View Full Version : Checkout muslims act up
This has to be the most stupid thing to date even the British muslim council on the radio today think this is plain daft.
Muslim checkout staff get an alcohol opt-out clause (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2558198.ece)
Now that is just silly.. :yep:
HunterICX
10-01-07, 05:36 AM
Gosh,
My father, who has been a supermarket manager for a many years
would have said ''You're Fired!''
and thats how It has to be.
this might be small, but I dont see the bloody reason what a bottle or a crate can do harm so,
I think this is just another thing to cross the border of Muslim influence a bit further
It has to stop!
Do they not mind handling pork then? and what about vegans? will they be let off handling any animal products?
I've noticed (in England) that nearly all the corner shops, where you shop for alcohol and prnography are owned by moslems, I suppose that's because they make money directly from that and their 'principles' are thus conveniently forgotten.
I suppose the lesson to be learnt is if you want a long wait at checkout go to Sainsbury's
I've noticed (in England) that nearly all the corner shops, where you shop for alcohol and prnography are owned by moslems
:rotfl: :rotfl:
Funny thing is that is true around here. :lol:
Well, it is already legal for Jewish shop staff to refuse to handle pork products.
but, yes......"unprofessional", "overenthusiastic" and showing a "a lack of maturity".
bradclark1
10-01-07, 08:32 AM
They're doing it just to do it.
They're doing it just to do it.
Either that or a deep seated belief that alcohol is a major ill in society.
The Avon Lady
10-01-07, 09:14 AM
Well, it is already legal for Jewish shop staff to refuse to handle pork products.
Where and why is this?
antikristuseke
10-01-07, 09:14 AM
What the hell, if they cant do their job they should be fire, its as simple as that. If you work in an establishment that sells alcohol you should sell alcohol to people who are legaly alloed to purchas it and have shown the desire to do so. This specail treatment bull**** is being taken too far.
Jimbuna
10-01-07, 09:28 AM
One of the pitfalls/consequences around living in a society that considers its equality, tolerance, ethical, moral, and political correctness values and levels to be superior to that of other countries :hmm:
Huskalar
10-01-07, 09:29 AM
I believe every company should be able to decide for themselve if they want to give muslims a special treatment. But in this case I wouldn't do that. If muslims don't want to sell alcohol they should go work for another company.
However, some senior Muslims were less approving.
Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, director of the Muslim Institute and leader of the Muslim parliament, said: “This is some kind of overenthusiasm. One expects professional behaviour from people working in a professional capacity and this shows a lack of maturity.
“Sainsbury’s is being very good, they are trying to accommodate the wishes of their employees and we commend that. The fault lies with the employee who is exploiting and misusing their goodwill. It makes no difference if it is only happening over Ramadan.
Some sense there.
I have to say the first time I get held up by this sort of thing when I go to do my monthly shopping I'm walking out.
I suppose you'll have people refusing to sell condoms next... or asking if you're married first? or refusing to serve female Muslim customers not wearing a hijab - as was the case recently with a certain dentist... if people want a job, they should leave their personal preferences - and their religion - at home.
Still, on a more personal note: At work I've been envolved with the refitting of a number of sainsburys stores with refrigeration equipment. Due to the nature of the job we have been stuffed with almost impossible design deadlines and then when we complete the job, the store planner changes their ming and we have about 3 days to do 2 weeks worth of work which we have not the time for - on principal I now refuse to buy anything from sainsburys.
bigboywooly
10-01-07, 11:18 AM
I've noticed (in England) that nearly all the corner shops, where you shop for alcohol and prnography are owned by moslems
Tis why the Romans built straight roads
:rotfl: :rotfl:
Kapitan_Phillips
10-01-07, 12:19 PM
I wish there was a word that summed up how steamed I am now.
Oh, I found one.
AAAAAAARGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Well, it is already legal for Jewish shop staff to refuse to handle pork products. Where and why is this?
Why is because of the religious discrimination in the workplace act that recently came
into force in the UK.
Where is in any shop in the UK.
The Avon Lady
10-01-07, 12:57 PM
Well, it is already legal for Jewish shop staff to refuse to handle pork products. Where and why is this?
Why is because of the religious discrimination in the workplace act that recently came
into force in the UK.
What events/case brought this act into being?
In addition, what I actually meant was why would Jews need this? There is no religious prohibition against simply handling or selling non-kosher products, pig or otherwise, when not owned by the employee behind the counter.
The only Jewish legal concern would be the prohibition to sell such items to another Jew. In this case, if I were in this predicament, I would kindly ask not to be assigned such work and, if my employer said no, I would quit my job, without an alternative. But I would not anticipate a law that would protect such religious observance at the blatant expense of the employer - except in Israel.
Well, it is already legal for Jewish shop staff to refuse to handle pork products. Where and why is this? Why is because of the religious discrimination in the workplace act that recently came
into force in the UK. What events/case brought this act into being?
I have no idea. Either there have been some or it was bought in on the back of similar
requests from other religions.
In addition, what I actually meant was why would Jews need this? There is no religious prohibition against simply handling or selling non-kosher products, pig or otherwise, when not owned by the employee behind the counter.
Well, quite. I rather suspect the same applies for Muslims and alcohol or Christians and
halloween masks, but there is no accounting for zealotism.
The only Jewish legal concern would be the prohibition to sell such items to another Jew. In this case, if I were in this predicament, I would kindly ask not to be assigned such work and, if my employer said no, I would quit my job, without an alternative. But I would not anticipate a law that would protect such religious observance at the blatant expense of the employer - except in Israel.
I have not read the new rules on Religious Discrimination ITWP, but this kind of law
usualy contains phrases like "reasonable adjustment". Whilst it may be considerd
reasonable adjustment for a supermarket to have someone else to sell items, it may
not be reasonable adjustment for a corner shop with only one member of staff to have
some one else sell the same items.
The Avon Lady
10-01-07, 01:39 PM
In addition, what I actually meant was why would Jews need this? There is no religious prohibition against simply handling or selling non-kosher products, pig or otherwise, when not owned by the employee behind the counter.
Well, quite. I rather suspect the same applies for Muslims and alcohol or Christians and
halloween masks, but there is no accounting for zealotism.
Here you are wrong. In Islam, pork is impure. Google for "najis" (http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=active&q=najis).
The only Jewish legal concern would be the prohibition to sell such items to another Jew. In this case, if I were in this predicament, I would kindly ask not to be assigned such work and, if my employer said no, I would quit my job, without an alternative. But I would not anticipate a law that would protect such religious observance at the blatant expense of the employer - except in Israel.
I have not read the new rules on Religious Discrimination ITWP, but this kind of law
usualy contains phrases like "reasonable adjustment". Whilst it may be considerd
reasonable adjustment for a supermarket to have someone else to sell items, it may
not be reasonable adjustment for a corner shop with only one member of staff to have
some one else sell the same items.
So the law may be reasonable after all, if no serious burden is imposed on the proprietor. OK. Not what I thought. I believe the problem will be (if it isn't already), that such laws will lead to proprietors to now fear whether they're doing something illegal even when they simply have their legitimate business concerns in mind.
I have not read the new rules on Religious Discrimination ITWP, but this kind of law
usualy contains phrases like "reasonable adjustment". Whilst it may be considerd
reasonable adjustment for a supermarket to have someone else to sell items, it may
not be reasonable adjustment for a corner shop with only one member of staff to have
some one else sell the same items. So the law may be reasonable after all, if no serious burden is imposed on the proprietor. OK. Not what I thought. I believe the problem will be (if it isn't already), that such laws will lead to proprietors to now fear whether they're doing something illegal even when they simply have their legitimate business concerns in mind.
oh, yer. It is a real minefield for employers. Maternity law, disability law, fair
employment law etc, etc, etc.
Even the smallest business usually requires some professional advice. It's a real shame
and it gets worse every year, but simplification would lead to abuse of employees. :nope:
I suppose the only alternative is to rely on the kindness and good will of the business
instead of law and regulation. (:rotfl:)
baggygreen
10-02-07, 03:06 AM
Okay, how about we reverse the roles a little bit here.
What would happen if you were say, a catholic priest on holidays through a muslim country and wanted to buy wine so that you could observe a mass. Would the laws or workplace policies be changed so that he could buy it somewhere?
I doubt it.
Okay, how about we reverse the roles a little bit here.
What would happen if you were say, a catholic priest on holidays through a muslim country and wanted to buy wine so that you could observe a mass. Would the laws or workplace policies be changed so that he could buy it somewhere?
I doubt it.
I doubt it too, but I don't see your point. :doh:
"they don't sell alcohol is muslim countrys so we should sack muslims who don't want to sell alcohol" ?
That doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
baggygreen
10-02-07, 03:21 AM
you're right, i left a little sum-up out, my bad im bloody exhausted.
Anyways, the point was that we're pandering and bending over backwards, but the reverse is far from true. Its completely a one way street
you're right, i left a little sum-up out, my bad im bloody exhausted.
Anyways, the point was that we're pandering and bending over backwards, but the reverse is far from true. Its completely a one way street
Who is the 'we' and 'they' ?
The religious discrimination act ITWP applys equaly to everyone regardless of what religion
they have (or havn't even).
you're right, i left a little sum-up out, my bad im bloody exhausted.
Anyways, the point was that we're pandering and bending over backwards, but the reverse is far from true. Its completely a one way street
Who is the 'we' and 'they' ?
The religious discrimination act ITWP applys equaly to everyone regardless of what religion
they have (or havn't even).
We is us the English people, They are the immigrant moslems.
The point is an invader religion is being thrust upon us. If you buy alchohol you will be faced with a wait at checkout whilst someone is found who isn't forbidden by superstion from serving you.
The religious discrimination act applies to evryone yes, but religion doesn't neccesarilly apply to everyone. What the act does is allow god botherers to force their beliefs on others.
you're right, i left a little sum-up out, my bad im bloody exhausted.
Anyways, the point was that we're pandering and bending over backwards, but the reverse is far from true. Its completely a one way street
Who is the 'we' and 'they' ?
The religious discrimination act ITWP applys equaly to everyone regardless of what religion
they have (or havn't even).
We is us the English people, They are the immigrant moslems.
The point is an invader religion is being thrust upon us. If you buy alchohol you will be faced with a wait at checkout whilst someone is found who isn't forbidden by superstion from serving you.
The religious discrimination act applies to evryone yes, but religion doesn't neccesarilly apply to everyone. What the act does is allow god botherers to force their beliefs on others.
That's just redicolous! No one is forceing beliefs on anyone.
For starters, many English people are muslims, most muslims in England are English in
fact!
Secondly, religion and the RDA ITWP does apply to everyone, even if your religion is
none/atheist. For example, your Christian/Muslim/Jewish employer can no longer
refuse to hire you to work in their Church/Mosque/Kosha-Shop just because you are
atheist (unless the job entails religious service of course).
Likewise you can not refuse to employ a jew because you don't have a kosha menu
at the canteen if you can provide one with reasonable adjustment.
If employing a muslim on the checkout will lead to long queues and
no reasonable adjustment can be made to solve this, then the
employer can refuse to hire him/her.
I can't see a situation in a supermarket where no reasonable adjustment can be
made to ensure there are no queues for alcohol, but a good example might be a
off-licence or a pub. If you run a off-licence you can refuse to employ someone
who can not sell alcohol. It's a act that has a good grounding in common sense.
Someone at head office obviously got a bit overzellous trying to win the most accomidating retailer of the year award!
But the article demonstrates the point resonably well. These individuals aren't representative of an attitude as a whole, but rather individuals who are trying to advertise their piety in the obxonious way that a minority of people who hold religious beliefs do (or indeed, those athests who seem to believe that it is their right to insult all religious beliefs!). It has nothing to do with religious conviction, but rather an insecurity within a person that makes them inflict their religious beliefs on others in a power trip designed to prove they are better then the other.
I've seen people refuse to sell young men condoms over the counter at the chemests because of their 'christian' convictions. Indeed, a women can and often is refused an abortion by their GP because they believe they are religiously forbidden from taking a role. These people get away with it for the same reason that the people in Steeds article get away with it.
Its nothing to do with the fact that we have immigration, or multicultrualism; but rather an unwillingness to contain the many cultures found in the UK within a overarching secular social framework.
Someone at head office..
[...]
..contain the many cultures found in the UK within a overarching secular social framework.
Some good points I think.
I don't think everyone who refuses to sell condoms to young men because of their
religion is on a "power trip designed to prove they are better then the other". Some
people do genuinely believe that it would be wrong for them to make that sale with
out being self richeous.
I suppose you bring it to a question of either forcing everyone to be
secular in their social framework or attempting to accommodate convictions where possible.
Personally I would love a totally secular social framework, but at the same time, I do not
want to see people having to chose between their convictions and beliefs and their job.
Skybird
10-02-07, 07:26 AM
They're doing it just to do it.
Exactly.
And now they will continue with the next thing that can be done.
Maybe I should demand an atheistic supermarket for me, so that I do not need to touch goods that previously has been touched by infectious theists. :doh:
They're doing it just to do it. Exactly.
And now they will continue with the next thing that can be done.
Maybe I should demand an atheistic supermarket for me, so that I do not need to touch goods that previously has been touched by infectious theists. :doh:
Clearly some people just do things like this because they can, but I don't think that's
the case the majority of the time?
You could feasibly demand not to handle goods touched by a theists if you where a
employee if you could show it was a genuine belief of yours.
Your employer would then have to make reasonable adjustment or if that was not
possible, sack you.
I can see no way they could make reasonable adjustment so it's the sack for you. ;)
If you demand a atheistic supermarket as a customer then you can guarantee it won't
be too long before capitalism provides one. Hell, I will provide one at the right price!
However, the law will never provide you with one as a customer.
Skybird
10-02-07, 10:02 AM
They're doing it just to do it. Exactly.
And now they will continue with the next thing that can be done.
Maybe I should demand an atheistic supermarket for me, so that I do not need to touch goods that previously has been touched by infectious theists. :doh:
Clearly some people just do things like this because they can, but I don't think that's
the case the majority of the time?
You could feasibly demand not to handle goods touched by a theists if you where a
employee if you could show it was a genuine belief of yours.
Your employer would then have to make reasonable adjustment or if that was not
possible, sack you.
I can see no way they could make reasonable adjustment so it's the sack for you. ;)
If you demand a atheistic supermarket as a customer then you can guarantee it won't
be too long before capitalism provides one. Hell, I will provide one at the right price!
However, the law will never provide you with one as a customer.
Oh you good-hearted, endlessly tolerant and always wellmeaning good guy...
Islam spreads itself in the West systematically, with fincial infrastructure, and a clear intention to take it all over. their strategy is that of a biblical ammount of small steps. It is called "Flooding". the ressource to use as ammunition is a constant move of Muslims into the West, and maintaining higher birthrates than the infidel natives. the tactic is to raise demands, and more demands. If a demand was rejected, they do not list a compromise - they raise even more demands instead. and if you give ground, guess what: they exploit the breach by pumpüing demands into it. the German legal system is, according to speaker for the orgaization representing judges and legal employees at courts, close to braking point, with many regional courts almost locked with Muslims lawsuit that wish to push Islamic rules and agendas agendas. The single case is unimportant, but there is a well-organized and well-funded network and infrastructure to put it up and push it as far as possible. It sounds even tempting to not risk a long session because of such a small, unimportant detail, it even sounds reasonable to give up the small detail at discussion. but do that, and you immediately pay the price by beeing demanded to accept more of their demands, else they threaten you to not consider you reasomnable and tolerant anymore. Oppose them, and you Islamophobic. You may win this or that small courtcase here and there, but the sheer numbers of demands means that you are on a constant, slow retreat, loosing ground more and more. And while you move backwards, you think of yourself as a tolerant, reasonable man while moving back, closer to the wall with each little step you make. You trade ground for time, but the ground you have is limited, and becomes narrower with every step you make. In other words: your time is running out.
It is not worth to call that behavior a strategy. I call it something different: total helplessness, and total unwillingness to defend Western culture and all humanitarian, scientific, philosophic, legal and arts progress, and wealth, it has brought to us. Instead, many of these achievements are getting turned against us, and are abused in order to destroy us, and wipe out our cultural identity.
Kapitan_Phillips
10-02-07, 10:03 AM
you're right, i left a little sum-up out, my bad im bloody exhausted.
Anyways, the point was that we're pandering and bending over backwards, but the reverse is far from true. Its completely a one way street
Who is the 'we' and 'they' ?
The religious discrimination act ITWP applys equaly to everyone regardless of what religion
they have (or havn't even).
I cant speak for baggygreen, but I think I understand what he means. Its the principle that we are introducing under this act so many changes in our own culture and lifestyle, yet these changes are not reciprocated in predominantly Muslim countries, which do contain a number of Christian migrants. It is a very one way system as it is at the moment, where British legislation allows too much leniency, yet Muslim legislation allows none.
My two copper pennies.
Tchocky
10-02-07, 11:43 AM
I cant speak for baggygreen, but I think I understand what he means. Its the principle that we are introducing under this act so many changes in our own culture and lifestyle, yet these changes are not reciprocated in predominantly Muslim countries, which do contain a number of Christian migrants. It is a very one way system as it is at the moment, where British legislation allows too much leniency, yet Muslim legislation allows none.
I'd hate to move to from a repressive regime to a country that was becoming less tolerant....because I moved from a repressive regime. :p
I know that's not what you were saying, but I don't believe that the allowances made in countries like Britain should not be dependent on those made in other countries.
my local paper (http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=132935&command=displayContent&sourceNode=132702&contentPK=18553930&folderPk=77465&pNodeId=132393)
So accommodating really. I know it's getting a little OT, but the underlying principal is the same. All other schools have to allow for a percentage of cultural and religious diversity, so why did this one agree to something it never intended to honour?
(IMO religion has no place in a school until, other than the catalogue of blood it has wrought throughout the ages :roll: )
The key phrase that repeatedly crops up when you hear westerners talking about living in foreign climes is 'When in Rome, do as the Romans do.' Why does this appear to be such an alien concept to those who come to the UK to enjoy all of it's freedoms and wealth to the extent that they desire to make our home into the backwater they moved here to get away from?! I just don't understand.
Whilst there are voices of reason and compassion on both sides they always get drowned out by the loudest screaming voice, threatening death and retribution to all and sundry who are different.
Our tolerance only encourages this sort of thing, as our moral fortitude and generosity is viewed as a weakness to be exploited. Either by accident or design the result is the same.
During my time in the middle east it was made clear that if you seriously broke the law, made criticism of the ruling family or government or just made a plain nuisance of yourself then you would be deported after a short and uncomfortable stay in a local Bahraini jail. Yet here we fall over backwards to accommodate 'diversity'. We are as much to blame as those who would exploit us and our ways for allowing our elected representatives to become so weak.
Skybird
10-02-07, 12:59 PM
Oh why, oh Lord, oh why...
The answer is clear: we are not tolerant enough. I suggest we try harder. We must embrace them with all our love, and if that does not help we must lay on our back and offer them our vulnerable throat and belly, and if that does not help, we must take our youngest and sacrifce him on the altair of theirs, and if that does not help, we must be born as Muslims and must be Islam's property from birth on - then all will be good.
Where there is a will to become Islamic, there will be a way. Always. Promised. You only need to wish hard enough. ;)
We are as much to blame as those who would exploit us and our ways for allowing our elected representatives to become so weak.
Very well said, I completely agree. idslam is not strong by itself, by being attractive for mind and reason, or so glorious. It is strong only because we are weak. Without the weakness of others, Islam would be nothing, and couldn't stand a single reasonable analysis of content, and history. Where it educates man to be stupid, this is for it has no other chance than this to secure it's own survival. - and who is the more stupid? The stupid, or the fool submitting to the stupid without need? Maybe Europe just gets the master that it deserves.
baggygreen
10-02-07, 09:39 PM
you're right, i left a little sum-up out, my bad im bloody exhausted.
Anyways, the point was that we're pandering and bending over backwards, but the reverse is far from true. Its completely a one way street
Who is the 'we' and 'they' ?
The religious discrimination act ITWP applys equaly to everyone regardless of what religion
they have (or havn't even).
I cant speak for baggygreen, but I think I understand what he means. Its the principle that we are introducing under this act so many changes in our own culture and lifestyle, yet these changes are not reciprocated in predominantly Muslim countries, which do contain a number of Christian migrants. It is a very one way system as it is at the moment, where British legislation allows too much leniency, yet Muslim legislation allows none.
My two copper pennies.
Speak! Speak!
You say it well! Although it is not only the British legislation allowing the leniency..
Well I know not to go to Sainsbury's when I 'Moustafa lager':rotfl:
Thank you, I'm here all week
:D Chock
Jimbuna
10-03-07, 04:26 AM
I cant speak for baggygreen, but I think I understand what he means. Its the principle that we are introducing under this act so many changes in our own culture and lifestyle, yet these changes are not reciprocated in predominantly Muslim countries, which do contain a number of Christian migrants. It is a very one way system as it is at the moment, where British legislation allows too much leniency, yet Muslim legislation allows none.
My two copper pennies.
Good point :yep:
The religious discrimination act would have come about with, or with out, Muslims in the country!
It is no more to do with immigrants than anyone else.
Someone at head office..
[...]
..contain the many cultures found in the UK within a overarching secular social framework.
Some good points I think.
I don't think everyone who refuses to sell condoms to young men because of their
religion is on a "power trip designed to prove they are better then the other". Some
people do genuinely believe that it would be wrong for them to make that sale with
out being self richeous.
I suppose you bring it to a question of either forcing everyone to be
secular in their social framework or attempting to accommodate convictions where possible.
Personally I would love a totally secular social framework, but at the same time, I do not
want to see people having to chose between their convictions and beliefs and their job.
I must admit, simplfying everything to a power trip perhaps over did it.
But I do draw a comparison between the devout catholic who refuses to sell young women birth control because they are out of wedlock - and the devout muslim who refuses to sell alcohol because his religion bans it. I see both as people who seem to mis understand that religion and religious conviction are a matter of personal concience
And thats where my "overarching secular social framework" comes in. I hold religious convictions, and quite strong ones too: to the point that my athiest friends who be quite shocked by what I actually sometimes think. But I exist in a secular society and treat everyone on that basis - not as anouther adherent to my own religous views.
As a Liberal (in the fundermental back to basics sense - before any of you jump on me), I believe in the right of the individual to do what they want as long as they do not harm anyone elses right to do as they please. I think in the modern world, we sometimes forget that and tollerate acts of violence, the subjection of women, the denial of education because someone is of a particular religion. In Britain, that can not be tollerated today.
If I were to find someone mad enough to marry me, I would want my children to learn about darwin, despite being catholic. I see no reason to withold knowledge. My best friend is married, has children and is devout muslim. His Children are educated in exactly the same way as I have just set out because he views his religion within a secular framework of society.
I hope that better explains it
But I do draw a comparison between the devout catholic who refuses to sell young women birth control because they are out of wedlock - and the devout muslim who refuses to sell alcohol because his religion bans it. I see both as people who seem to mis understand that religion and religious conviction are a matter of personal concience
Well, religion isn't just a matter of personal conscience, all moral codes impact upon people in some way.
It would be immoral force the devout catholic to sell condoms if he/she thinks that god will think he/she is bad if they do. He/she may see it as a matter of hell or heaven.
Like wise it would be immoral to ask the Jewish taste-tester to taste-test a pork product.
Lastly it would be immoral to make the Muslim, who thinks it is immoral to sell alcohol, sell alcohol.
Further more it would be immoral to refuse to employ any of these people if it is reasonable for the employer to ensure someone else can sell condoms/alcohol/taste-test hams.
Religion and non-religious moral convictions will always impact on other people because the vast majority moral convictions relate to how we interact with other people. Further more, the people who use the moral code of a religion are convinced that they are doing the "right thing" and that to do other wise would make them a bad person.
I can't disagree with you on these points, the question is where you draw the line; and in the examples you give above I'd take a very simular position.
But leaving aside the specific case of the selling of alcohol by Muslims (which I think we would both agree is an issue for the supermarkets themselves)... where would you draw the line.
Lets say a GP refusing to sign an authorisation for abortion, or refer a young women to an abortion clinic on religious grounds? This is the point where opinions begin to diverge.
DAB
Skybird
10-03-07, 10:15 AM
While some people may dislike the use on condoms, the eating of pork and the drinking of alcohol, in our culture all this is being accepted by a huge majority, and it is the sesult of the wa yin which our culture historically developed over the years and centuries. certainly nobody of the minorities disapproving the above mentioned things is forced to participate in jobs and acts where he must violate his taste and conviction.
So the only question is this:
why is a Muslim, who is member of a still minority (although it is as loud as if it forms the majority) that follows a cultural law that is foreign from that of our place, and (if not converted) came to us from far away (not we came to him), why is such a Muslim expecting us to change ourselves according to his views, instead of simply changing his job? You won't like to be involved in the selling of acohol? Or to be more precsie, since I am not aware that such a demand was rasied: why are we - in an act of obedience in advance - thinking it is our duty to to implement such a rule without even being asked for it? You have a problem in with selling alcohol? Okay, go and get another job, nobody hinders you. But don'T expect others to stop selling alcohol, or jump to your side and do your work for you - for which you get payed.
My boss seem to be a teetotaller - does this give her the right to demand from all others to stop drinking, and wine and beer no longer being served in the poubs that she visits? Hardly.
This new act of PC madness just illustrates the ursupation of power by a amok-running bureaucracy that thinks it must regulate all and everything in human life from A to Z and leave nothing untouched, uncontrolled,m ungoiverned, that way leading people into dependance from the state'S structures, taking their self-responsibility away from them, and implement a bureaucratic superstructure that more and more replaces the democratically elected government's authority with the authority of never democratically legitimated adminsitrative structures and bureaucracy that are beyond people's control. Socialists are charcterized by two qualities: they do not see that the money they want to spend must be earned first, and they want to nurse people almost to death in order lure them into eternal dependance from the state and their own party, calling that solidarity.
If foreigners have a problem with our ways of life, I wonder why the hell they found it to be a good idea to come here and wanting to live here.
PC.
I can't disagree with you on these points, the question is where you draw the line; and in the examples you give above I'd take a very simular position.
But leaving aside the specific case of the selling of alcohol by Muslims (which I think we would both agree is an issue for the supermarkets themselves)... where would you draw the line.
Lets say a GP refusing to sign an authorisation for abortion, or refer a young women to an abortion clinic on religious grounds? This is the point where opinions begin to diverge.
DAB
I think one should draw the line when the employer can not make reasonable
adjustment.
Reasonable adjustment such as adding a condom dispensor in the chemist for the
catholic.
If no reasonable adjustment can be made. (i.e. a buhddist in a slaughter house) then
the should have, and does have, every right to sack or refuse to hire them on grounds
of their convictions.
Kapitan_Phillips
10-03-07, 10:41 AM
Hear Hear, Skybird.
certainly nobody of the minorities disapproving the above mentioned things is forced to participate in jobs and acts where he must violate his taste and conviction.
But they are being forced not to participate in jobs that they could participate in with
a few small changes.
So the only question is this:
why is a Muslim, who is member of a still minority (although it is as loud as if it forms the majority) that follows a cultural law that is foreign from that of our place, and (if not converted) came to us from far away (not we came to him), why is such a Muslim expecting us to change ourselves according to his views, instead of simply changing his job?
Why are you trying to make it a issue about muslims? It has no more to do with them
than anyone else.
"Such a Muslim" is expecting us to change ourselves because it is the law that we
must. The law is in place because no one should have to chose between a honest
living and their moral convictions if those convictions can be accommodated.
My boss seem to be a teetotaller - does this give her the right to demand from all others to stop drinking, and wine and beer no longer being served in the poubs that she visits? Hardly.
No, that would not be a reasonable adjustment.
If foreigners have a problem with our ways of life, I wonder why the hell they found it to be a good idea to come here and wanting to live here.
Foreigners?
This is a law for English people!
Tchocky
10-03-07, 11:20 AM
Well I know not to go to Sainsbury's when I 'Moustafa lager':rotfl:
Thank you, I'm here all week
:D Chock
Oh Chock. Oh dear.
*shakes head*
:lol:
PapaG39
10-03-07, 11:42 AM
You made the mistake of allowing them into the country way back in the 1800's.... We did the same mistake & are now paying for it...
Skybird
10-03-07, 11:47 AM
certainly nobody of the minorities disapproving the above mentioned things is forced to participate in jobs and acts where he must violate his taste and conviction.
But they are being forced not to participate in jobs that they could participate in with
a few small changes.
"But they are being forced not to participate" - now that ridicule cant be topped. Hell, what demon demands them to work in that job??? Hasa Jew the right to demand that the supermarket he stubbornly demands to work in shall no longer sell unclean meat? Or that when he is ordered to clean the shelves, there must come a replacement for him cleaning the shelves with the unclean meat? - Or is it maybe more reasonable thta maybe he better works in a book shop, for example? Wait. Maybe his religious background brings him into conflict with selling books that educates teenagers abi9ut sex. Or whatever. Maybe every time he shall be allowed to call another saleman dealing woith that custiomer, then?
"that they could participate in with a few small changes" - What is this now? With just a few small changes in my opinion I can become Muslim. Is that the argument why it should be demanded from me to become Muslim? Or I want to work as secretary in a mosque. I have a wellknown aversion against Islam. Is this the constellation that alloows me to de,and them to chnage Islam, because I am forced not to participate in that job, but could participate in with only a few small changes in it?
Why must every little John Smith's demands that he caught out of the blue sky being turned into an imperative? In the example of that supermarket: has anyone a right to demand that he is allowed to work there? Clearly no. He can ask, the emplyoer will ask him if he is willing to do the work that is to be done, and the job-seeker says yes or nbo. since when has he the right to tell the employer what he has to do different so that he would be willing to voluntarily engage in that job?
I want to work in a paper factory. I demand to work there, but I am allergic to paper. so I want them to produce PVC bags instead. With that small change, I could work in that factory. How wonderful! How sensible! How reasonable!
do people adapt to the job they choose - or the job to the job-seeker? Hell, nobody is forced to work in that job, for god's sake leave it to that and do not make it so ridiculously complex and difficult and world-moving an issue. It is no issue, not even a mini-issue - but without need it is being turned into an issue. If you do not like alcohol, do not seek work in places were you have to deal with it. Period, Schluß, Punkt, Basta, Aus. Any questions?
So the only question is this:
why is a Muslim, who is member of a still minority (although it is as loud as if it forms the majority) that follows a cultural law that is foreign from that of our place, and (if not converted) came to us from far away (not we came to him), why is such a Muslim expecting us to change ourselves according to his views, instead of simply changing his job?
Why are you trying to make it a issue about muslims? It has no more to do with them
than anyone else.[/quote]
Read the topic title, than you know why. we do not being confronted with such problems by Koreans, Chinese or Japanese, btw. Not by Kubans, and southafricvans. Not by Southamericans, and not by canadians and Americans. Not by australians, and Scandinavians. not by Russians and not by Poles. whenever there is a new troublespot in society, it is a safe first bet that Islam as the subject or the background has something to do with it, that the trohbole has been stirred by it, or has emerged due to acts of intimidated obedience in advance.
"Such a Muslim" is expecting us to change ourselves because it is the law that we
must. The law is in place because no one should have to chose between a honest
living and their moral convictions if those convictions can be accommodated.
What reason is in that law? Why was it implemented? Holy Hell, in what way is that man in question hindered at all from a honest living?
I reject that everybody has the right to demand employers to accept him as worker - just becasue he wants it. European PC madness tries to make it impossible for everybody to reject anyone. We are prevented to differ between whom we tolerate,m and whom not. Some months back I complained baout that it is impossible for me, as a lessor, to reject anyone who wants the flat. they even can sue me if I do not give them the flat and cannot pöroove bnlack on white that I have doubts about their liquidity. That I do not want someone to lease the flat becasue I expoect triuble with him, he beahves badly, and loud, or becasue I do not wish to support EU-commanded immigration policies, is meaningless now. De facto I am prohibited to be in charge of my own family's property. By the law, we are expropriated to a very wide degree when it comes to the decision whom we accept as a leaser in our house, and who not. Great. It already has caused us trouble.
There are many different jobs somebody can go for. Why is it that he goes for the job that conflicts with his relgiion, for example, so that then he demands that the job is chnaged to be in line with his reliugion. It is more reasonable thing to do to tell him he should look for another job where that conflcit does not exist by the jobs definition.
[quote=Skybird]
My boss seem to be a teetotaller - does this give her the right to demand from all others to stop drinking, and wine and beer no longer being served in the poubs that she visits? Hardly.
No, that would not be a reasonable adjustment.
Then you contradict yourself when defending the right that somebody having an aversion against alcohol for whatever the resason is can demand the that his job where he has to deal with alcohol, must be changed to his liking.
If foreigners have a problem with our ways of life, I wonder why the hell they found it to be a good idea to come here and wanting to live here.
Foreigners?
This is a law for English people!
To hell with such stupid ridiculous laws. Maybe it is clever not to pass such nonsens. It surely is more reasonable than regulating all things to death. There is a reason why PC madness is so much mocked abotu in this forum.
Maybe we should have a law against mocking ridiculous laws?
PC. Spit.
Skybird
10-03-07, 11:49 AM
Hear Hear, Skybird.
Pardon?
Hear Hear, Skybird. Pardon?
He agrees with you. :yep:
Jimbuna
10-03-07, 02:23 PM
Hear Hear, Skybird.
Pardon?
It's a term often used in the British Parliament used as a means of voicing one's support for a speaker you agree with :up:
Skybird
10-03-07, 03:02 PM
Hear Hear, Skybird.
Pardon?
It's a term often used in the British Parliament used as a means of voicing one's support for a speaker you agree with :up:
Ah, I see, that is different in German: "Hört, hört!" usually (very often) has a more or less scornful or sneering undertone, and is used to make it clear that the person one is commenting to, all of a sudden has apparently changed it's mind and now says something different than before, most likely having made a U-turn and in any way is considered to be a bit ridiculous in this sudden change of opinion.
That's why I felt a little bit targetted, and wondered why.
Jimbuna
10-03-07, 03:27 PM
Hear Hear, Skybird.
Pardon?
It's a term often used in the British Parliament used as a means of voicing one's support for a speaker you agree with :up:
Ah, I see, that is different in German: "Hört, hört!" usually (very often) has a more or less scornful or sneering undertone, and is used to make it clear that the person one is commenting to, all of a sudden has apparently changed it's mind and now says something different than before, most likely having made a U-turn and in any way is considered to be a bit ridiculous in this sudden change of opinion.
That's why I felt a little bit targetted, and wondered why.
So much often gets lost in translation....but we always prevail in the end :up:
baggygreen
10-03-07, 10:35 PM
I differ in opinion to Sky a lot.
Not in this case.
My bottom line is why are laws being changed to accommodate minority groups, and why does the Western media give these minority groups such outrageous levels of coverage in order to further our assimilation?!?
My bottom line is why are laws being changed to accommodate minority groups
The law is also there to accomodate majority groups.
waste gate
10-03-07, 10:41 PM
My bottom line is why are laws being changed to accommodate minority groups
The law is also there to accomodate majority groups.
Can you name a law in the last fifty years which was made to accomodate a majority group? I'd be more than willing to see one.
baggygreen
10-03-07, 10:55 PM
My bottom line is why are laws being changed to accommodate minority groups
The law is also there to accomodate majority groups.I'll happily accept you think that, I just dont reallly see how it does though. Would you mind filling me in? (I ask seriously, not with tongue-in-cheek)
My bottom line is why are laws being changed to accommodate minority groups
The law is also there to accommodate majority groups.
Can you name a law in the last fifty years which was made to accommodate a majority group? I'd be more than willing to see one.
The religious discrimination in the work place act accommodates the majority that consists of people who do not want to be forced out of work because of their religion or lack or religion
all the road traffic acts accommodated the majority that consists of road users
all the employment relations acts accommodates the majority that consists of employees
the freedom of information act accommodates the majority that consist es of people who have information stored about them
the health act(s?) accommodates the majority that consists of people who will suffer health problems
the public interest disclosure act accommodates the majority that consists of people who have a interest in a public figure
the noise act accommodates the majority that consists of people who want a reasonable noise level
the clean air act accommodates the majority that consists of people who want clean air
the dangerous dogs act accommodates the majority that consists of people who don't want to be exposed to dangerous dogs
the food safety act accommodates the majority that consists of people who want a basic standard of food safety in eating placesGet the idea?
That's what I can manage off the top of my head, I could dig out other UK acts with a little work. There are thousands that apply to majority's.
My bottom line is why are laws being changed to accommodate minority groups
The law is also there to accomodate majority groups.I'll happily accept you think that, I just dont reallly see how it does though. Would you mind filling me in? (I ask seriously, not with tongue-in-cheek)
I think the majority of people in England are christian. The act protects that majority by stopping non-christian employers refusing
to hire a christian because of his/her religion.
The majority of Christians would refuse to work on christmas day with out a pay bonus or other incentive. The act makes sure that if
the employer can make reasonable adjustment to make sure that his/her christian employee does not have to work on that day if
they (the christian employee(s)) don't want to, then he can not force the employee to work on christmass or sack him/her.
waste gate
10-03-07, 11:23 PM
My bottom line is why are laws being changed to accommodate minority groups
The law is also there to accommodate majority groups.
Can you name a law in the last fifty years which was made to accommodate a majority group? I'd be more than willing to see one.
The religious discrimination in the work place act accommodates the majority that consists of people who do not want to be forced out of work because of their religion or lack or religion
all the road traffic acts accommodated the majority that consists of road users
all the employment relations acts accommodates the majority that consists of employees
the freedom of information act accommodates the majority that consist es of people who have information stored about them
the health act(s?) accommodates the majority that consists of people who will suffer health problems
the public interest disclosure act accommodates the majority that consists of people who have a interest in a public figure
the noise act accommodates the majority that consists of people who want a reasonable noise level
the clean air act accommodates the majority that consists of people who want clean air
the dangerous dogs act accommodates the majority that consists of people who don't want to be exposed to dangerous dogs
the food safety act accommodates the majority that consists of people who want a basic standard of food safety in eating placesGet the idea?
That's what I can manage off the top of my head, I could dig out other UK acts with a little work. There are thousands that apply to majority's.
My bottom line is why are laws being changed to accommodate minority groups
The law is also there to accomodate majority groups.I'll happily accept you think that, I just dont reallly see how it does though. Would you mind filling me in? (I ask seriously, not with tongue-in-cheek)
I think the majority of people in England are christian. The act protects that majority by stopping non-christian employers refusing
to hire a christian because of his religion.
The majority of Christians would refuse to work on christmas day with out a pay bonus or other incentive. The act makes sure that if
the employer can make reasonable adjustment to make sure that his/her christian employee does not have to work on that day if
they (the christian employee(s)) don't want to, then he can not force the employee to work on christmass or sack him/her.
Nice list there Letum! Thanks.
Most of those laws would be unneccessary if you only had a written constitution.
Most of those laws would be unneccessary if you only had a written constitution.
Well, a constitution would change some of the laws/acts into interpretations of the constitution instead of independent laws.
However I would love a national constitution for the UK to protect the mechanism of
government and the basic human rights of the individual more solidly than the current
system does.
waste gate
10-03-07, 11:50 PM
Most of those laws would be unneccessary if you only had a written constitution.
Well, a constitution would change some of the laws/acts into interpretations of the constitution instead of independent laws.
However I would love a national constitution for the UK to protect the mechanism of
government and the basic human rights of the individual more solidly than the current
system does.
Think of it as a calling. Start a movement. A written document is very much harder to change based on political whim. My only suggestion would be to keep it simple (not an EU constitution) and give the people authority over the gov't in all aspects. Don't allow the elected to think that the people work for them and point their fingers at their constituents and tell them off. That is where the US is at now and we are the worse for it.
wg
Most of those laws would be unneccessary if you only had a written constitution.
Well, a constitution would change some of the laws/acts into interpretations of the constitution instead of independent laws.
However I would love a national constitution for the UK to protect the mechanism of
government and the basic human rights of the individual more solidly than the current
system does.
Think of it as a calling. Start a movement. A written document is very much harder to change based on political whim. My only suggestion would be to keep it simple (not an EU constitution) and give the people authority over the gov't in all aspects. Don't allow the elected to think that the people work for them and point their fingers at their constituents and tell them off. That is where the US is at now and we are the worse for it.
wg
Already exists in several forms. The Liberal Party in the UK is committed to codifying a constitution. Charter 88 is the pressure group that backs codification...
...but a constitution is simply an enshirned law. Had the UK still been using Magna Cata - then we would have still had to ammend the document to get those rights Letum listed earlier in!
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.