Atheists & Agnostics
Related: About this forumFormer employee suing Costco for religious discrimination
http://7online.com/religion/former-employee-suing-costco-for-religious-discrimination-/532866/He tells Eyewitness News exclusively that when he refused to work with pork, the major retailer sent him outside to gather carts.
...
The devout Muslim says he was working as a cashier's assistant at the Costco in Sunset Park Brooklyn in September of 2012 when pork came across the conveyor belt.
It's against his religious beliefs to touch either pork or alcohol.
OK help me out here, his complaint is that "everyone should be treated equally." He refused to do the task that he was assigned, so they gave him another one. Didn't fire him, didn't cut his pay. He evidently wanted to work in electronics but wasn't given that opportunity. Seems like there's a lot more to the story here. Given Costco's excellent record with its workers I am inclined to believe they did everything they could, and this guy is just looking for money. Sadly they'll probably settle and he'll get his money.
onager
(9,356 posts)And I'll settle these cases very quickly. This is just like the cases of outraged Xians refusing to sell contraceptives or Playboy magazine or anything else that hurts their delicate fee-fees.
It would only take 1 question: Did you know Costco sold pork when you went to work there?
If so, case dismissed. You don't want to touch pork, Mr. Suddenly Devout Muslim? Then go to work for a kosher butcher. Because, as you said...
"We all share different beliefs so we all should be treated equally no matter what belief we have," Camara said.
So I'm sure you wouldn't mind working with devout Jews. Or Militant Atheists either. Right? (And "we all share different beliefs?" WTF does that even mean?)
IMO, you're right. This is just another asshat looking for a big payday and some publicity.
Meanwhile...our buddies at the Ark Park in Kentucky are also suing the government for employment discrimination - i.e., refusing to give them the big tax incentives they wanted:
The lawyer for the Ark Park, Mike Johnson, made an interesting statement: "They had to move over a million cubic tons, I think it was, of dirt."
If that is true, then the ton must be a unit of length, or else they are building the model in a 9-dimensional space. Maybe that is how Noah snuck so many creatures onto the Ark: he dropped them off into some of the extra dimensions. Works as well as any explanation promulgated by AIG. I hope that Mr. Johnson is as good a lawyer as he is an engineer.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2015/01/ark-park-will-s.html
edgineered
(2,101 posts)maybe they have an unfulfilled need to mismatch numbers, measures, and units from seeing numbers matched to everything they read, eg, 1 Ghote 12 -13 Baab bleated baa, Baabaara begat seven baa-bies...
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Just wanted to repeat that.
Are there no gloves in the store?
Was the pork not wrapped up or in a package? (like the alcohol is in a bottle)
I say he was in very little danger of touching pork or alcohol.
There is no reason for anyone in 2015 to worry about (or expect someone to worry about) ancient superstitions concerning hoofs.
He should go work at Hobby Lobby.
How many square pounds is that? Would it depend on the specific density of the dirt?
And what's an "engineer"?
Guess it depends on what you believe, which as we all know is a fundamental principle of science.
mountain grammy
(26,655 posts)deucemagnet
(4,549 posts)The US supreme court has agreed to hear a case accusing the American clothing retailer Abercrombie & Fitch of refusing to hire a Muslim woman who wore a headscarf.
The suit, brought by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, alleges that Samantha Elauf was not hired because she wore a headscarf that would have required a religious exemption from the companys look policy.
Elauf interviewed at the companys Abercrombie Kids store in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in 2008 for a position as a model, the equivalent of a part-time sales worker, when she was 17. The hiring manager, Heather Cooke, 23, interviewed Elauf and initially gave her a score that recommended hiring her.
<snip>
However, after consulting with a district manager, Cooke gave Elauf a low score in the appearance and sense of style category, after specifically asking about Elaufs headscarf. The manager told Cooke that employees were not allowed to wear hats at work, and so declined to hire her, even though Cooke told the manager she assumed Elauf wore the scarf for religious reasons. Cooke told the district manager she did not ask about religion during the interview, in accordance with EEOC guidelines.
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/oct/02/supreme-court-abercrombie-fitch-hijab-religious-bias-muslim-headscarf
This lawsuit is a tougher call, imo. I see no problem with a woman working at an Ambercrombie and Fitch while wearing a hijab, but then again I'm a middle-aged man with little fashion sense. If A&F were forced to hire a woman wearing a hijab on religious grounds, would they then be forced to hire women wearing burkas? I could see where a burka could send the wrong message to customers.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)One she's related to?
I mean.... what's she doing in her hijab outside the home...on her own????
deucemagnet
(4,549 posts)They should have to hire her and a male relative to escort her while she's working, or else A&F are bigoted bigots who repress all religious people based on their beliefs.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)The managers took liberties with the definition of "hat" to include "head scarf" in order to not hire her. It wasn't like she was insisting on bringing her ghote to work.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)The way I see it....
This is a name brand fashion store. It is not unreasonable that they want their sales people to have a fashion sense, so when giving advice to a costumer on a purchase, they appear to have some authority on the subject.
Does her religion think it's OK for her to recommend a crop top and skinny distressed jeans?
onager
(9,356 posts)Well, in Egypt anyway. No "crop top and skinny distressed jeans" here, but the way these girls are dressed REALLY pisses off Islamic Fundamentalists. (These 3 characters lived in my neighborhood, so they saw me roaming around with my camera all the time.)
The fun-loving Fundamentalists argue that if a woman is going to wear the hijab, the rest of her clothing should be "modest" as well.
Things these girls are doing wrong:
1. All 3 are wearing clothes that are MUCH too tight and revealing.
2. The hijabs are brightly colored. not basic black.
3. Ditto for the clothes. Especially that orange. Looks way too cheerful.
And the woman bringing the lawsuit can be glad she didn't work in the Egyptian Culture Ministry a few years ago. The Minister of Culture, Farouk Hosni, banned the hijab for all female employees appearing on TV. (Which sounds nice and liberal. Until you know that Hosni also threatened to burn down any library where he found books written by Jews.)
<a href="http://imgur.com/bIOAFqX"><img src="" title="source: imgur.com" /></a>
progressoid
(49,999 posts)No head coverings.
No necklaces (including crucifixes).
Only two earrings were allowed.
progressoid
(49,999 posts)against pork and alcohol!
1.
to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit; show partiality:
Warpy
(111,358 posts)Costco gave him a job that wouldn't offend his prissy sensibilities. I have no idea why he's suing. I don't think a judge will, either. At some point, he'll be told to go pound sand.
Belief in hogwash seems to require perfect consensus. When they don't get it, they flip out.
Likely his godly aim was to get Costco to stop selling items that offended him.
Good luck with that, buster.
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)make me crazy. If they are so religious that they cannot do the job that is required, let them find another job. And it looks like Costco did give him another job, but it wasn't to his liking. You just can't satisfy some people!
BTW, the headline makes it sound like he was fired, which is not the case. "Former employee"....well, he didn't have to be.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)If he had objected to handling pork, and Costco fired him on the spot, I'd say he had a case. Looks to just be a way to make a quick buck.
Curmudgeoness
(18,219 posts)Shit, he had to know that the store sold pork, and that as a cashier, he would run into it at some point. If I were offered a job that went against any strong convictions that I have, I would just keep looking for a job that didn't offend me. (Like I would eat out of a dumpster before I would do cold-call telemarketing.) He was "unable" to do the job.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I personally would still think his case was bullshit, but I believe under currently law if Costco didn't at least provide him with tasks to accommodate his religious belief they could be held responsible. Maybe a goat who has a better knowledge of employment law can come around to goatsplain it to us.
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)She says that he has no case, or a very poor one, unless he can prove that during the hiring process he made his religious objections to performing his job duties known to Costco and then Costco hired him anyway.
One of her weird specialties is constitutional-religious stuff.
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)"Just because you have a different belief, that doesn't give anybody the right to treat you different," said Jean Camara, suing Costco.
I'm pretty sure the other cashiers are handling pork and alcohol. I suspect Costco will have ample evidence of insubordinate conduct, judging by this guy's "entitled to an electronics position because I asked for it." He thinks such it's owed because ... religion
trotsky
(49,533 posts)If anything, Costco was trying to treat him like everybody else. He clearly didn't want that.
nichomachus
(12,754 posts)to take a job in a bookstore and then refuse to sell or stock shelves with books on religion?
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)And then object to handling pork.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)Next!