Bear in mind that Costco was completely reasonable. The Muslim cashier refused to check out people with alcohol and pork, and so they transferred him to another position. That should have been sufficient. But he is suing. Apparently he wants Costco two have to check-out lines, one for Muslims and one for kaffirs.

http://www.dcclothesline.com/2015/03/04/muslim-costco-employee-refuses-to-touch-pork-sues-after-getting-transferred-to-different-department/#more-45407

Quote from: Dubinsky on March 04, 2015, 05:27:58 AM
Bear in mind that Costco was completely reasonable. The Muslim cashier refused to check out people with alcohol and pork, and so they transferred him to another position. That should have been sufficient. But he is suing. Apparently he wants Costco two have to check-out lines, one for Muslims and one for kaffirs.

http://www.dcclothesline.com/2015/03/04/muslim-costco-employee-refuses-to-touch-pork-sues-after-getting-transferred-to-different-department/#more-45407

According to the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" "reasonable accomodations" must be made for individuals "with sincerely held religious beliefs", except in the case of a "bonafide occupational condition for employment".  If someone is hired as a check out clerk, then the bonafide occupational condition for employment exemption would apply, if all check out clerks do the same job.  However,if Costco has som employees, in the same job title, doing other things that never put them in a position that conflicts with their beliefs (stocking shelves, working in the produce section, etc.) then the Plaintiff has a pretty good case.  This is why job titles and work descriptions have become an increasingly important part of hiring.  You do not have to hire someone that will require an accomodation that will conflict with the clearly defined duties of the position they are applying for.

Quote from: wally on March 04, 2015, 06:09:25 AM
According to the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" "reasonable accomodations" must be made for individuals "with sincerely held religious beliefs", except in the case of a "bonafide occupational condition for employment".  If someone is hired as a check out clerk, then the bonafide occupational condition for employment exemption would apply, if all check out clerks do the same job.  However,if Costco has som employees, in the same job title, doing other things that never put them in a position that conflicts with their beliefs (stocking shelves, working in the produce section, etc.) then the Plaintiff has a pretty good case.  This is why job titles and work descriptions have become an increasingly important part of hiring.  You do not have to hire someone that will require an accomodation that will conflict with the clearly defined duties of the position they are applying for.

I'll translate that into my more simplistic view.  You know that people buy pork.  You know Costco sells pork.  You know people have to pay to buy that pork.  You know to "ring them up" that you have to touch that pork. So why did you take that job to begin with? 

My view is throw this guy out on his ass, PERIOD!!!  He clearly set this up on purpose.

Quote from: Dubinsky on March 04, 2015, 06:43:21 AM
I'll translate that into my more simplistic view.  You know that people buy pork.  You know Costco sells pork.  You know people have to pay to buy that pork.  You know to "ring them up" that you have to touch that pork. So why did you take that job to begin with? 

My view is throw this guy out on his ass, PERIOD!!!  He clearly set this up on purpose.

When The Religious Feedoms Resoration Act was first passed, a group of inmates in the NYS prison system formed their own "Religion"  (Aptly named "CONS"  "Church of the New Souls")  Their lawsuit claimed that they were being discriminated against because their new "religon" required that the NYS Department of Corrections must provide them with the "resonable accomodations" necessary for them to observe their religion (while serving their prison sentences).  These "CONS" demanded "ghanga" so they could smoke marijauana in their cells, dinners of steak and potaos and lobsters and many other outrageous demands.  The Court did throw this one out...BUT they have required certain accomodations be made for Satanists and other off beat wako "Religious" claims.  Some inmates have even gotten money in "damages" for " dilleberate indifference to a sincely held religous belief" and failure to make "reasonable accomodations".

When convicted feloons serving their prison sentences have recieved such protection from our Courts, what chance to you think a business owner has if he/she ignors the law? 

Many of our very liberal based laws need to be revised or repealed.  The fact is, we have far too many laws and regulations.  Nonetheless, we have an obligation to act within the framework of our laws and the Constitution, if we ever wish to bring those to justice that ignore them!  As frustrating as it is, there is a process that must be followed and we are living in a very glass house.  We can't throw stones, unless we are doing everything we can to uphold the rule of law andact within it's framework!

Quote from: Dubinsky on March 04, 2015, 05:27:58 AM
Bear in mind that Costco was completely reasonable. The Muslim cashier refused to check out people with alcohol and pork, and so they transferred him to another position. That should have been sufficient. But he is suing. Apparently he wants Costco two have to check-out lines, one for Muslims and one for kaffirs.

http://www.dcclothesline.com/2015/03/04/muslim-costco-employee-refuses-to-touch-pork-sues-after-getting-transferred-to-different-department/#more-45407

Okay, let me get this straight...

Muslim employees don't have to touch pork due to "religious freedoms", but when it comes to a baker not baking a cake for a same sex couple or a photographer not photographing a same sex wedding because that goes against their religious beliefs, they just have to suck it up (if you'll excuse the expression)?

Quote from: Darth Fife on March 04, 2015, 07:37:02 AM
Okay, let me get this straight...

Muslim employees don't have to touch pork due to "religious freedoms", but when it comes to a baker not baking a cake for a same sex couple or a photographer not photographing a same sex wedding because that goes against their religious beliefs, they just have to suck it up (if you'll excuse the expression)?

So if devout Muslim's aren't suppose to touch pork how do they ever have any relations with their wives?

Anyway, I get your point.  The answer is "political correctness and the tyranny of the minority!"

Quote from: Dubinsky on March 04, 2015, 06:43:21 AM
I'll translate that into my more simplistic view.  You know that people buy pork.  You know Costco sells pork.  You know people have to pay to buy that pork.  You know to "ring them up" that you have to touch that pork. So why did you take that job to begin with? 

My view is throw this guy out on his ass, PERIOD!!!  He clearly set this up on purpose.

Well, this story is trial-lawyer driven and will be pretty-much in the dumper by this-afternoon. 

Though it's nice to see Costco's corporate-HQ squirm like a pig in a picnic-basket... big donors to the dems/obama 'n all.  How many copies of Hard Choices did they hafta unload at an 85% loss last year?  -Then refused to market Dinesh DeSousa's America when it was the number-1 bestseller. 

Quote from: Darth Fife on March 04, 2015, 07:37:02 AM
Okay, let me get this straight...

Muslim employees don't have to touch pork due to "religious freedoms", but when it comes to a baker not baking a cake for a same sex couple or a photographer not photographing a same sex wedding because that goes against their religious beliefs, they just have to suck it up (if you'll excuse the expression)?

That's about it.

Quote from: wally on March 04, 2015, 07:19:42 AM
When The Religious Feedoms Resoration Act was first passed, a group of inmates in the NYS prison system formed their own "Religion"  (Aptly named "CONS"  "Church of the New Souls")  Their lawsuit claimed that they were being discriminated against because their new "religon" required that the NYS Department of Corrections must provide them with the "resonable accomodations" necessary for them to observe their religion (while serving their prison sentences).  These "CONS" demanded "ghanga" so they could smoke marijauana in their cells, dinners of steak and potaos and lobsters and many other outrageous demands.  The Court did throw this one out...BUT they have required certain accomodations be made for Satanists and other off beat wako "Religious" claims.  Some inmates have even gotten money in "damages" for " dilleberate indifference to a sincely held religous belief" and failure to make "reasonable accomodations".

When convicted feloons serving their prison sentences have recieved such protection from our Courts, what chance to you think a business owner has if he/she ignors the law? 

Many of our very liberal based laws need to be revised or repealed.  The fact is, we have far too many laws and regulations.  Nonetheless, we have an obligation to act within the framework of our laws and the Constitution, if we ever wish to bring those to justice that ignore them!  As frustrating as it is, there is a process that must be followed and we are living in a very glass house.  We can't throw stones, unless we are doing everything we can to uphold the rule of law andact within it's framework!

Translation again:  We follow the rules while others get away with breaking them all under the guise that we shouldn't be as bad as those we criticize. 

Sorry but that sounds like nothing more than cow-towing to political correctness.  I'm not advocating breaking any laws but did he or did he not know about what he would be handling as a cashier?  Did they or did they not give him the opportunity to move to a more suitable position?  Now you want to imply that we are no better than him if we deny him due process.

How has "following the process" worked out for conservatives so far in the political arena?  Time has long passed where playing by the rules works when the opposition follows no rules or their own rules.

Quote from: kit saginaw on March 04, 2015, 08:26:39 AM
Well, this story is trial-lawyer driven and will be pretty-much in the dumper by this-afternoon. 

Though it's nice to see Costco's corporate-HQ squirm like a pig in a picnic-basket... big donors to the dems/obama 'n all.  How many copies of Hard Choices did they hafta unload at an 85% loss last year?  -Then refused to market Dinesh DeSousa's America when it was the number-1 bestseller.

Rest assured that I'm no fan of Costco but this example shows they tried to work with this guy if, and I stress the if, we are getting all the facts.

Quote from: Dubinsky on March 04, 2015, 09:13:20 AM


Translation again:  We follow the rules while others get away with breaking them all under the guise that we shouldn't be as bad as those we criticize. 

Sorry but that sounds like nothing more than cow-towing to political correctness.  I'm not advocating breaking any laws but did he or did he not know about what he would be handling as a cashier?  Did they or did they not give him the opportunity to move to a more suitable position?  Now you want to imply that we are no better than him if we deny him due process.

How has "following the process" worked out for conservatives so far in the political arena?  Time has long passed where playing by the rules works when the opposition follows no rules or their own rules.

I'm not implying anything!  I'm sayin that if we don't stand for anything; then we stand for nothing!

There are ways to repeal unfair, unjust laws and regulations (and boy oh boy there are a heap of them) But this lawless Administration is demonstrating their utter disregard and even contempt for our laws and our Constitution!  When I first put on my badge and took my oath of office (for the first time) I remember being told that the law will only be obeyed if those who enforce it, honor the law.  I disagreed with some of the laws I was called upon to enforce; but I did my job. If we don't live by the laws and work within the system to change what we believe needs to be changed, we do not provide any real difference between us and the gangster thugs who have taken over the control of our goverment.  In the end, the only thing that really matters is if we talk the talk and damn well walk it ourselves!  RINOs too often try to take the short cut and do just what the Marxists do, even if that is not in keeping with our Constitution.

Quote from: wally on March 04, 2015, 11:49:52 AM
I'm not implying anything!  I'm sayin that if we don't stand for anything; then we stand for nothing!

There are ways to repeal unfair, unjust laws and regulations (and boy oh boy there are a heap of them) But this lawless Administration is demonstrating their utter disregard and even contempt for our laws and our Constitution!  When I first put on my badge and took my oath of office (for the first time) I remember being told that the law will only be obeyed if those who enforce it, honor the law.  I disagreed with some of the laws I was called upon to enforce; but I did my job. If we don't live by the laws and work within the system to change what we believe needs to be changed, we do not provide any real difference between us and the gangster thugs who have taken over the control of our goverment.  In the end, the only thing that really matters is if we talk the talk and damn well walk it ourselves!  RINOs too often try to take the short cut and do just what the Marxists do, even if that is not in keeping with our Constitution.

Believe me I get what you're saying and I actually agree with it.  What I disagree with is the premise that we should play by the rules and this is important...at this stage.  I get the "two wrongs don't make a right" concept.  We however are playing catch-up and we are way behind.  In 6 short years Obama has reeked more destruction than any good that has been had over decades.

I think we are on the same page but merely disagree on the tactics.  I don't claim to have all the answers but we need something bold and more dramatic.  It sounds cliche but time is truly of the essence.

Quote from: Dubinsky on March 04, 2015, 12:59:38 PM

Believe me I get what you're saying and I actually agree with it.  What I disagree with is the premise that we should play by the rules and this is important...at this stage.  I get the "two wrongs don't make a right" concept.  We however are playing catch-up and we are way behind.  In 6 short years Obama has reeked more destruction than any good that has been had over decades.

I think we are on the same page but merely disagree on the tactics.  I don't claim to have all the answers but we need something bold and more dramatic.  It sounds cliche but time is truly of the essence.

I believe you are on the right track. Obama is becoming more bold because he is rarely challenged and when he is it is not the really important issues. It is up to the GOP just stand up to him. He is a bully and bullies usually retreat when confronted.

For several months now, I have seen a Muslima in her garb shopping at the same grocery store where I shop.  She always has a little boy with her who is not required to wear any ridiculous garb, as a little Muslim girl would be, but is dressed as an American.  When I see this idiot, I always make it a point to get a package of pork chops in my basket to place in hers surrepticiously when I have the chance.  But the little boy is usually watching me so I haven't been able to do it yet.  One of these days I will, though, and it will be a beautiful day when I hear her shriek at the check out counter.

So it ends up that I have been eating a lot of pork chops, which I love anyway.  I think if Muslims ate a few pork chops, they would be happier and more civilized people.

Quote from: Charliemyboy on March 04, 2015, 01:53:57 PM
For several months now, I have seen a Muslima in her garb shopping at the same grocery store where I shop.  She always has a little boy with her who is not required to wear any ridiculous garb, as a little Muslim girl would be, but is dressed as an American.  When I see this idiot, I always make it a point to get a package of pork chops in my basket to place in hers surrepticiously when I have the chance.  But the little boy is usually watching me so I haven't been able to do it yet.  One of these days I will, though, and it will be a beautiful day when I hear her shriek at the check out counter.

So it ends up that I have been eating a lot of pork chops, which I love anyway.  I think if Muslims ate a few pork chops, they would be happier and more civilized people.

You have swerved into the real problem with Muslims. Being deprived from pork for a lifetime will warp one's sense of being. We should suggest to the State Department and Marie Harf that along with jobs we should supply radical Islamists with all the pork needed. That will satisfy what they have been missing and they will be peaceful forever.