Razz: good call, my last posts were OTT. Apologies.

You're right, religious belief isn't a choice (although pretending to hold religious belief is) and so to say it's self inflicted is rather harsh on my part. I got a bit carried away there.

If religious beliefs are to be equated with mental illness symptoms, that implies that religious teaching is psychologically damaging. Which I think it is, but making this legal kind of incriminates religion.

Sure, some of my examples weren't very good. Accomodating these religious things should depend on people being up front about it, I don't think it's right to announce stuff once you've got the job and expect everything to shift around you. The problem there is you can just invent a new religion once you've got a job. Then, can they fire you if your new religion requires unreasonable accommodation? I suppose so.

(April 14, 2015 at 9:57 am)Razzle Wrote:

(April 14, 2015 at 9:08 am)Cato Wrote: The reasonable accommodation standard is to allow people with disabilities to perform the prescribed roles and responsibilities. In the case of the Muslim cashier, no such consideration is warranted. Handling pork and alcohol products is part of the basic job requirements. Refusing to execute basic duties no matter the supposed justification is grounds for disqualification, not accommodation. It's the religious practitioner's responsibility to seek employment that doesn't violate his/her cherished beliefs.

So if a worker had an allergy or phobia and couldn't handle two particular items for that reason, would it still be unreasonable for him to be allowed to direct customers to other staff or to self-checkout, because it should be a 'basic requirement' that they physically check out every item?

That's where the word reasonable would come in.  At a grocery store, pork makes up a substantial portion of the inventory.  There are usually whole freezer cases devoted to it.  Most people's weekly shopping includes at least one pork item.  So no, I don't think that requiring help with at least one item per major shopper would be reasonable accommodation.  On the other hand, if the store were a mini market where pork jerky was occasionally sold, then maybe it would be reasonable to send one in 100 or so customers to another checkout because they are purchasing pork jerky.

I suppose we should look on theists with these issues as victims. If they have been pretty much forced into believing this stuff and literally can't stop, and are too scared to analyse them, that's not their fault.

I think this is interesting. Who would agree that legally equating religious "issues" with actual mental disorders is pretty much saying indoctrination is psychologically damaging? It seems to me that the next logical step after making this law would be to crack down on indoctrination, as it has been legally equated to abuse. That is probably just me pipe dreaming again. Probably not practical, unfortunately.

My previous post was so bad I'm doubting my reasoning now though Bad day I guess.

And it's kind of telling, isn't it, when certain things AREN'T a problem from a religious perspective in regards to a job ??

For instance, the bake shops declining to make gay wedding cakes don't seem to ever make the news for refusing to make a cake for heteros remarrying.  And that is particularly galling for me, as their Christer dude never mentioned nothing about the gays, but he sure as hell did forbid remarriage following a divorce.

Sincerity of belief, in my view, is going to trip up just about all of these objectors.  The above examples of a JW taking a paycheck from a company profiting on Christmas sales, and for stores selling pork despite having Muslims on the payroll.

Sincerity of belief is the 'axe', if you will, for us to prune away all these twits citing religious malarkey to shield their petty prejudices.

Right, we're always going to have to do things that conflict with our beliefs and values on some level. I had to process paperwork for companies which I considered to be unethical before, but I can't just say "I'm not doing that". Is that so different? Just because my objection is based on real world morality and not on the threats of an invisible being? I suppose I'd have to have declared this up front though. Which I didn't, I admit.

That is what I'm interested to know: are theists being up front about all this from the start? Are they making clear, "I won't do this, I won't do that..." before the employer decides whether to hire them?

If so, if they're being up front and the employer hires them anyway, then I guess that's down to their judgement. But if they spring this shit that "everyone knows about religion X" after being employed, I consider that dishonest. Because let's face it, everyone has their own version of their own religion. If they're just going to say, "Well it's in the bible", then can the employers find a verse which contradicts it and say, "Look it also says you can do it, right here."

Some years ago, the State of Nebraska (of which I am not a resident) passed a law requiring independent contractors to assess sales tax on their work, collect it from their customers, and forward it on to the state.

I was hoping someone would come forward and object on the grounds that being a tax collector was tainted from the Biblical angle.  Alas, no one did, but also, no one remitted any tax money either, and the law was repealed pretty quickly.

I guess I wouldn't have had a problem with making that argument had I been snagged for not complying, just to pimp the christers.

(April 14, 2015 at 10:17 am)Jenny A Wrote:

(April 14, 2015 at 9:57 am)Razzle Wrote: So if a worker had an allergy or phobia and couldn't handle two particular items for that reason, would it still be unreasonable for him to be allowed to direct customers to other staff or to self-checkout, because it should be a 'basic requirement' that they physically check out every item?

That's where the word reasonable would come in.  At a grocery store, pork makes up a substantial portion of the inventory.  There are usually whole freezer cases devoted to it.  Most people's weekly shopping includes at least one pork item.  So no, I don't think that requiring help with at least one item per major shopper would be reasonable accommodation.  On the other hand, if the store were a mini market where pork jerky was occasionally sold, then maybe it would be reasonable to send one in 100 or so customers to another checkout because they are purchasing pork jerky.

I agree, it depends on how frequently those items are brought to the counter. There are going to be grey areas when determinimg what's reasonable and what's not, but the example I posed for Cato was designed to find out whether his opinion on his own or any particular example would be the same or different depending on whether the cause were a religion or a disability, and if it would be different, why is that?

Quote: The problem with these arguments is that there are in fact disabilities that cause people to refuse to do things due to figments of their imagination, and which would probably be accommodated in much the same way

IF they won't do their job, then fire them.  Fuck allah.

(April 14, 2015 at 2:28 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote: The problem with these arguments is that there are in fact disabilities that cause people to refuse to do things due to figments of their imagination, and which would probably be accommodated in much the same way

IF they won't do their job, then fire them.  Fuck allah.

Do you mean both the religious accommodations and accommodations for anxiety disorders that cause avoidance of similar things, or just the religious ones?

(April 14, 2015 at 3:38 pm)Razzle Wrote:

(April 14, 2015 at 2:28 pm)Minimalist Wrote: IF they won't do their job, then fire them.  Fuck allah.

Do you mean both the religious accommodations and accommodations for anxiety disorders that cause avoidance of similar things, or just the religious ones?

I'm not him, but yes.  If you can't perform your job duties (with *reasonable accommodation), then you're not qualified to hold the job.  If you *won't* perform your job duties, then you're in the wrong job.

In the case of a devout Muslim who refuses to handle haram products as a result of his religious belief, a reasonable accommodation would be allowing him to wear gloves.  If he's so devout that even that is not acceptable to him, what the fuck is he doing working in an establishment that sells such ungodly products?

* Reasonable accommodation does not mean "get someone else to perform (some of my) job duties".