mandatory bible study as terms of employment?
-
I see “MSN” in the link...I won’t even bother with it.
Two things that will define you: Your determination when you have nothing. Your attitude when you have everything. - Mike McCartney -
I think, that the joining into employment at the company is a social contract, regarding the agreement to attend
the Bible study classes.
You break the social contract, you lose your job. It isn't like the owner of the small company added the requirement later.
The lawsuit loses, IMHO. Just another attempt at winning the liberal culture lottery by any hook or crook necessary.
-
so yoose guuyyzz would be perfectly okay with an american employer hiring people than after that fact saying oh btw now that ur hired if u wanna keep this job its off to the local mosque once a week? would "yoose guyyzz" be ok with mandatory allah prayers blared over a loudspeaker ever 2 hours?
-
so yoose guuyyzz would be perfectly okay with an american employer hiring people than after that fact saying oh btw now that ur hired if u wanna keep this job its off to the local mosque once a week? would "yoose guyyzz" be ok with mandatory allah prayers blared over a loudspeaker ever 2 hours?
so yoose guuyyzz would be perfectly okay with an american employer hiring people than after that fact saying oh btw now that ur hired if u wanna keep this job its off to the local mosque once a week? would "yoose guyyzz" be ok with mandatory allah prayers blared over a loudspeaker ever 2 hours?
Actually, and I'm serious about this, I would think a devout Muslim might be a fine employee. I think most people who take their religion seriously have probably got one or two building blocks of morality in there. We're not talking about some psychotic terrorist but your basic religious Muslim to Christian Sikh you name it.....
I have no beef with Islam oh, just the lunatics.
WSS
-
-
uh huh, if some EMPLOYER mandated koran studies some of u would srsly no joke lose ur sht. Cal would conceivably become an active shooter
-
uh huh, if some EMPLOYER mandated koran studies some of u would srsly no joke lose ur sht. Cal would conceivably become an active shooter
uh huh, if some EMPLOYER mandated koran studies some of u would srsly no joke lose ur sht. Cal would conceivably become an active shooter
I agree with you on this that nobody should be forced to participate in a bible study to keep their job against their will. There is nothing like this in the New Covenant where anyone is forced to do anything. It is all free will. People listened to the good news being preached and taught of their own free will and voluntarily and were not forced to listen. I don't know what the law says about it and Cal may be right in a legal sense. My problem with this story is they never contacted the employer to get his side. It could be more of a disgruntled employee who was let go for other reasons.
-
uh huh, if some EMPLOYER mandated koran studies some of u would srsly no joke lose ur sht. Cal would conceivably become an active shooter
I agree with you on this that nobody should be forced to participate in a bible study to keep their job against their will. There is nothing like this in the New Covenant where anyone is forced to do anything. It is all free will. People listened to the good news being preached and taught of their own free will and voluntarily and were not forced to listen. I don't know what the law says about it and Cal may be right in a legal sense. My problem with this story is they never contacted the employer to get his side. It could be more of a disgruntled employee who was let go for other reasons.
I agree with you on this that nobody should be forced to participate in a bible study to keep their job against their will. There is nothing like this in the New Covenant where anyone is forced to do anything. It is all free will. People who heard the good news freely and voluntarily and were not forced to listen. I don't know what the law says about it and Cal may be right in a legal sense. My problem with this story is they never contacted the employer to get his side. It could be more of a disgruntled employee who was let go for other reasons.
well the article says "allegedly", so these are the "allegations" against the employer which the employer will have to refute in court. If the allegations are true, its a civil rights violation. No different than if a man was forced to give up being a christian in order to remain employed
-
I agree with you on this that nobody should be forced to participate in a bible study to keep their job against their will. There is nothing like this in the New Covenant where anyone is forced to do anything. It is all free will. People who heard the good news freely and voluntarily and were not forced to listen. I don't know what the law says about it and Cal may be right in a legal sense. My problem with this story is they never contacted the employer to get his side. It could be more of a disgruntled employee who was let go for other reasons.
well the article says "allegedly", so these are the "allegations" against the employer which the employer will have to refute in court. If the allegations are true, its a civil rights violation. No different than if a man was forced to give up being a christian in order to remain employed
well the article says "allegedly", so these are the "allegations" against the employer which the employer will have to refute in court. If the allegations are true, its a civil rights violation. No different than if a man was forced to give up being a christian in order to remain employed
And anyone can allege anything so when reporting stories like this both sides need to be presented. The reporter should have reached out for comment from the employer to answer the allegations otherwise you just have a one sided story which is what this is. It may be a civil rights issue or not. If the guy took the job knowing he was mandated to attend a bible class then Cal may be right. He was not forced to take the job.
-
actually, mandating a religion for terms of employment may infact violate some laws. But the allegation is that it was revealed to him after he was employed. One article i read said the company would not comment because of the pending court case
-
actually, mandating a religion for terms of employment may infact violate some laws. But the allegation is that it was revealed to him after he was employed. One article i read said the company would not comment because of the pending court case
actually, mandating a religion for terms of employment may infact violate some laws. But the allegation is that it was revealed to him after he was employed. One article i read said the company would not comment because of the pending court case
Oh I'm sure it's in violation of somebody's vision of church and state blah blah blah. And I will freely admit that I'm something of a hypocrite and the the double standard doesn't offend me all that much. It's still my belief that people who are part of mainstream religions are okay on the whole.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
actually, mandating a religion for terms of employment may infact violate some laws. But the allegation is that it was revealed to him after he was employed. One article i read said the company would not comment because of the pending court case
actually, mandating a religion for terms of employment may infact violate some laws. But the allegation is that it was revealed to him after he was employed. One article i read said the company would not comment because of the pending court case
That would depend if the company was private.
You know, like Twitter, or Facebook.
️
Two things that will define you: Your determination when you have nothing. Your attitude when you have everything. - Mike McCartney -
possibly only a non profit, like a religious organization for ex, can have such requirements. Because its essentially the primary reason for employment. U cant argue that a remodeling company is a religious entity when its primary revenue stream has nothing to do with religion.
and if the employer was not open and upfront about such requirements from before the hiring process, than theres absolutely no ground to stand on and he will cough 800k. If he was upfront from the beginning he may not owe that employee any money but he may face fines from uncle sam.
he essentially violated that employees civil rights if after the fact of employment he foisted a religion on his employees. Its a form of fraud if it happened after the employment. Its likely a violation of fair employment acts if he made it clear beforehand. The outrage would be palpable if an employer told his employees if he sees any of their liscence plates at the local church's on sunday tjat either they wont be hired or current employees will be fired. And i would fully support legal and civil action against him.
we visited sometjing like this a few years ago where an employer tried to limit political and religious displays only within the workplace, not dealing with free time.....and i beleive most here supported the employees rights in that case. That runs in rev too
-
the grey area for me is if an employer is upfront about these religious require.ents "prior" to employment. If it costs them employees than its on them let the market punish them. BUT OF COURSE that standard would HAVE to be valid in reverse if an employer says i tolerate none of my employees be joos, muslims, christians, shintoists, zoroastroists etx,etc,etc.
i think some time ago our govt, for the sake of a fluid economy, decided to regulate that things like religion and political affiliation were private matters that both employee and employer should not have determine any kind of employment status or conflict.
-
well the article says "allegedly", so these are the "allegations" against the employer which the employer will have to refute in court. If the allegations are true, its a civil rights violation. No different than if a man was forced to give up being a christian in order to remain employed
And anyone can allege anything so when reporting stories like this both sides need to be presented. The reporter should have reached out for comment from the employer to answer the allegations otherwise you just have a one sided story which is what this is. It may be a civil rights issue or not. If the guy took the job knowing he was mandated to attend a bible class then Cal may be right. He was not forced to take the job.
And anyone can allege anything
That's basically religion
-
And anyone can allege anything
That's basically religion
That's basically religion
And the Trump Russian collusion thingy is another example.
-
That's basically religion
And the Trump Russian collusion thingy is another example.
And the Trump Russian collusion thingy is another example.
just a side note here, but in all ho esty there is vastly more circumstantial evidence for #peepeegate than there is for the god of abraham ever existing.Just FYI
-
And the Trump Russian collusion thingy is another example.
just a side note here, but in all ho esty there is vastly more circumstantial evidence for #peepeegate than there is for the god of abraham ever existing.Just FYI
just a side note here, but in all ho esty there is vastly more circumstantial evidence for #peepeegate than there is for the god of abraham ever existing.Just FYI
You use the words “vastly” and “circumstantial” in the same sentence to describe evidence.
Which boils down to a large amount of nuthin’.
-
just a side note here, but in all ho esty there is vastly more circumstantial evidence for #peepeegate than there is for the god of abraham ever existing.Just FYI
You use the words “vastly” and “circumstantial” in the same sentence to describe evidence.
Which boils down to a large amount of nuthin’.
You use the words “vastly” and “circumstantial” in the same sentence to describe evidence.
Which boils down to a large amount of nuthin’.
would you have preferred "preponderance"? end result is the same, smoke=fire. In one circumstance there's not even smoke to be seen. Clarified?
-
You use the words “vastly” and “circumstantial” in the same sentence to describe evidence.
Which boils down to a large amount of nuthin’.
would you have preferred "preponderance"? end result is the same, smoke=fire. In one circumstance there's not even smoke to be seen. Clarified?
would you have preferred "preponderance"? end result is the same, smoke=fire. In one circumstance there's not even smoke to be seen. Clarified?
Clear as mud.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login