|
Post by Isapop on Oct 5, 2019 15:04:37 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2019 16:45:47 GMT
Baffling to me that anyone would be required to attend an office party. Can’t imagine the point of that.
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Oct 5, 2019 17:03:34 GMT
Worked with a JW who, when any "party" was held would refuse to attend and then sat in her office with the door open and play "religious" music on her tape cassette loud enough to make any possible speech between "party-goers" difficult. She could not forbid the parties from happening but she could ruin them to the best of her ability.
We're talking alcohol-free birthday cake, impending wedding, baby shower type get togethers right after work in the break room. She NEVER just packed up and went home.
Cannot imagine a compulsory attendance office party so for this one .. the boss seems like the wrong one ! Probably more to it than this one incident .. there usually is !
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Oct 5, 2019 17:26:43 GMT
Shoot em. Then threaten to shoot anybody else who wants to be a big jesse and not party. For the boss owns their souls, and by darn it, they're going to party.
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Oct 5, 2019 18:20:30 GMT
I'm not a religious believer, and I can imagine no worse hell than an office party.
If I were under compulsion to attend one, I think that would be a clear signal to me that I needed to start thinking to change jobs ASAP.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Oct 5, 2019 20:13:10 GMT
I'm not a religious believer, and I can imagine no worse hell than an office party. If I were under compulsion to attend one, I think that would be a clear signal to me that I needed to start thinking to change jobs ASAP. Why should the burden be on you, the employee, to start thinking to change jobs (maybe not such an easy thing)? What about trying to do something about the compulsion to attend?
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Oct 5, 2019 21:06:31 GMT
I'm not a religious believer, and I can imagine no worse hell than an office party. If I were under compulsion to attend one, I think that would be a clear signal to me that I needed to start thinking to change jobs ASAP. Why should the burden be on you, the employee, to start thinking to change jobs (maybe not such an easy thing)? What about trying to do something about the compulsion to attend? You'd probably lose your job quicker than you'd change the employer's culture, but anyone's welcome to try.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Oct 5, 2019 21:48:55 GMT
Baffling to me that anyone would be required to attend an office party. Can’t imagine the point of that. And what makes it weirder is that the employer grants exemptions for non-religious reasons ("We can't tolerate religious privileges from anyone.")
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Oct 6, 2019 0:02:52 GMT
Fired for refusing to party? I call bullshit. In my company, attendance to company parties is not mandatory; and I don't know any company where it is.
Looks to me like the employer wanted to fire the employee anyway and was just looking for a pretense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2019 0:12:54 GMT
Fired for refusing to party? I call bullshit. In my company, attendance to company parties is not mandatory; and I don't know any company where it is. Looks to me like the employer wanted to fire the employee anyway and was just looking for a pretense. If so, then why would they choose one guaranteed to attract all this attention and a lawsuit?
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Oct 6, 2019 7:41:55 GMT
Fired for refusing to party? I call bullshit. In my company, attendance to company parties is not mandatory; and I don't know any company where it is. Looks to me like the employer wanted to fire the employee anyway and was just looking for a pretense. If so, then why would they choose one guaranteed to attract all this attention and a lawsuit? Good point. I don't know. I could be wrong of course. On the other hand, I am in favor of children, especially girls, attending all mandatory classes at school. Especially physical education. I am against girls with Muslims backgrounds being excempt for religious reasons. Good thing I'm not a lawyer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2019 8:28:37 GMT
Fired for refusing to party? I call bullshit. In my company, attendance to company parties is not mandatory; and I don't know any company where it is. Looks to me like the employer wanted to fire the employee anyway and was just looking for a pretense. I'm thinking that there are peripheral issues here as well.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Oct 6, 2019 9:11:06 GMT
I wonder if this is for real...it sounds made up...especially the alleged firing note. It specifically says they are being fired for religious reasons.
[W]e can't tolerate religious privileges from anyone." OTOH, maybe it was religious conviction that triggered the firing. If it's against your convictions to have someone working for you who doesn't like to attend your party because of religion, and if your party means a lot to you religiously, then you should be allowed to fire them if they are NOT coming because of their religion and that, even if you excuse others for NONreligious reasons. It's arbitrary and capricious, but isn't that what religion is at its roots? And no, they shouldn't have to explain the basis for that "religious" conviction that no one can be excused for religious reasons.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Oct 6, 2019 10:19:37 GMT
I wonder if this is for real...it sounds made up...especially the alleged firing note. It specifically says they are being fired for religious reasons.
If you mean whether the story is real, don't worry, it is. It's on the EEOC site: www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/10-2-19b.cfm If you mean whether the allegation is real, they're satisfied it is because they tried to effect a settlement before filing the lawsuit. Even so, the law still requires an employer to show that accommodating the religious beliefs of a worker places an undue burden on his business.
|
|
|
Post by kls on Oct 6, 2019 11:43:19 GMT
I wonder if this is for real...it sounds made up...especially the alleged firing note. It specifically says they are being fired for religious reasons.
If you mean whether the story is real, don't worry, it is. It's on the EEOC site: www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/10-2-19b.cfm If you mean whether the allegation is real, they're satisfied it is because they tried to effect a settlement before filing the lawsuit. Even so, the law still requires an employer to show that accommodating the religious beliefs of a worker places an undue burden on his business. Exactly. I don't see how an employee opting out of a holiday party places any burden on an employer.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Oct 6, 2019 13:21:32 GMT
I wonder if this is for real...it sounds made up...especially the alleged firing note. It specifically says they are being fired for religious reasons.
If you mean whether the story is real, don't worry, it is. It's on the EEOC site: www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/10-2-19b.cfm If you mean whether the allegation is real, they're satisfied it is because they tried to effect a settlement before filing the lawsuit. Even so, the law still requires an employer to show that accommodating the religious beliefs of a worker places an undue burden on his business. Perhaps the law says this, but the thread title doesn't ask what the law says, but who is "right" in this lawsuit.
I'm answering from the standpoint of "right" vs "wrong" whether someone can make decisions about who works for them and what they can do/not do based on the employer's or owner's religious convictions. If they can...and many on the religious right think one should be able to operate their businesses...make distinctions on who they serve and how they can serve them...based on their personal convictions, then why can't they make decisions on who works for them and what those employees do/say based on convictions. And if someone has a personal conviction that thus and so is supposed happen...e.g. someone should come to their parties and can't "opt out" based on religious convictions, then they should be allowed to not keep that person in their employee.
OR, people ought not be allowed to make business decisions at all, based on religious convictions. Which is it?
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Oct 6, 2019 13:31:14 GMT
Something seems fishy here.
When has a Christmas party ever been mandatory?
Without hearing any other details... I gotta say that the employee is right in the lawsuit.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Oct 6, 2019 14:10:40 GMT
If you mean whether the story is real, don't worry, it is. It's on the EEOC site: www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/10-2-19b.cfm If you mean whether the allegation is real, they're satisfied it is because they tried to effect a settlement before filing the lawsuit. Even so, the law still requires an employer to show that accommodating the religious beliefs of a worker places an undue burden on his business. Perhaps the law says this, but the thread title doesn't ask what the law says, but who is "right" in this lawsuit.
I'm answering from the standpoint of "right" vs "wrong" whether someone can make decisions about who works for them and what they can do/not do based on the employer's or owner's religious convictions. If they can...and many on the religious right think one should be able to operate their businesses...make distinctions on who they serve and how they can serve them...based on their personal convictions, then why can't they make decisions on who works for them and what those employees do/say based on convictions. And if someone has a personal conviction that thus and so is supposed happen...e.g. someone should come to their parties and can't "opt out" based on religious convictions, then they should be allowed to not keep that person in their employee.
OR, people ought not be allowed to make business decisions at all, based on religious convictions. Which is it?
Ok, that's fair enough. Who's right in the large sense rather than the legal sense? The pure libertarian will say that civil rights laws should be abolished because business people should be left alone to hire and serve whoever they want for their own reasons. And this seems to be what you're getting at. But I say that businesses don't operate in a vacuum. They operate in a society in which all people pay taxes which go to the kinds of things that businesses use and rely on (roads, police and fire depts., garbage disposal, etc.). And thus, it's not overstepping for government to tell businesses to not discriminate in the kind of broad categories (race, religion, gender) that we've seen practiced in our history and to the detriment of a just and equitable society.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Oct 6, 2019 14:21:41 GMT
Perhaps the law says this, but the thread title doesn't ask what the law says, but who is "right" in this lawsuit.
I'm answering from the standpoint of "right" vs "wrong" whether someone can make decisions about who works for them and what they can do/not do based on the employer's or owner's religious convictions. If they can...and many on the religious right think one should be able to operate their businesses...make distinctions on who they serve and how they can serve them...based on their personal convictions, then why can't they make decisions on who works for them and what those employees do/say based on convictions. And if someone has a personal conviction that thus and so is supposed happen...e.g. someone should come to their parties and can't "opt out" based on religious convictions, then they should be allowed to not keep that person in their employee.
OR, people ought not be allowed to make business decisions at all, based on religious convictions. Which is it?
Ok, that's fair enough. Who's right in the large sense rather than the legal sense? The pure libertarian will say that civil rights laws should be abolished because business people should be left alone to hire and serve whoever they want for their own reasons. And this seems to be what you're getting at. But I say that businesses don't operate in a vacuum. They operate in a society in which all people pay taxes which go to the kinds of things that businesses use and rely on (roads, police and fire depts., garbage disposal, etc.). And thus, it's not overstepping for government to tell businesses to not discriminate in the kind of broad categories (race, religion, gender) that we've seen practiced in our history and to the detriment of a just and equitable society.
I was being a bit tongue in cheek because I agree that it could be quite uncomfortable for minorities and other groups if businesses were allowed to discriminate indiscriminately. And you make a good point, all those businesses DO DEPEND on an infrastructure and stable society that protects them and gives them the framework to be successful. If they want to discriminate like that, maybe fire fighters, cops and medical personnel should be allowed to decide who to protect/save/treat ad infinitum. I personally don't agree that someone should be firing someone else because they don't go to parties but I think it fits with the "I don't want to make specialized cakes for gay couples because I am opposed to gay weddings or homosexuality" mantra.
|
|
|
Post by BATouttaheck on Oct 6, 2019 22:15:40 GMT
If so, then why would they choose one guaranteed to attract all this attention and a lawsuit? Good point. I don't know. I could be wrong of course. On the other hand, I am in favor of children, especially girls, attending all mandatory classes at school. Especially physical education. I am against girls with Muslims backgrounds being excempt for religious reasons. Good thing I'm not a lawyer. In high school the Methodist girls were excused from Gym class on the days when dancing was the sport du jour. Mom was the school librarian and she had to deal with what she termed "the horrible creatures" when they spent the hour not dancing. Just an excuse to get out of class.
|
|