|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
posted September 15, 2010 10:14 PM |
|
|
Blizzard, I said *I* think an employer can hire for any reason. I didn't say it was legal.
If I have a private company, I SHOULD be allowed to hire or not hire for any reason I want. I can't think of any restrictions to that. I should be allowed not hire someone because they wear a burka. I should be allowed to not hire someone because they are Muslim, or because they are female, or because they are black, or because they are from Texas, or because they are short, or because of any other reason.
If it was my business and the government tried to make me hire a person for any reason, I'd just shut the business down.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted September 15, 2010 10:26 PM |
|
|
@the original post:
I think there's an abnormally strong interest in France that wants to preserve cultural norms. People that advocate such goals may seem sophisticated on the surface, but really it's just bigotry and stupidity covered up to look pretty. France has a particularly high amount of Muslims coming in that was fueled this kind of reaction, but I think laws like these foreshadow what is likely to happen in other places eventually.
Banning people's articles of clothing is primitive and unnecessary; I think an important mark of a progressive society is that people are allowed - in so far as they are not directly harming anybody - to offend other people. If somebody doesn't like the hijab: tough luck. Granted, most Muslims would ban many aspects of French culture in a heartbeat, but it's a glaring failure when you make yourself out to be superior and yet do similar things that they would do. Not to mention that radical ideologies have a historical tendency to wither under prosperity and tolerance but flourish under persecution. France likely just strengthened Islam within their country.
There are other issues that are more complicated. Should a woman wearing the hijab be able to get a job as a face-to-face marketer for her company, even though it will likely hurt that company's image? Personally, I don't feel companies should have to explain themselves concerning who they do or don't hire, so from that perspective it's a non-issue. But since most countries have laws over such things, it becomes a lot more difficult to determine what is and isn't allowed.
@Elodin:
Btw, it's peculiar that you have this position over the ban considering you're so enthusiastic over prohibiting the mosque from being built near Ground Zero.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted September 15, 2010 10:34 PM |
|
|
@Bin:
I agree.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 15, 2010 10:43 PM |
|
|
Binabik has put it well - it's my opinion as well.
Quote:
Quote:
Obviously, that job can be done wearing a burqua - however, every non-muslim would say that a receptionist with an unveiled face would make a better impression. However, that's not a proper reason to decline a job application, if the person is otherwise splendidly qualified - you could say the same about a turban.
If you have an attribute that compromises a company's ability to attract customers (hurts business) - or, say, a competing applicant lacks this attribute - then you de facto are less qualified for the job. Put another way, if you are a bank teller, part of your job is customer relations, and if customers cannot relate to you, that makes you as much of a liability to the company as if you couldn't add. A bank teller with no arithmetic skills is probably just as bad of a hire (from a hiring manager's perspective) as a bank teller who is likely to scare away the clientele - for whatever reason. I mean, let's forget the baggage surrounding religious attire and get to the meat of the issue: is a pretty person more qualified than an ugly person for some jobs? I never understood why people cry "discrimination" when a TV company hires only young, hot women for news anchor positions, yet nobody seems to think it's wrong that the NBA only hires tall, athletic and muscular males as basketball players. Some people apparently think it's wrong for companies to use your religious attire as a means to weed out potential job applicants, but I don't really see it as any different than using any other attribute of a person. If you're determined to walk around society with a piece of black fabric covering your face, that's your choice. But people need to realize that choices have consequences, and if your choice is going to wig out the customers, then companies have every right to hire someone else who is willing to come to work with more than their eyes showing.
You fail to see the main point. There is a difference between doing things for religious reasons and doing it for your own private reasons - at least, that's the general take on it. If you are in a job, but for no apparent reason you make pauses while working, making yoga and gymnastics. Your boss won't be pleased.
Do the same, but for praying to Allah, and things look different.
Which would mean, as a boss, never hire a muslim, they may waste precious worktime with praying or other religious stuff - HIRE ATHEISTS!
Same thing with religiously motivated clothing. Veil yourself for fun, and your clothing is inappropriate. Do it for religious reasons, and it's not your doing.
Now, if you reject the muslim application, and the muslim sues you because of religious discrimination, won't you have to explain why itz hurts the business when the applicant is veiled.
In the US, can you reject a job applicant just because you don't like, say, women, Jews, Muslims, Blacks and so on? If yes, we have nothing to discuss - you CAN simply reject a person because you don't like this or that.
If not - don't you see that you have the problem to prove that a veil will hurt your business. And if you can prove THAT, you can vbery probably prove as well, that veiled persons shouldn't work in any way with people who are not used to veiled persons.
For example, you might prove that veiled people have something disturbing for unsuspecting customers.
Which would immediately mean, that veiled persons shouldn't work as a teacher.
However, teacher is a government job, and the governmemt at least cannot reject someone because of his or her religion.
The point was simply to show that things are not that easy.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted September 15, 2010 10:59 PM |
|
|
This is a fast moving thread and I haven't even come close to reading it all. But just for clarification, what is this law really about? I don't mean the stated reason, but the REAL reason. Is this really about safety issues? Is it about cultural identity? Is it really an attack on an increasing population of Muslims? What? Is this a restriction to all face coverings?
 
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted September 15, 2010 11:18 PM |
|
|
I answered all that on the previous page, and even put a provocative gay parade bait to see how people will react, but everyone ignored the living crap out of me because it's cooler to tell Elodin he's wrong. 
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted September 15, 2010 11:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Is this a restriction to all face coverings?
I certainly hope not 
I don't know the specific reasons they had (I'm assuming they each had their own reasons), but I do know based on my fairly considerable knowledge of Islam that the niqab (full face covering except the eyes) and burqa (full body covering) would be explicitly banned. Even in the more conservative Islamic sects, neither the niqab nor the burqa are obligatory but merely religiously praiseworthy. The hijab (covering the hair as well as everything except the neck, hands, and feet) is mandatory in the vast majority of Islamic sects and it has been such dating back to Muhammad, though people are imperfect adherents and many predominately Muslim cultures can still be lax about it.
So technically the Muslims aren't being forced to do anything explicitly against their creed, since they can still wear the hijab, but you can bet they're still going to be pissed.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted September 15, 2010 11:25 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I answered all that on the previous page, and even put a provocative gay parade bait to see how people will react, but everyone ignored the living crap out of me because it's cooler to tell Elodin he's wrong.
Sorry, we just love elodin more.
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted September 16, 2010 12:09 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I answered all that on the previous page, and even put a provocative gay parade bait to see how people will react, but everyone ignored the living crap out of me because it's cooler to tell Elodin he's wrong.
Do you want a back massage?
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted September 16, 2010 06:02 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 06:07, 16 Sep 2010.
|
Quote:
@the original post:
I think there's an abnormally strong interest in France that wants to preserve cultural norms. People that advocate such goals may seem sophisticated on the surface, but really it's just bigotry and stupidity covered up to look pretty. France has a particularly high amount of Muslims coming in that was fueled this kind of reaction, but I think laws like these foreshadow what is likely to happen in other places eventually.
There is a tendency of people to want everyone to be like them. But people should grow and learn to tolerate the diversity.
Yes, unfortunately the French Parliament has engaged in legislative bigotry. There may be other parts of Europe that follow suit but in America 65% of all Americans oppose the ban on burqas according to a recent poll. The poll shows France and Germany to be the two European nations that are most intollerant of freedom of religion.
Americans tend to be more tolerant of diversity and love freedom more than Europeans it seems.
Pew Research Poll
Quote:
@Elodin:
Btw, it's peculiar that you have this position over the ban considering you're so enthusiastic over prohibiting the mosque from being built near Ground Zero.
I explained the reaons for my opposition to the ground zero mosque in the other thread.
@JJ
Quote:
Which would mean, as a boss, never hire a muslim, they may waste precious worktime with praying or other religious stuff - HIRE ATHEISTS!
Nah, I'd be afraid of hiring a fundamentalist atheist. They would not make good employees. I think a Muslim would be up front with his prospective employer about his need to pray at certain times of the day. An employer who refused to allow him breaks to pray at those times would not hire him. A fundamentalist atheist on the other hand may be a very dishonest person as he believes there is no such thing as absolute morality.
Anyways, the law in the US is that an employer can set a dress code from his company. If an employee does not abide by the dress code he can be fired. In some states an employer does not need a reason to fire an employee.
However, in the US an employer may not refuse to hire someone because of their religion. Unless the organization is religious in nature. A Methodist church for example is not required to consider a Baptist to teach in a church run school.
@Binabik
Quote:
This is a fast moving thread and I haven't even come close to reading it all. But just for clarification, what is this law really about? I don't mean the stated reason, but the REAL reason. Is this really about safety issues? Is it about cultural identity?
Yep. The French people are not willing to tolerate cultural differences it seems.
Quote:
Is this a restriction to all face coverings?
No. One of the articles I quoted earlier pointed out that Halloween masks, ski masks, fencing masks, ect were exempted from the law. The law was focused on Islamic attire.
I wonder what will happen if a woman dresses in a burka on Halloween and says her costume just happened to be a fundamentalist Muslim costume instead of a Britney Spears costume?
Quote:
So technically the Muslims aren't being forced to do anything explicitly against their creed, since they can still wear the hijab, but you can bet they're still going to be pissed.
Actually, if you read the earlier articles I posted you will see that some Muslim women do believe the Qu'ran requires them to wear a burka. Some Islamic scholars do say that the burqa is required.
So some Muslims are being required by France to go against their religious beliefs or stay out of public places.
It is sad that France does not allow people to practice their religion freely even when such practice harms no one.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 16, 2010 07:51 AM |
|
|
Quote:
However, in the US an employer may not refuse to hire someone because of their religion. Unless the organization is religious in nature.
Right. That's what I mean. So if you reject an applicant because you think that a veiled woman isn't helping your business, and the applicant sues you for discrimination of religious reasons, you'll have to prove that you did it for practical reasons, which would mean, a court would officially judge that a face veil hurts business (if you want to win).
Anyway
Quote:
So some Muslims are being required by France to go against their religious beliefs or stay out of public places.
It is sad that France does not allow people to practice their religion freely even when such practice harms no one.
It's not so much of a difference, whether you have to either go against your belief or stay out of a ton of jobs (see above) or whether you have to either go against your beliefs or stay out of public places.
If a private employer has a right to reject a job applicant, because it hurts business, than the state should have that same right, rejecting job applicants for teacher, since it will hurt teaching. Here Corribus' comes into play, that people have to suffer consequences when they do certain things.
Now, I agree with Binabik that there shouldn't be laws for or against dress codes, but the one against the burqua isn't the first. If you go public "decent" clothing is necessary - you can't go any way you want to.
In this case I think that the laws in France and the already existing bans are just a reaction to fundamentalist religious attitudes - we had a similar discussion for certain Christian fundamentalist views on blood transfers and treatments of ailments, where authorities react on fundamental attitudes. There is a limit of tolerance for these things in every society nowadays, and deep down every more tolerant Westerner has the feeling that for the majority of people fundamental religious structures and rules are more imposed on people (from earliest childhood on) than adopted freely by them. Let's not forget that as long Western societies have been dominated by religion there has been a lot of inequality and discrimination as well.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted September 16, 2010 10:48 AM |
|
|
Quote:
There is a tendency of people to want everyone to be like them. But people should grow and learn to tolerate the diversity.
The french do not respect the muslims, the muslims do not respect the french.
Ergo, both are to blame.
Quote:
Yes, unfortunately the French Parliament has engaged in legislative bigotry. There may be other parts of Europe that follow suit but in America 65% of all Americans oppose the ban on burqas according to a recent poll. The poll shows France and Germany to be the two European nations that are most intollerant of freedom of religion.
Americans tend to be more tolerant of diversity and love freedom more than Europeans it seems.
Yes, of course we are more evil than you facist swines.
65% is barely a majority, might be the way the media is presenting it.
Pool from 9.11 might have been different, but the people are still on the same view. Ergo its a biased poll.
Look at your bloody bible belt, Ku Klux Klan, and your whining over Obama. And your biggotry regarding building, and worse.
You are our evil facist brothers, but you are as evil as us, because none of us are evil.
Besides: We got something you do not, we have a conflict history with them. We have a few hundred years of Christiance influence, and hated the guts out of them. And we demand that immigrants intigrate properly in our society, and we have no respect for religion in contrast to US(subjective comparision).
We have a lot of cases where the immigrants sit down and receive social aid they do not need, cases where they mutilate their children, and worse. Of course there are only a few cases, in contrast to the muslim population, but we got the media partially fueling it.
Besides, only a few states are Willing to do what France did. So again, who else besides French are doing more than discussing with a bias against immigration: "The muslims are evil, lets ban the burka!"
Quote:
A fundamentalist atheist on the other hand may be a very dishonest person as he believes there is no such thing as absolute morality.
What dishonest about beliving in what is true?
Unless you can fail at proving absolute morals, like always
But this debate is... not quite good.
I am far more interested in what happens next.
____________
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted September 16, 2010 12:43 PM |
|
|
Btw, having a job doesn't exactly mean you have to face any clients... Not everyone must be a representative. If you're a programist and doing your work alone in your office, it doesn't matter one tiny bit whether you're wearing a burqa or not.
The law is retarded, but I'm not particularly fond of French Government decisions anyway. Total invigilation to "counter the piracy" is an example. I would even risk to agree with Elodin (!) in one matter: France definitely isn't going in the right direction. Too much supervision. Of course Elodin must add a stupid comment about how we primitive European people can't match the superiority of America, or generalize that since it's in France and Germany it automatically has to be like that in other couple dozens of European countries (great logic), but that's Elodin, so well. What can I add 
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 16, 2010 01:23 PM |
|
|
Err, in Germany you are not allowed to drive a car with a burka. Additionally in some German counties you are not allowed to teach children wearing it.
That's it.
|
|
wog_edn
Promising
The Nothingness
|
|
posted September 16, 2010 01:41 PM |
|
|
Ignoring all other posts, I just feel like telling my own opinion. As I am anti-religious (not atheist, anti-religious), letting religion control people's lives are absurd to me. However, I think that the government should be able to control what people are allowed to wear to a certain degree. As seen here in Norway at least, the government is way to nice to our new countrymen, the muslims will try to control the government unless the other way around is done. They wanted their own swimming-times with only female lifeguards, as they didn't want men around when swimming (using their burqa swimming suits, of course they need lifesaving when wearing that stuff!!).
Also you saw (I think it was in France?) people using a burqa when robbing a bank to hide their weapons, here they have used it to steal stuff in stores, and so on.
It really makes it hard to fight terrorism, as anyone can buy a burqa in a store.
And yeah, all-in-all I agree with the way the government handled this.
____________
|
|
Keksimaton
Promising
Supreme Hero
Talk to the hand
|
|
posted September 16, 2010 02:44 PM |
|
|
Somehow I think that Bak's comment about Muslims being a bomb waiting to go off might have something to do with that whole mess that they had around that neighbourhood.
As on the issue, I kind of scratch my head at what the big deal with this issue is. It's not like I can think of a waterproof reason to ban burqas, but it's not that I can think of any reason why oppose such a ban.
The best thing I can say to defend the French government here is: "IF YOU HATE FREEDOM SO MUCH, WHY WON'T YOU MOVE TO PERSIA?"
____________
Noone shall pass, but no one besides him shall pass.
|
|
baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted September 16, 2010 02:46 PM |
|
|
I read somewhere that expensive French fashion brands are one of the lead manufacturers of burqas on the world market, by the way.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted September 16, 2010 03:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So if you reject an applicant because you think that a veiled woman isn't helping your business, and the applicant sues you for discrimination of religious reasons, you'll have to prove that you did it for practical reasons, which would mean, a court would officially judge that a face veil hurts business (if you want to win).
Actually, in the US the burden of proof rests on the accuser, so as the defendant you don't really have to prove your innocence. I.e., it's up to the applicant to prove that he was discriminated against for religious reasons and that it wasn't for practical reasons - not the other way around. Or so my understanding of the law goes - perhaps OD can clarify.
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted September 16, 2010 04:58 PM |
|
|
First off, I am not a constitutional lawyer nor do I handle employment law. I cover family law, landlord/tenant law, estate planning, and public benefits.
Secondly, as I understand it, an employer can pretty much not hire you for any reason they want in the private sector. In the public sector, it gets a little trickier. Corribus is correct that the burden of proof would fall upon the denied applicant, which would leave he or she in a very difficult position. How do you prove that you weren't hired for X? Unless the employer flat out said "I am not hiring you because of your religious beliefs", I highly doubt the applicant would have any success at the public level. At the private level, forget it. Look for a new job.
The easier approach would be to not wear the religious garb to interview, get the job, then start wearing it. Upon termination, the applicant would have a much better chance.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 16, 2010 05:34 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 17:51, 16 Sep 2010.
|
sarkozy just doesn't give a snow about human rights. he isn't much different from Hitler, except he doesn't kill people (from what I know)
though, what happens in country under the islamist rules is much worse. at least we do not kill women without a reason (and actually, we don't kill them even if we have a good reason)
Quote:
I think the government should encourage parents to not influence their children with religion but instead let them choose if they want to be religous or not when they are older.
LOOL you dream (but you are right). your only chance is to have parents who don't consider you as a tool to fulfil their desires, which is rare I believe (I'm not talking about pedophilia ) they want their children to be respectable, because they feel respectable through their children.
Quote:
But as I said - he would have to prove first, that wearing the burqa is in fact a RELIGIOUS demad and not an issue of female oppression based on a BIASSED interpretation of a religious writing that can be interpreted differently as well: Does ALLAH want women to go veiled or is this a male interpretation of the words of His Prophet?
from what I read, muslims girls who aren't under the islamist laws don't undergo oppressions and are free to wear any clothes they like. I didn't know it before, but it seems there is a difference between islam and islamism. islamism is all those liberty killing rules based on interpretation of the coran. actually, it's not really a religion, more a tool that a few people use to gain power.
Quote:
We do NOT want to see phantoms looking people in the street. We do NOT want that our children are taught in school by phantoms looking teachers. We are afraid when we see phantoms drivers with eyes covered running at high speed. Practice your religion in your house or in the appropriate place, there are thousand of mosques everywhere. Respect the people/country who feeds you and don't provoke it. That's all.
aren't you afraid each time you see someone looking funny on the street? or only by burqahs?
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
