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.