Christians fined for NOT baking cake! Muslims awarded for NOT delivering beer

[Aella_]

In the US no business can legally turn away anyone using a guide dog. If you're operating a business you're required to allow guide dogs to come in if you allow people to come in.

To prevent it it may require a lawsuit, like suing the cab company. Unfortunately a sighted person would have to help, since a blind person wouldn't be able to get the cab number.

Same here, in Au. And, given that Canada is -imo- the more individual-friendly of the three, I doubt that things occurred in that way.
I suspect that the cabbies were, indeed, foreigners, as it often happens in larger cities. But that they were also relatively new to the country and newly employed, therefore not familiar with that particular rule, and unfamiliar with the looks or the idea of guide-dogs. So it boiled down to the company's responsibility to train their employees.

 

[Aella_]

Re BB spanning the globe :
I just googled, out of curiosity, "Au muslims accused", and
Hah!
I found this:

FBI says 'Australian IS jihadist' is actually a Jewish American troll named Joshua Ryne Goldberg
http://www.smh.com.au/national/aust...an-jewish-american-troll-20150911-gjk852.html

 

[hazbeen]

Cause there are no Jihadist Muslims in AU

 

[about_average]

And it was in Canada.

BB spans the globe looking for reasons to be outraged.

Yeah, that's why I said in the US, I didn't know what Canada law was.
Considering BB is wrong about 90% of the time you'd think he'd stick to US outrage until his percentage is a bit higher. On the other hand, considering he's pretty clueless about US law, I can't imagine him ever coming close to being right about anything in another country.

 

[hazbeen]

I can only assume you think they are the same since you said there were videos of them refusing in response to my statement that you didn't provide any proof they'd been sued.

AA: Show me proof no muslim bakery has been sued for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same sex marriage
HB: I showed you videos of them refusing to bake a cake!

Or is a conversation with you more like this?
AA:What time is it?
HB:Oak tree.

The dog didn't bark

No one dares sue Muslims

 

[about_average]

The dog didn't bark

No one dares sue Muslims

It's not our fault if you're a coward.

 

[chillywilly2]

They can say "people averse to carrying alcohol need not apply", thus extending the group to include Mormons.

They could, or the people applying for the delivery job could offer the information prior to being hired and not screw over a prospective employer.

Cause like, when they get fired for something else, it won't look so shitty on their resume when looking for another job

 

[Kitty]

Damn near pathetic.


You people are going to die angry old farts on Lit.

 

[chillywilly2]

Because you gave two identical examples of anti-discriminatory legal actions, and pretended that they were completely different, dumbass.

Actually, I see it as two opposites.

The baker was fined for not doing his job citing his religious beliefs and the trucking company owner was fined for trying to make the drivers do their job even while citing religious beliefs.

In the case of the Christian, he had to suppress his beliefs and in the case of the truck drivers their beliefs trumped.

 

[phrodeau]

Actually, I see it as two opposites.

The baker was fined for not doing his job citing his religious beliefs and the trucking company owner was fined for trying to make the drivers do their job even while citing religious beliefs.

In the case of the Christian, he had to suppress his beliefs and in the case of the truck drivers their beliefs trumped.

The baker discriminated against his customers and the trucking company owner discriminated against his employees.

And the trucking company owner wasn't trying to make them do the job, he fired them.

 

[chillywilly2]

The baker discriminated against his customers and the trucking company owner discriminated against his employees.

And the trucking company owner wasn't trying to make them do the job, he fired them.

They were both asked to do their job and they both refused, the Baker still had to do his job and the truck drivers didn't

Where is the discrimination...both were asked to do a job and both refused

The discrimination is who lost....

 

[phrodeau]

They were both asked to do their job and they both refused, the Baker still had to do his job and the truck drivers didn't

Where is the discrimination...both were asked to do a job and both refused

The discrimination is who lost....

What baker do you mean, that had to do the job? This one sure didn't. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...cake-hes-doing-this-with-the-wrong-christian/

 

[chillywilly2]

What baker do you mean, that had to do the job? This one sure didn't. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...cake-hes-doing-this-with-the-wrong-christian/

Yup, I think thats the one...he still lost in court, he just ain't backing down


Now, I can't say as I agree with either of them, but that still doesn't make them the same

If the gays can get a cake baked, why can't a drunk get his booze delivered

 

[Aella_]

From what I read on the EEOC site + as argued in this thread by a_a, there are several reasons for that.
One of the reasons being this:

"Failure to accommodate the religious beliefs of employees, when this can be done without undue hardship, violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion."
. (the keyword being ""without hardship")

My take of the two cases is that one of the deciding factors lies with the sizes of the two companies:
- whereas the trucking company was a big one, could have easily swapped them around without it 'causing hardship' (which they haven't)
- the bakery was a small business, perhaps only 1-2 bakers actively employed

 

[Kitty]

From what I read on the EEOC site + as argued in this thread by a_a, there are several reasons for that.
One of the reasons being this:

"Failure to accommodate the religious beliefs of employees, when this can be done without undue hardship, violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion."
. (the keyword being ""without hardship")

My take of the two cases is that one of the deciding factors lies with the sizes of the two companies:
- whereas the trucking company was a big one, could have easily swapped them around without it 'causing hardship' (which they haven't)
- the bakery was a small business, perhaps only 1-2 bakers actively employed

*pokes you* What even is this thread?

 

[Aella_]

*pokes you* What even is this thread?

Lol...she strikes again.
A combo between having a laugh re BB's Awesome thread title and anxieties,
and Litsters discussing politics on a porn site.

It's about those two over-publicized cases from the US :
- a Christian baker lost (or was in danger of losing - can't remember the case well) his job after he refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple
- and two muslim truck drivers were fired for refusing to transport alcohol, invoking -as well- religious beliefs.
In both cases, the fired employees sued their employers. Outcome: the muslim guys won and were awarded 200.000$ in damages, whereas the christian baker lost.

Some people agree with the Court's decision, others disagree.
((I might have got some facts wrong, but that's the main idea)).

 

[phrodeau]

Yup, I think thats the one...he still lost in court, he just ain't backing down


Now, I can't say as I agree with either of them, but that still doesn't make them the same

If the gays can get a cake baked, why can't a drunk get his booze delivered

He didn't bake the cake, say I again to deaf ears.

 

[phrodeau]

Lol...she strikes again.
A combo between having a laugh re BB's Awesome thread title and anxieties,
and Litsters discussing politics on a porn site.

It's about those two over-publicized cases from the US :
- a Christian baker lost (or was in danger of losing - can't remember the case well) his job after he refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple
- and two muslim truck drivers were fired for refusing to transport alcohol, invoking -as well- religious beliefs.
In both cases, the fired employees sued their employers. Outcome: the muslim guys won and were awarded 200.000$ in damages, whereas the christian baker lost.

Some people agree with the Court's decision, others disagree.
((I might have got some facts wrong, but that's the main idea)).

No...

The baker was discriminating against customers, using religion to justify. The customers won damages.

 

[chillywilly2]

Actually...its a case of a few grown ups being babies.

This is the 21st century...there are more gods out there than you can shake a stick at.

The baker hates gays and doesn't want to bake them a cake
The muslims, well, they're just being muslims because they have the bestest religion


The gays want their rights because its the only bakery in the world...or one of their rish girlfriends told them the cake there "was to die for"

The trucking supervisor got pissed because everybody has an excuse nowadays and he is tired of the bullshit

Shutup and do your job and leave the religion at home

 

[about_average]

Because you gave two identical examples of anti-discriminatory legal actions, and pretended that they were completely different, dumbass.

I think you have it backwards. They are different situations and BB is pretending they are the same. See post 46
http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=72084152&postcount=46

 

[magicalmoments]

Cause there are no Jihadist Muslims in AU

If by AU you mean Australia then you are wrong. Read a proper newspaper why don't you.

Everyone knows ignorance is self inflicted but you really do a a job on yourself.

 

[hazbeen]

Muslim Costco employee refuses to touch pork; sues after getting transferred to different department -

See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2015/03/mus...fferent-department.html/#sthash.LRWLuu5O.dpuf

 

[hazbeen]

The most obvious thing, so obviously lost on HB, is that if you're running a business you can't discriminate between customers and you have to make reasonable accommodations for employee's religious beliefs. Two completely different situations.
One was customers who claimed discrimination and the other was employees. Different laws.

Costco did

was sued

YOUR RESPONSE?


Muslim Costco employee refuses to touch pork; sues after getting transferred to different department - See more at: http://pamelageller.com/2015/03/mus...fferent-department.html/#sthash.LRWLuu5O.dpuf

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The Gitmo Five complained about women transporting them as being offensive to their religion, so the women were taken off of the detail.



I know, I know, lies, falsehoods, FOMA!!!

 

[about_average]

Costco did

was sued

YOUR RESPONSE?[

Despite you playing ignorant of the fact, in the US it's pretty easy for anyone to sue anyone about anything.
Once all the facts of the case are released, probably after a ruling, bring it up again if you want actual comments rather than manufactured outrage over a headline.