6 [479 U.S. 60, 70]

HooooRAY for some common sense.

It seems to me, that in the case of the Haj....the 'reasonable accomodation' has been met in that it is not valid to claim 'she must' when the faith itself only obliges her to 'when she can'.

It boils down to what is 'reasonable'...and in the light of the haj not being annual or obligatory for a particular year... the board was quite 'reasonable' in my view. (and it would appear..the view of the Supreme court)

I find your attempts to justify your flights of fancy endlessly educational, Boaz.

Once again, you have managed to find an example that proves my point, rather than yours.

>>Philbrook vs Ansonia Board of Education.<<

This case exclusively concerns itself with paid leave.

The one that you described in your OP exclusively concerns itself with unpaid leave, which is outside the terms of the case that you cite.

It went like this:

She asked for leave without pay.

The reason why she wanted leave without pay should have been irrelevant.

Her employers made it relevant by saying "it isn't work-related".

A clear case of a vindictive and petty employer, finding an excuse not to allow an employee three weeks unpaid leave. One has to presume, because they didn't like the idea that she intended to undertake her Hajj.

[Deleted for flaming.]