Some Target Stores Change Duties for Muslim Cashiers Who Object to Ringing Up Pork

[alphaman]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259374,00.html

[Mus505]

wow thats a cool...

[Act of God]

Holy crap, F these people....seriously. Either STFU or go back to whatever piece of shit you call a country you came from.

[Dude-Man]

Why do they feel they have a right to tell other people outside of their faith what to eat?

[Act of God]

Big shocker there. You live in the freakin desert and your religion says pork is bad (Jews too).

Here's a newsflash. Before they had things like preservatives and ice or refrigerators pork would spoil before other meats and become deadly. Religion told them not to eat pork because it actually was dangerous at the time.

it is, currently, 2007. Grow up.

[alphaman]

Here's a newsflash. Before they had things like preservatives and ice or refrigerators pork would spoil before other meats and become deadly.

Salt has been around for a long, long time.

Religion told them not to eat pork because it actually was dangerous at the time.

Where are you getting this idea from?

[Act of God]

Anthropology? College?

They had to stop people from eating the pork, because it was more prone to spoilage than beef and chicken (the people were getting sick). The best way to do this was "god doesn't want you to eat pork, that's why you are getting sick"

[alphaman]

Anthropology? College?

They had to stop people from eating the pork, because it was more prone to spoilage than beef and chicken (the people were getting sick). The best way to do this was "god doesn't want you to eat pork, that's why you are getting sick"

Source?


In no way am I supporting the Muslims who don't want to ring up the swine. I'm just calling bs on what you're saying.


PS- Just because some professor told you so, doesn't mean it is.

[Act of God]

I've heard it more than once, and it makes sense logically. I'm confident enough in that, and the fact that i went to a very good school.

Sorry there isn't an official "origins of stupid religious superstitions" source, though. I suppose you believe they have issues with pork because "god" told them so...good luck with that.

[jeepman06]

I live in Minnesota and the local Muslum cab drivers are refusing to take fares if they have alcohol or a dog, and the cab company lets them get away with it. It doesn't surprise me that Target (based in Minnesota) would allow similar rights to the muslums.
I think they should just fire them for not performing the duties they were hired to perform.
Why would someone take a job that interfers with their religous beliefs in the first place?
Shut-up, do your job or go home!

[alphaman]

I've heard it more than once, and it makes sense logically. I'm confident enough in that, and the fact that i went to a very good school.

Just because something could logically make sense doesn't mean it's true. This is a huge problem with idiot liberal professors and 'historians' that appear on fictional History Channel documentaries.

Sorry there isn't an official "origins of stupid religious superstitions" source, though.

Yes there is. It's called the Bible. The same thing the Muhammad borrowed his ideas from.

You call them "stupid superstitions", but that doesn't mean they are. The fact is the idiotic people I referenced above come up with anything they can to undermine the scriptures, no matter how much they are 'reaching'. What does that tell you?

In general, pork isn't as healthy a choice as other proteins. And if you had any real ground to stand on with your argument, I'm sure it would be easy to find a source for your "newsflash".

[mcpeepants]

i think there is both religious and non-religious reasons jews and muslims don't eat pork. in the old testament they write that God says pigs are unclean animals. I think it has a lot to do with pigs wallowing in dirts, eating garbage, etc and could be unhealthy if not cooked right. saying that God said pigs are unclean would be an easier way to explain to God fearing people that they should avoid potentially dangerous things.

kind of like how Jesus explains how people should live there lives through parables because they're much easier for people to understand.

[alphaman]

i think there is both religious and non-religious reasons jews and muslims don't eat pork. in the old testament they write that God says pigs are unclean animals. I think it has a lot to do with pigs wallowing in dirts, eating garbage, etc and could be unhealthy if not cooked right. saying that God said pigs are unclean would be an easier way to explain to God fearing people that they should avoid potentially dangerous things.

kind of like how Jesus explains how people should live there lives through parables because they're much easier for people to understand.

The Bible doesn't actually say that a pig is unclean because it rolls around in mud and crap. It says it's unclean because it doesn't chew it's cud. The Bible says that Camels are unclean too, and as far as I know, they don't roll around in mud.

I think that when God gave us the law, He was doing what any good parent should do -- He set rules in place because He knew what was best for us. A Biblical diet is actually very healthy.

[mcpeepants]

The Bible doesn't actually say that a pig is unclean because it rolls around in mud and crap. It says it's unclean because it doesn't chew it's cud. The Bible says that Camels are unclean too, and as far as I know, they don't roll around in mud.

I think that when God gave us the law, He was doing what any good parent should do -- He set rules in place because He knew what was best for us. A Biblical diet is actually very healthy.

chewing cud doesn't make an animal's meat clean or dirty. it's just an arbitrary classification they're using. pigs however eat things like meat, dead bodies, garbage, etc that other hooved animals don't . i think this is what makes them "unclean" to religious leaders and they want their people to avoid them because their dirty and might have diseases. i think camels are "unclean" because they are used as work animals.

[Kale]

The prohibition comes from Torah, in the book Leviticus, Chapter 11,
verses 2 through 8, in particular, verse 7:
1. And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them, 2
2. Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts
which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.
3. Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the
cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.
4. Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or
of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the
cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
5. And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the
hoof; he is unclean unto you.
6. And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the
hoof; he is unclean unto you.
7. And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet
he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
8. Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not
touch; they are unclean to you.

[Logan13]

Target is owned by a company in France.................need I say more?

[biglouie250]

Target is owned by a company in France.................need I say more?

target is a publicly traded company. it is owned by the american tax payers. if you have a 401k or an IRA that has large cap mutual funds chances are you indirectly own part of target.

[Kärnfysikern]

Target is owned by a company in France.................need I say more?

France is probably not as pc as you belive...

[Logan13]

France is probably not as pc as you belive...

Regardless, I would rather shop Target than Walmart any day.

[Bigen12]

Won't perform their assigned tasks....

Fire them and hire someone who will.

[jeepman06]

They were supposed to vote today to put disciplinary action into effect for the cab drivers (Muslums) refusing rides. The first offense would be a 11 day suspension. The second offense would lead to termination. I'm glad we are not letting them hide behind religous freedoms, and forcing them to do the jobs they were hired to do.
I'm sure our troops did not enlist in the military to die, but they are required to give their lives for the protection of our country. It's their job. I'm sure this goes against all of their beliefs, but they have a job to do...and they do it.
Why should we expect any less from anyone living in this great country.

[singern]

They were supposed to vote today to put disciplinary action into effect for the cab drivers (Muslums) refusing rides. The first offense would be a 11 day suspension. The second offense would lead to termination. I'm glad we are not letting them hide behind religous freedoms, and forcing them to do the jobs they were hired to do.
I'm sure our troops did not enlist in the military to die, but they are required to give their lives for the protection of our country. It's their job. I'm sure this goes against all of their beliefs, but they have a job to do...and they do it.
Why should we expect any less from anyone living in this great country.

Well spoken.
PC and social consideration has its place, but not the workplace. Your hired and paid to do a job, you either do that job or you don’t.

[Snrf]

Where are you getting this idea from?

I don't have an internet source but Act of God is actually right. I'll see if I can dig something up

[Act of God]

I swear to god, I'm actually educated fairly well. College was the best 5 years of my life. Law school, the worst 3

Alphaman, I kinda feel like you are actually trying to cite the bible (of all things) are a historical source. After all the revisions, re-writes, and translations I don't know how you can claim that it carries any credibility in a conversation like this.

Go back to the ancient religions of the American Indians, Greeks and Romans. They used religion to explain natural occurrences that they didn't understand. Many of the traditions and rites in these older religions arose from necessity. They needed a way to control the population, and the idea of a higher power is pretty scary (especially to primitive cultures).

I'm a Catholic, but I do not practice actively. While I have faith, I also know that a good portion of practiced religion is fluff and tradition for the sake of tradition. Don't let the message get obscured by stupid shit like not eating meat on fridays, not turning on electric things on weekends, and not touching pork products.

[alphaman]

chewing cud doesn't make an animal's meat clean or dirty. it's just an arbitrary classification they're using. pigs however eat things like meat, dead bodies, garbage, etc that other hooved animals don't . i think this is what makes them "unclean" to religious leaders and they want their people to avoid them because their dirty and might have diseases. i think camels are "unclean" because they are used as work animals.

I was just telling you what the Bible says. Read Leviticus 11. According to Old Testament Law -- given by God -- not religious leaders, the animal is unclean if it doesn't have a split hoof and chew it's cud. This doesn't include seafood and poultry.

[alphaman]

The prohibition comes from Torah, in the book Leviticus, Chapter 11,
verses 2 through 8, in particular, verse 7:
1. And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them, 2
2. Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts
which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.
3. Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the
cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.
4. Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or
of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the
cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
5. And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the
hoof; he is unclean unto you.
6. And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the
hoof; he is unclean unto you.
7. And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet
he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
8. Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not
touch; they are unclean to you.

oh, good call. lol

[alphaman]

I swear to god, I'm actually educated fairly well. College was the best 5 years of my life. Law school, the worst 3

I don't want to downplay your education, but why in the world would you trust everything a professor tells you just because they're a prof? This is a big problem nowadays.

Alphaman, I kinda feel like you are actually trying to cite the bible (of all things) are a historical source. After all the revisions, re-writes, and translations I don't know how you can claim that it carries any credibility in a conversation like this.

If I let this go long enough, somebody else probably would have said something but -- you don't know me that well, do you!?

Of course I cite the Bible as a historical reference. If you cared to really look into it, you'd be surprised.

Go back to the ancient religions of the American Indians, Greeks and Romans. They used religion to explain natural occurrences that they didn't understand. Many of the traditions and rites in these older religions arose from necessity. They needed a way to control the population, and the idea of a higher power is pretty scary (especially to primitive cultures).

More speculative history.

I'm a Catholic, but I do not practice actively. While I have faith, I also know that a good portion of practiced religion is fluff and tradition for the sake of tradition. Don't let the message get obscured by stupid shit like not eating meat on fridays, not turning on electric things on weekends, and not touching pork products.

I don't live by the Law, I live by Grace.

What exactly do you mean by, "I have faith"?

[alphaman]

I don't have an internet source but Act of God is actually right. I'll see if I can dig something up

Still diggin? lol

[Tock]

Holy crap, F these people....seriously. Either STFU or go back to whatever piece of shit you call a country you came from.

Problem is that Congress passed laws requiring employers to give reasonable accommodations to employees with religious, um, for want of a better word, nit-picks.

Christians started complaining about their rights about 20 years ago, and what we have now is a result of all that.

[Tock]

The prohibition comes from Torah, in the book Leviticus, Chapter 11,
verses 2 through 8, in particular, verse 7:
1. And the LORD spake unto Moses and to Aaron, saying unto them, 2
2. Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, These are the beasts
which ye shall eat among all the beasts that are on the earth.
3. Whatsoever parteth the hoof, and is clovenfooted, and cheweth the
cud, among the beasts, that shall ye eat.
4. Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or
of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the
cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.
5. And the coney, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the
hoof; he is unclean unto you.
6. And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the
hoof; he is unclean unto you.
7. And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet
he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
8. Of their flesh shall ye not eat, and their carcase shall ye not
touch; they are unclean to you.

Okay, all you zoologists out there -- tell me what kind of hare "cheweths the cud?"
Sounds to me like the infallible Bible got this one wrong . . .

[X-Damien]

Holy crap, F these people....seriously. Either STFU or go back to whatever piece of shit you call a country you came from.

Damn...a bit harsh. Remember our country was made up of immigrants and such. Most of our holidays, traditions etc. were adapted from other cultures.
We are so successful due to this so called "melting pot"
Just relax a bit, I think you're being narrow minded.
I wouldn't disrespect something I know nothing about...
Anyways, not trying to start S***, we are not to discuss religion on this board, just my 2 cents.


PS - I'd be carefull with comments like that, if you don't want to get banned

[alphaman]

Okay, all you zoologists out there -- tell me what kind of hare "cheweths the cud?"
Sounds to me like the infallible Bible got this one wrong . . .

In modern English, animals that ‘chew the cud’ are called ruminants. They hardly chew their food when first eaten, but swallow it into a special stomach where the food is partially digested. Then it is regurgitated, chewed again, and swallowed into a different stomach. Animals which do this include cows, sheep and goats, and they all have four stomachs. Coneys and rabbits are not ruminants in this modern sense.

However, the Hebrew phrase for ‘chew the cud’ simply means ‘raising up what has been swallowed’. Coneys and rabbits go through such similar motions to ruminants that Linnaeus, the father of modern classification (and a creationist), at first classified them as ruminants. Also, rabbits and hares practise refection, which is essentially the same principle as rumination, and does indeed ‘raise up what has been swallowed’. The food goes right through the rabbit and is passed out as a special type of dropping. These are re-eaten, and can now nourish the rabbit as they have already been partly digested.

It is not an error of Scripture that ‘chewing the cud’ now has a more restrictive meaning than it did in Moses’ day. Indeed, rabbits and hares do ‘chew the cud’ in an even more specific sense. Once again, the Bible is right and the skeptics are wrong.
God, through Moses, was giving instructions that any Israelite could follow. It is inconceivable that someone familiar with Middle-Eastern animal life would make an easily corrected mistake about rabbits, and also inconceivable that the Israelites would have accepted a book as Scripture if it were contrary to observation, which it is not.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/crea...i4/rabbits.asp

[Tock]

Ha . . . Big letters don't make your statement more correct.

I'm not gonna go into all the technical stuff, mostly because it's pretty dull, and partially because I don't have the time. But your guy's rationalization is sufficiently well addressed by my guys at this websites:

http://www.ministerturnsatheist.org/...eblunders.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/maga...4/4chew94.html
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/erranc..._chew_cud.html


Plus, no one has a clue who actually wrote this part of the Bible, anyway. Eggheads who study this sort of thing for a living will tell you it's basically a mish-mash of four ancient Hebrew traditions, all hobbled together centuries after the time Moses was supposed to exist. Some, not all, fundamentalists will tell you Moses himself wrote it. I've no idea why they'd think that, because parts of what Moses is supposed to have written refers to things that happened centuries after Moses died, and that's not possible.

So.

It's all legend, and lots of what was in the original transcripts has had translation problems, lots is not translated from original manuscripts, no one knows who actually wrote this stuff, so there's no way to go back and verify any of it.

In short, it's not important . . .

[Tock]

Here's one take (by the ACLJ, not the ACLU) on the rights of religious employees:

http://www.regent.edu/acad/schbus/ma...ianrights.html

Christian Rights in the Workplace

by The American Center for Law and Justice

Note: the contents of this article apply only to employees working in the United States

Employees of Private Organizations

Most employees work for private employers and these employees are primarily protected only by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. They may also be protected by laws in their State similar to Title VII. State laws protecting the religious freedom of employees may provide more protection than Title VII, but generally they are very similar to the federal law. This article does not attempt to describe individual state laws therefore employees should consult an attorney who is licensed in their particular state to determine if state law provides them with added protection.

Here, we explain how employees of private organizations are protected by Title VII. The rules of law stated also apply to government employees, but focus on private employees because Title VII is usually their only remedy.

Can I share the Gospel with co-workers at work?

If required by their religious beliefs, an employee's religiously motivated expressions of faith are protected by Title VII. For instance, in conversations with other employees, you may refer to Biblical passages on slothfulness and "work ethics." Employees can engage in religious speech at work as long as there is no actual imposition on co-workers or disruption of the work routine. Generally, no disruption of the work routine will occur if an employee's witnessing takes place during breaks, or other free time. If other employees are permitted to use electronic mail and screen savers for speech that is not related to work, an employee who has a sincerely held religious belief to communicate their faith with others should also be able to use these modes of communication.

To ensure that their religious speech is protected by Title VII, an employee should first of all be able to honestly say that their religious beliefs require them to share the Gospel whenever possible with willing co-workers during breaks or other free time. The employee must then inform the employer of this religious belief (preferably in writing). At that point, the employer must attempt to accommodate this religious belief unless it will cause the employer "undue hardship."

Can I keep my Bible or other religious items at my desk?

Yes. As with witnessing to co-workers, an employee can bring his Bible to work and keep it at his desk if he is required to do so by sincerely held religious beliefs. To ensure that this religious belief of having a Bible or other religious items at work is protected by Title VII, an employee should first of all be able to honestly say that their religious beliefs require them to bring these items to work. The employee must then inform the employer of this religious belief (preferably in writing). The employer is then required to attempt to accommodate this belief.

Do I have to work on Sundays if my religion prohibits it?

Employers must accommodate requests by employees for absence on their Sabbath or other religious holidays. An affirmative duty arises under Title VII for the employer to make a good faith effort to arrange the employee's schedule to allow the employee to have Sabbaths off. The employer will be in violation of Title VII if they have "made no real effort" or have taken a "don't care" attitude.

For instance, courts have held that an employer is required to accommodate a World Wide Church of God employee who observed his Sabbath from sunset on Friday to sunset on Saturday. The reason for this decision is that the employer did not incur additional costs from the accommodation because they employed extra men at all times to cover unscheduled absences.

The employer's affirmative duty to attempt to accommodate the employee's request for time off is not limited if the employee asks for more than one accommodation. For instance, an employee who belongs to the World Wide Church of God requested time off in view of two sincerely held religious beliefs: (1) attending a religious festival during her normal working shift, and (2) refraining from all work during the religious festival. The employer argued that accommodating one of these religious beliefs satisfied their duty under Title VII. But the Court ruled against the employer, refusing to "condone an employer's entire lack of effort to accommodate a given conflict merely because the employer offered to accommodate other ones."

The same rule applies where an employee's religious beliefs prevent him from working on Sundays, and prevent him from asking someone else to engage in this prohibited activity for him. Merely allowing the employee to swap shifts with someone does not constitute reasonable accommodation in this instance. In addition to allowing the employee to be off on Sundays, the employer has an affirmative duty to arrange a swap for the employee. Employees must be careful to specifically inform their employer of this religious belief not to ask anyone else to work on Sunday either.

In sum, employers must attempt to accommodate an employee's need for days off due to religious beliefs. At a minimum, the employer's duty to accommodate includes allowing employees to trade shifts, and may require the employer to arrange for the trade.

Can I go to work dressed in the particular fashion required by my religion?

Employers must accommodate religious beliefs requiring an employee to dress or groom in a certain manner, unless the rule prohibiting certain religious dressing is justified by a business necessity. The EEOC has ruled that a nurse whose Old Catholic faith required her to wear a scarf was unlawfully discharged for refusing to come to work without the scarf, because requiring the nurse to wear a cap instead of the scarf was "not so necessary to the operation of [the employer's] business as to justify the effect that this policy has upon the religious convictions." Title VII has also been found to protect an employee's religious belief that she must wear a Pro-Life button at all times, even at work.

An employer, however, does not discriminate against an employee by requiring him to shave his long facial hair and refrain from wearing a turban, if both of these religious practices result in safety hazards by preventing a hard hat and respirator from being worn properly.

Are there any types of religious beliefs or behavior not protected by Title VII?

Generally, all sincerely held religious beliefs are protected by Title VII. When a Title VII religious claim fails, it is often because the employer is able to show the employee was discriminated against for inefficiency, bad work product, or an inability to get along with co-workers rather than because of the asserted religious practice. A frequent example is when an employee's religious speech is couched in an argumentative, confrontational style that inhibits cooperation with other employees. In such cases, the court is likely to determine that the employee was not discriminated against because of his religious beliefs, but because of his offensive conduct in the office.

Do I have to attend training if it violates my religious convictions?

An employee cannot be required to attend training that will violate their sincerely held religious beliefs. The EEOC has ruled that an employer violates Title VII if it requires an employee to attend training containing a philosophy that conflicts with the employee's religious beliefs. The EEOC found that the employer failed to show how accommodating the religious convictions of these employees by not requiring them to attend the training would result in an undue hardship.

How do I file a claim under Title VII if my religious rights have been violated?

It is recommended that the employee contact an attorney before beginning this process. Because the process must be completed correctly in order to preserve your claim and because it may vary from state to state, it is important to obtain competent legal counsel before beginning.

Title VII first requires that the charge be filed with a state agency if the violation occurs within a state that has set up an agency for handling discrimination claims. If your state does not have its own human rights commission or similar agency, you should file directly with the EEOC. Practically speaking, this means contacting the state agency or EEOC in your state by telephone and informing them that you wish to file a complaint. They will then instruct you on how and where to fill out the necessary paper work. In states that have an agency for handling these claims, filing with the state agency must be followed by timely filing the charge with the EEOC. Some state agencies will do this for you.

Usually the complaint must be filed within 180 days of the discriminatory act. The time period is measured from the date that the discriminatory act occurred. Upon the filing of the charge there is a 180 day mandatory waiting period, during which time the EEOC is given the opportunity to mediate and resolve the complaint. The private litigant then has 90 days in which to file suit. This limitation period runs not from the discriminatory act, but from the date the private party receives notice from the EEOC or state agency that conciliation was completed, or the date the party receives a right to sue letter.

Government Employees

Government employees are protected by both Title VII and the United States Constitution against religious discrimination. Public employees do not forfeit their First Amendment rights upon entering the public workplace. Therefore, the religious freedom of government employees has the additional protection of the Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Below, we explain how government employees are protected by the First Amendment above and beyond the protection they have from Title VII.

As a government employee, is all my religious speech at work protected by the First Amendment?

A public employee receives greater speech protection when speaking "as a citizen upon matters of public concern" than he does when commenting on employment matters of personal or internal interest. When evaluating these cases, the Supreme Court has traditionally utilized a test which balances the importance of the employee's speech on a matter of public concern against the government's need to run an efficient workplace. Religious speech will always be a matter of public concern.

For example, in Tucker v. State of California Dept. of Education, a federal Court of Appeals found religious speech to be a matter of public concern, and used Pickering to protect the religious liberties of a state education department employee who believed that he was commanded to "give credit to God for the work he perform[ed]." He engaged in religious discussions, and kept religious material around his work area. Tucker prevailed when the court weighed the state's asserted interests of efficiency, protecting the liberty interests of other employees, and avoiding Establishment Clause issues against the weight of a "broad ban on group speech." The court rejected the employer's contention that the religious speech reduced efficiency since other types of non-work related speech were permitted. The court also rejected the argument that the employee's speech violated the Establishment Clause because there was no way it could have been attributed to the state.

Therefore, religious speech of government employees is protected so long as it does not significantly reduce efficiency in the workplace, and so long as it will not be attributed to the government employer.

As a government employee, can I keep religious items in my personal work area?

The First Amendment also protects the right of public employees to keep items with religious messages on them at their desk. In a case where an employee had a Bible and plaques containing the serenity prayer, the Lord's Prayer, and one that said, "God be in my life and in my commitment" in his office, the government employer violated the First Amendment when it demanded that these items be removed because they might be considered "offensive to employees." The fact that other employees may find these items offensive is irrelevant when considered in light of First Amendment freedoms.

As a government employee, can I advertise events at my church on the bulletin board at work?

If a government employer allows employees to post non-work related material around the office, they cannot prohibit the posting of religious material. "[I]t is not reasonable to allow employees to post materials around the office on all sorts of subjects, and forbid only the posting of religious information and materials." Religious speech is given the same expansive protections offered to secular speech inviting "employees to motorcycle rallies, swap meets, x-rated movies, beer busts, or burlesque shows." Allowing this speech while prohibiting advertising for religious events "is unreasonable not only because it bans a vast amount of material without legitimate justification but also because its sole target is religious speech."

Doesn't religious speech by government employees violate the "Separation between Church and State?"

The oft cited phrase "separation between church and state" is found nowhere in the Constitution. This phrase has been misused by many in this country to mislead people and trick them into believing that the government can have absolutely nothing to do with religion. The truth is the Constitution only prohibits the establishment of religion through the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment does not provide the government with any justification for prohibiting religious expression in the workplace. As the United States Supreme Court said in this regard: "The Establishment Clause does not license government to treat religion and those who teach or practice it, simply by virtue of their status as such, as subversive of American ideals and therefore subject to unique disabilities.

We emphasize, too, that fear alone, even fear of discrimination or other illegal activity, is not enough to justify such a mobilization of governmental force against [an employee]…. A phobia of religion, for instance, no matter how real subjectively, will not do. As Justice Brandeis has said, ‘…Men feared witches and burnt women.’"

In August of 1997, President Clinton took the remarkable step of issuing guidelines confirming that federal workers can express their faith on the job. These guidelines direct federal agencies to "permit personal religious expression by federal employees to the greatest extent possible…." The guidelines are instructive for all government employees and employers.

In sum, governmental employers may restrict religious activity in the workplace only if it prohibits the government from running an efficient workplace, or there is clear evidence that it is intimidating or harassing to co-workers. Speculative fears of offense or employee discontent do not provide the government with an excuse for discriminating against religious employees who express their faith through words, actions, or symbols.

Employer Religious Beliefs

Many employers have sincerely held religious beliefs which they want their businesses to reflect. But federal and state laws prohibiting religious discrimination in employment have discouraged many business owners from communicating their religious convictions at work. The good news is that, just like employees, business owners do not have to check their religion at the door when they come to work. The following information provides some guidance for religious employers who want their business to reflect their faith.

Do employers unlawfully discriminate if they base business objectives and goals upon Biblical principles?

No. An employer does not discriminate on the basis of religion by affirming the faith of its owners in business objectives. "Title VII does not, and could not, require individual employers to abandon their religion." Employers must be careful, however, not to give prospective or current employees the perception that employment or advancement with the company depends on acquiescence in the religious beliefs of the employer. This can be accomplished in a number of ways. For instance, applications for employment should state that applicants are considered for all positions without regard to religion. This statement should also be included in any orientation materials, employee handbooks, and employee evaluation forms. Of course, employers must also be sure that this statement is accurate but not discriminating on the basis of religion.

As the owner of the business, can I witness to my employees?

An employer can talk about his religious beliefs with employees as long as employees know that continued employment or advancement within the company is not conditioned upon acquiescence in the employer's religious beliefs. For instance, one court has held that an employer did not discriminate against an employee by sharing the gospel with him and inviting him to church. Employers must be careful, however, not to persist in witnessing if the employee objects. Such unwanted proselytizing could be deemed religious harassment. Employers cannot impose their religious beliefs on their employees.

Am I permitted to give my employees religious literature?

As with spoken religious speech, employers can share their religious beliefs with their employees in print form such as pamphlets, books, and newsletters. Employers must be careful, however, not to give employees the impression that they have to agree with the employer's religious beliefs in order to keep their job or get a promotion. For instance, in one case a Jewish employee was wrongfully terminated for complaining about the printing of Bible verses on his paychecks and the religious content of a company newsletter. If an employer shares religious convictions with employees, and the employee disagrees or protests, no adverse action can be taken against the employee.

Furthermore, employers should be ready to accommodate any employee's objections to the religious speech contained in publications distributed to employees. Sufficient accommodation may be to provide the objecting employee with a publication that does not contain the religious content. In order to counter any impression given by publications that job security and advancement are contingent upon faith, it is also recommended that publications with religious material state that the employer does not discriminate on the basis of religion for purposes of continued employment, employee benefits, or promotion.

Can an employer hold regular prayer meetings or chaplain services for employees?

Employers can hold regular devotional meetings for employees so long as attendance is not required. Moreover, active participation of management in these meetings does not make them discriminatory. To ensure that employees understand that devotional meetings are voluntary, notice of the meetings should state that they are not mandatory and it is wise to hold these meetings before the work day begins, during breaks, or after work.

Can I require my employees to attend training based on Biblical principles?

Employers can use training programs that are based on the Bible. For instance, requiring an employee to attend a management seminar put on by the Institute of Basic Life Principles which used scriptural passages to support the lessons it sought to promote did not violate a Massachusetts civil rights law. Employees cannot, however, be required to undergo religious training, participate in religious services, or engage in behavior that would violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.



Used by permission of the ACLJ. For further questions and answers regarding Christian rights in the workplace, or to see the dozens of endnotes associated with the content of this article, please visit www.aclj.org

[RamyGras]

Yeah, I agree. If you truly believe that somebody is going to burn in hell for eating pork, then sell them the bacon and let them be on their way.

[Act of God]

Damn...a bit harsh. Remember our country was made up of immigrants and such. Most of our holidays, traditions etc. were adapted from other cultures.
We are so successful due to this so called "melting pot"
Just relax a bit, I think you're being narrow minded.
I wouldn't disrespect something I know nothing about...
Anyways, not trying to start S***, we are not to discuss religion on this board, just my 2 cents.


PS - I'd be carefull with comments like that, if you don't want to get banned

It's more of a proclamation of the frustration a lot of people are feeling (I know I am not alone) lately. It seems like every group that is in any kind of minority has been in full-on complain about EVERYTHING mode, and they are being appeased without question.

All the while we watch our national identity vanish. I wish this place was still a melting pot, that is what made this place kick ass. We got all of the good things from all these different cultures and mixed it in seamlessly with our own. Present day, it more resembles oil and water. Everyone wants to live like they are still living in "Country X" and basically screw being a true American.

[RamyGras]

I think the complaints are coming from all people, not just minorities. Don't get me wrong, refusing to ring up pork or refusing to give a ride to somebody intoxicated when you're a cab driver (that one blew my mind) is going way out there. However, everybody is complaining. I don't think too many minorities were complaining about Mexicans taking crap jobs. Democrats and Republicans are waking up in the morning to do battle with each other. And you say that our national identity has vanished. As opposed to when? The early 1900's? I don't think the Italian, Irish, or African Americans would agree that our melting pot was "kicking ass" back then. Maybe I'm wrong, but even then, our different cultures weren't exactly "mixed in seamlessly with our own".

[X-Damien]

It's more of a proclamation of the frustration a lot of people are feeling (I know I am not alone) lately. It seems like every group that is in any kind of minority has been in full-on complain about EVERYTHING mode, and they are being appeased without question.

All the while we watch our national identity vanish. I wish this place was still a melting pot, that is what made this place kick ass. We got all of the good things from all these different cultures and mixed it in seamlessly with our own. Present day, it more resembles oil and water. Everyone wants to live like they are still living in "Country X" and basically screw being a true American.

lately - you're kidding? You are an educated man right - you should read up some more on American History and Immigration.
From the days of slavery, poor Irish Immigrants to Italian Americans, Chinese etc. US
So "True American" why can't we all get along in this melting pot - well....you said it best

Holy crap, F these people....seriously. Either STFU or go back to whatever piece of shit you call a country you came from.

You are entitled to your own opinion though, I am sure there are millions like you that feel the same way..."frustrated"

[Act of God]

I'm a little confused by your last post. You highlighted "lately" as if I was missing the boat about something. I feel that this is a recent trend, and is easily distinguishable from past history with immigrants. When the poor Irish and Italians (my family included) came to America they embraced it and assimilated. Hell, my grandmother wouldn't let her kids or grandchildren even learn Italian because "we're Americans now, we speak English". While that is a pretty harsh stance, it really showed the commitment that the immigrants of that day had to this country. They came here and they wanted to not only become part of the fabric of this society, they wanted to be a contributing member. My grandfather came over from Italy and when WWII went down he enlisted in the United States Army. He died shortly upon his return due to malaria. He literally gave his own life for a country he had just came to live in.

And you also chose to highlight "true American" and asked why we can't all get along in this melting pot. The reason is that there is no longer a melting pot. Fellow Americans have nothing in common with their neighbor, sometimes not even a common language to communicate in. Immigrants of this day and age come to live with other people from their country, speak the native language of that country, and take whatever handouts this country is doling out.

A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, to bring up a cliche`. This country used to be made of stronger links. Back in the day it was considered a privilege, not a right, to come to this country to live and make a life for yourself. To expect the people here to change THEIR ways for you was unheard of and, quite frankly, disrespectful.

It has been said eleventy billion times, but you wouldn't move to another country, not learn the language, and not only expect but DEMAND that they cater to your every whim.

[biglouie250]

i worked at a supermarket in my youth. muslim guy got sandwhiches from the deli all the time. we slipped ham in there all the time.