I feel that leaves way too much room for ambiguity though. I mean I’m not a religious person in the least so maybe I lack the perspective, but if there’s nothing to substantiate the belief except for word alone, then this just seems all sorts of ridiculous because there’s no verifying factor outside of the person’s apparent belief.
But this is also trying to rationalize the irrational.
Well, yeah, that’s pretty much the nature of religious belief - it’s all assertion with no way to “verify” it.
There’s nothing inherently more valid or “true” about Christian belief based on cherry picking Scripture than there is to some guy who has his own independant spirituality. There is no objective way to adjudicate spiritual truth claims of any religion.
I understand, it isn’t easy to figure out and strike a reasonable balance that works in all cases.
I personally feel that:
To me that seems a reasonable balance.
Ironically religious organizations are the worst offenders of discriminating based on religion, I don’t see christian churches hiring muslim youth pastors.
There are two things: that it was not a significant burden, and that this was the case because it was only one employee. They accommodated the others because they had to - but even though the burden wasn’t significant to accommodate him, it was clearly a burden they were taking on only because he had an irrational belief in something that wasn’t the case. Had it been more than one employee demanding that (or other) accommodations for no rational reason, it easily could become significant.
It seems to me that there’s also a separate issue of reasonable versus unreasonable accommodations. This is clearly the latter.
It’s good to know that now EVERY employee at that mine who has “sincere religious beliefs” can opt out of the biometric scan now. Because that’s essentially what this ruling has established, right?
The difference is that clocking in on a biometric reader is not an inherent and necessary part of the job of mining coal. Consol could very easily have made reasonable accomodations without undue hardship.
It’s not like he was objecting to the very act of digging into the earth because he feared opening a portal to Hell.
@Nonhuman_Hominid
We’re not even sure if @shaddack is actually from Earth…
That is how we Call It Forth, so that the Chosen One can rule Accurately over all, as it is written in the Prophecy.
Your post was so close to mine it interfered with my correcting my typo, which I did within a minute or so lol
Being able to know when and where he was working was a necessary part of his employment terms, however. It sounds like his alternative was rejected because it was something that was easily falsifiable/insufficient. I don’t think that he was actually a miner, but obviously one does not hire someone and continue to employ them if they’ve simply refused to do the entire job. Although what we do have is, for example, pharmacists who insist they should be hired for jobs even though they refuse to hand out some of the drugs because of personal beliefs. (And there are lawsuits by people who weren’t hired after informing their potential employers that they refused to do part of that job, but thought they should be hired anyways, because: religion.) At what point does one’s beliefs stop acting as a shield and allow others to say, “If you don’t want to do this job, then don’t take it.”
Q: What did the Pink Panther say when he stepped on Latin-teaching ant?
A: Pedant, pedant, pedant pedant pedant, pedant, pedant, pedant pedant.
Given how often I feel like I am on a wrong planet, I have certain doubts too.
I hear @SmashMartian has a nice place a little inside the main belt. Maybe he could let you couch surf when you need to get away from this soggy little apeball.
Plenty of room here, just don’t trip over the skateboards. If you feel like fixing 'em up and taking them for a spin, feel free.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
