Should you be able to accept a job KNOWING you will refuse to carry out some duties?

Is it moral to cram your sandal in the mechanisms, due to YOUR insistence that YOU must be allowed to discriminate against CLASSES of customer?

Should those dealing with the public be allowed to REMOVE CIVIL RIGHTS from customers?

To add, maybe if you are a bigot, and due to this, you are ineligible for many jobs, you should NOT be eligible for UNEMPLOYMENT, as those of us that ever QUIT a job can attest.

 

accepting jobs is voluntary. it's a non-starter.

 

Sorry for the late reply mate, it's difficult having to translate your comments from platitudes to what you're actually advocating banning, or which rights you want to take away.

Your view of what the job entails is not necessarily the view adopted by the owner or worker. You have declared all sorts of things "part of the job" through simple fiat.

Labor rights are under attack from the left and have been for decades. Disgusting.

His intense, violent opposition to voluntary association is noted.

 

When yiou are on the clock, YOU HAVE NO FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION, cept breaktime.

 

So, the woman that refused to serve someone because they had a Trump supporter pin should not get unemployment? I completely agree. But I would expand that concept. If a business refuses to serve police officers, then the police should not serve them also.

 

employers should be able to ask if there is any job duties you refuse to do...


.

 

I disagree on that, police are paid by taxes and should have to serve everyone equally, that said, I would not do business with a place that refused to serve police officers

.

 

People voluntarily give up their rights all the time. You give up your right to not be punched in the face when you enter the MMA cage, that doesn't make it involuntary.

If you dislike the terms of any given employment, you are free to reject them.

 

Umm, find a new job. What's wrong with you?

 

If her boss has a problem with it, then yes.

- - - Updated - - -

No, you are allowed to get fired and collect. You cannot REFUSE TO DO YOUR JOB, or AKA QUIT.

 

Her job was to serve the public no matter what they were wearing. So by your statement, if she was fired she should not be eligible for Unemployment.

But your statement here is interesting. So, it is alright not to serve a Trump supporter as long as her boss doesn't have a problem with it. Does that mean, if a bigoted white choses not to serve an African-American customer it is alright as long as her boss doesn't mind?

 

You don't give up your rights. In the deontological way Americans use that word in that way, your rights are inalienable.

You can think you are, but you'd be wrong. Thus, if you agreed to be someone's slave, you have the inalienable right at any moment to change your mind.

The same goes for girls who think they want to have sex at a frat party, or fighters in MMA.

If you say stop, it is a crime for someone to hit you in the face afterward.

 

Barack Obama did.

 

In one case, the legislative branch has determined that the social and political cost of such discrimination is too high and too pervasive to tolerate. In the other case, the legislative branch has not determined that the social and political cost is too high or pervasive to tolerate. If political discrimination in public accommodation, employment and housing remains an anomaly, rather than a pervasive pattern, Congress and state legislatures will not see a need to add any protective language to ensure that an underclass based on political affiliation or ideology is not created. It is when cultural and social animus and stereotyping becomes ubiquitous and sustained for a long period of time, throughout large stretches of geography, that civil rights protection becomes the only viable solution.

Creating a legally protected class for a group is not a step to be taken lightly. It suggests a profound failure of our markets and our institutions to solve the problem in a meaningful way over an extended period of time. I think that was largely true with respect to race, creed, gender, orientation and disability. the prejudices and stereotypes and cultural animus had seeped into the very blood of our dominant culture over decades or even centuries.

 

Your responding to a tongue-in-cheek comment base on the poster's claim that discrimination is not decimation if her boss doesn't mind. But I would bet, as volatile as politics is becoming in this country, it won't be long before they are expanding Creed to cover political affiliation.

 

If her boss and the government don't mind, it is legal discrimination. Most discrimination is not only legal, its the only way to pick an employee, decide a wage, or figure out which customer to seat where.

 

Generally speaking yes, providing that reasonable accommodations can be made.

You realize that these are entirely different questions and in no way integral to the original question, right?

 

Sure, it gets into the philosophical reasons to ward off this snowflake Employee mentality. With political gestures interfering with productivity.

 

but shouldn't be able to deny employment for sincerely held beliefs or other legitimate reasons if a reasonable accommodation can be made.

Take the original question (in the title), and think of someone that by faith has to pray at sunrise and sunset for what amounts to 2-3 minutes. Is it reasonable to allow them to have their break scheduled at that time daily if they work in a restaurant? Absolutely. But if they're the lone guard at a complex watching the live security cameras? Probably not.

I assume the OP has that Kentucky clerk in mind. When she refused to take part in the marriages, that was something for which a reasonable accommodation could be made, by allowing others in her office to perform that function. But when she deliberately obstructed that from being done, she overstepped herself and should have lost her job.

 

I thought I had answered this, but here goes. If you KNOW your boss hates person X, it is alright to refuse service. NOT WISE, nor is the owners policy, but doable.

If your employer does not enjoy discriminating and YOU cant refrain from doing so, get therapy, and join the NORMAL world. Ditch the frog, and Lurve Thy Neighbor.

 

So if adherents of a faith pray daily at sunset for two minutes, you think it's fair for a business to refuse to hire them because they would be unable to perform the duties required of them for those two minutes?

Regardless, in law and I think in good conscience we require employers to make reasonable accommodations. But if you think that employers should be able to use any flaky insubstantial excuse to discriminate (because apparently having a sincerely held belief makes one a snowflake), then you're welcome to hold that opinion.

 

OK. So a woman was taken by a lunatic and held as a sex slave through much of her childhood, and she's scarred by the experience and because of it doesn't do well with overweight bald men with long bleach-blond beards, as he had. It's rare that such a customer comes into a place of business, but this woman for legitimate psychological reasons requires a reasonable accommodation that someone else deal with such customers, given how her experiences have scarred her.

And your response to her is that she should be fired, "get therapy, and join the NORMAL world"?

 

Where I have worked, the SPECIAL SNOWFLAKES were all SMOKERS. They were allowed to smoke a whole cig every fifteen minutes. While us nonsmokers toiled away.

If you want a special compass tuned to mecha in your cubicle, and you don't DISTURB anyone fine. Otherwise,nyet. I have worked for, and with some very fine Muslims that didn't have to Trumpet their religions.

Who would JEsus Discriminate against is not a religion, IT IS A DISEASE.

 

If you know you're not going to perform duties the job entails;It's not the job for you.

 

So you support employers refusing to hire practicing Muslims who perform the daily prayers required by their faith?