Reap as ye sow

[techno900]

More interesting news on immigration.

[boggsman1]

"A trusted federal agent in the CBP provided exclusive copies of the documents to Breitbart Texas and also agreed to an interview on the condition of anonymity."

A Classic Breitbardt piece...In spite of the fact that he is dead, Breitbart continues with his examplary journalistic standards..C'mon Technoo..you're better than that.

[DanWeiss]

With respect to "ordinary" employees and their respective U.S. employers and the reasonable accommodation requirement, let me summarize the general state of affairs.

An employer who receives notice that an employee desires a change to the employment relationship, whether schedule, duties or appearance to the employer can exercise his or her religious scruples must make reasonable accommodations available to the employee.

An employer is prohibited from refusing to offer reasonable accommodations when properly requested and may not retaliate against the employee who makes such a request whether or not the request is granted.

The important and often troubling aspects of this basic law comes in two frameworks, Most commonly, an employee seeks accommodation but is denied based on the employer's claim that the accommodation is unreasonable. An example of this is when an existing employee believes growing a long beard is an act of religious significant to a newfound faith. He seeks to keep the beard uncovered even though he's a restaurant cook. The employer probably is prevented by health and safety codes from allowing any long hair or beards to remain uncovered and must reject the request. However, the employer should suggest an alternative job if possible. The employer may not fire the person for making the request. If the employee rejects the suggested accommodation and either quits or is fired, a dispute about whether the accommodation (rejecting the request and offering alternative position) may make its way to court.

Less commonly, an employee seeks a reasonable accommodation but the employer views the basis for that accommodation unacceptable. Consider the same employee and employer in the example above and add a few facts. The employee has worked as a cook for the same employer for the past 10 years. During that time, the employee has claimed different faiths. He's shared this with his employer through casual discussions over that time. The employer thinks the guy is a great cook and model employee but rather "flighty" on matters of faith. The cook begins growing his beard and seeks to keep it uncovered, the employer questions whether the beard is "the most important part of the faith" and "isn't it just another distraction from what you're really seeking?" Three days later the employer formally rejects the request, stating that no alternative position in the restaurant exists because the employer has a "no-facial hair" appearance policy for everyone regardless of position. The employer states that the employee must either shave his beard or find another job. The employee quits and later sues for wrongful termination.

Under this framework, what about an employee who wishes to wear a gold cross on a necklace, or a person who keeps a strict Sabbath and seeks time off each week?

In no case may an employer declare a blanket policy that bans any and all religious expression at the workplace. That is a violation of federal law and the laws of every state.

[KGB-NP]

How about an employee who "religiously" has multiple "smoke breaks" while others are hard at work?

Rights aside, working for me...."you no longer work here"

[techno900]

boggsman1 said:

[boggsman1]

No Technoo...I am always interested in the real story. Im not dumping on the source to obfuscate the story inderneath. However, there are sources, like Breitbardt that exist for one reason only, and that is to spread propaganda to crush the left. In his prime, he was one of the best , so when I see his headlines on Drudge, I know exactly where I am going. I read a lot of reputable right wing publications, like National Review, and the WSJ, and none of them would use the "unnamed source ", or "trusted federal agent" I mean , who wouldnt trust a federal agent?. They site names, times, ranks.

[MalibuGuru]

Reap what ye sew??? Here is an uplifting video of a bunch of terrorists celebrating at a fellow terrorists funeral. Apparently, they didn't get the memo that the guy still had a bomb strapped to himself!

http://viral.buzz/video-funeral-for-a-suicide-bomber-but-they-seem-to-have-forgotten-something/

[nw30]

It's get much crazier than that, how about the 10 year old kid that executes the two ISIS infiltrators, that's some radical shit!
Islamic terrorism is worse now than it ever has been, and they are training the killers as young kids! The ones that they don't kill first anyway.

[GURGLETROUSERS]

Sadly, many decent integrated Muslims are becoming alarmed at the growing western (European) backlash against them and their Islamic religion, because of what extremists are doing in the name of their religion.

An intelligent and successful Muslim woman who appreciates our western freedom recently gave a talk to the women of a Muslim community over here, on the need for them to integrate, and 'enjoy' the freedoms which the west can offer them. She was abused by them, and almost accused of being a traitor to Islamic principles.

These women needed, and wanted, to be led, and instructed by their unelected Islamic leaders as to how to live, and what they should and should not do. They saw that not as subservience, but as a requirement of the Muslim faith. It absolved them from having to make decisions for themselves!

It is a misconception of many liberal westerners that ALL Muslim women want our brand of freedom. She was forced to conclude that they do not. Of course, many will say she has got it all wrong, but being a devout but free spirited and successful Muslim woman herself, I'd rather think she knows what she is talking about.

So, how does the west counteract this situation?

[uwindsurf]