Your religious beliefs and your job

[Ping898]

It seems like more and more lately people are refusing to do some aspect of their job because of religious grounds. Pharmacists who won't fill perscriptions for birth control is the biggest one I seem to hear about, but now there is the one from the story below about Muslim cab drivers who won't carry passengers with alcohol or who have service dogs.
On the one hand you can possibly say forcing the drivers to carry dogs is a form of religious discrimination, but those with the service dogs could see it as a form of disability discrimination. What happens when you have the two forms of discrimination, which one wins? And is it even a form of religious discrimination? I kind of say no, I believe that if some aspects of the job conflict with your religious beliefs, find a new job.

I know that is easier said than done, but I think in America, where these people work (the pharmacists and cab drivers both) there is no state religion and you have no right to force your religious beliefs on me if our beliefs conflict (assuming the whole disclosure of no harm comes to anyone as a result of your beliefs etc, etc...). And if you work in a service industry where your beliefs conflict with some of your job duties then you have to either do your job, suck it up and make it ok between you and your god or find a new job.

I really hope the airport sticks to their guns here and doesn't back down.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/muslim_cabbies_alcohol

MINNEAPOLIS - Officials at Minneapolis-St. Paul International airport are proposing stiffer penalties — including suspension of an airport taxi license — to Muslim cab drivers who refuse service to passengers toting alcohol or service dogs.
......
Each month, about 100 people are denied cab service at the airport. Airport officials say that in recent months, the problem of service refusals for religious reasons has grown. About three-quarters of the 900 taxi drivers at the airport are Somali, many of them Muslim
........
But Hassan Mohamud, imam at Al-Taqwa Mosque of St. Paul and director of the Islamic Law Institute at the Muslim American Society of Minnesota, one of the largest Islamic organizations in the state, said asking Muslims to transport alcohol "is a violation of their faith. Muslims do not consume, carry, sell or buy alcohol, and Islam also considers the saliva of dogs to be unclean, he said.

 

[Lisa]

Interesting subject, Ping and to a point, one I deal with every day I go to work.

I work in a religious institution. This institution is not of my faith. When I go to work, I put my feelings and beliefs aside because I am in their house and I respect that this is their "house". Now, that being said, our beliefs and feelings are not that different so I suppose that makes it easier for me.

I love my job. It is by far the best place I have ever worked. There is mutual respect and admiration. My boss, a priest, is a wonderful, warm hearted individual who has never once made me feel uncomfortable about our differences. It has never been an issue.

I guess, I am truly blessed to work for such people who can set those things aside.

 

[Infinite]

This is actually pretty cut and dry from a legal angle.

Service dogs are considered for all intense and purposes extentions of the person who needs them.

Ergo refusing to admit / transport / service someone with a service animal is essentially refusing the person.

the reason for refusing the person was the dog which is the person so you have discriminated against a person with a disability.

The alcahol is a little more murky. It is not needed and it does violate faith. So I'm guessing the legal system will resort to what is known as burden.

Who has the greatest burdon the guy with the alcahol or the guy in the cab. If the guy with the drink can get another cab fairly easily the burdon is on the driver and he wins. If the guy with the drink can not easily find another cab the burden would be on the guy with the drink and he would win.

All speculation on my understanding of federal laws not state.

--Will

 

[Ping898]

The alcahol is a little more murky. It is not needed and it does violate faith. So I'm guessing the legal system will resort to what is known as burden.

Who has the greatest burdon the guy with the alcahol or the guy in the cab. If the guy with the drink can get another cab fairly easily the burdon is on the driver and he wins. If the guy with the drink can not easily find another cab the burden would be on the guy with the drink and he would win.

ahh but what counts as easy, in the article one flight attendant said she had to ask 5 or 6 cabs before she could find a ride cause she was carrying a bottle of wine from France.....that to me is not easy....

 

[Andrew Green]

I dunno, I think the discrimination could easily be a two way thing. Don't think so? Dress up like a Muslim, grab a copy of the Q'ran and try to get through Ariport security. I bet it takes a little longer...

Then there was that story a while back about a US Senator(?) wanting to be sworn in on the Q'ran instead of the bible... and then turned out some broadcaster completely made it up...

If Muslims are being descriminated against for there beliefs, I'm really not suprised some might want to fire a little of that back the other way.

The fact that it feels like religious discrimination is heading back to the middle ages on many different sides does seem rather worrysome though.

 

[MA-Caver]

Thanks to the ACLU and like minded lawyers we got this whole new bag of the right to NOT do something or the right TO do something based on personal beliefs and so forth... this is a growing and disturbing trend with intolerance growing in this country.
Used to be I recall cab drivers basically didn't care if you were a goat sacrificing satan worshipper as long as you paid your fare. Personally I don't see how being in the presence of someone of differing beliefs is going to affect your status with your own beliefs.
I associated and lived among LDS (Mormons) for over 16 years and I wasn't bothered by the fact that they didn't drink, smoke, didn't do things on sunday or whatever! Some of them were bothered by my smoking and going out doing stuff (caving, working, shopping) on Sunday but I just didn't hang out with them. Of course it wasn't the church itself that was teaching intolerance... quite the opposite, the leaders actually encouraged tolerance amongst "non-members" but individuals had their own brand, way of thinking of what tolerance was.
It's ridiculous and it drives a wedge between people when saying "your beliefs interfere with mine." So? What difference does it make if someone doesn't face east and plants their head on a carpet two or three times a day or doesn't go to church on Saturday instead of Sunday, or drinks wine instead of water or grape juice for their sacrament or whatever!??
A job is a job and while it must be awfully nice to be able to switch from one job to another as easily as it takes to change your socks, some folks (like moi) don't have that luxury or ease of capability. I get a job that requires me to work on a Sunday then I'll do my best to get there, if possible.
This growing intolerance, not only in this country but world wide is just :bs1:

 

[Ping898]

Then there was that story a while back about a US Senator(?) wanting to be sworn in on the Q'ran instead of the bible... and then turned out some broadcaster completely made it up...

Actually this is true. I think last I read he is used Thomad Jefferson's copy of the Quran
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070104/ap_on_go_co/ellison_quran

I dunno, I think the discrimination could easily be a two way thing. Don't think so? Dress up like a Muslim, grab a copy of the Q'ran and try to get through Ariport security. I bet it takes a little longer...

And discrimination should not be a tit-for-tat thing. You discriminate me so I discriminate against you....it shouldn't be like that. And you are right about Muslims or rather people who look like what American's assume Muslims look like, getting a tougher time in some places, especially ariports, but that is life, everyone has something that they can be discriminated against for...try being a woman at an engineering college taught by old white men who still remember a time when if there was a woman in the class it meant some guy lost his spot in the school and was going to be sent to Vietnam.
Life's not easy for most people and you are going to run into people who disrespect you or hassle you because of you rreligion, sex, skin color, [fill in the blank difference here], that doesn't mean you should return the "Favor" and discriminate against someone else because of their difference from you...

 

[Ray]

The alcahol is a little more murky. It is not needed and it does violate faith. So I'm guessing the legal system will resort to what is known as burden.

Who has the greatest burdon the guy with the alcahol or the guy in the cab. If the guy with the drink can get another cab fairly easily the burdon is on the driver and he wins. If the guy with the drink can not easily find another cab the burden would be on the guy with the drink and he would win.

All speculation on my understanding of federal laws not state.

I just re-found my old copy of the Koran. I'll have to re-read it as I've gotten pretty stale on it, but are you sure that it is against the tenets of Islam to convey someone who has alcohol in their possesion or is it drinking the alcohol that is forbidden?

I once worked for a "hospitality" company that made portable, (rolls on wheels) bars. To ship them into some Muslim countries, we had to describe them as "beverage dispensers" (or something like that).

 

[Andrew Green]

And discrimination should not be a tit-for-tat thing. You discriminate me so I discriminate against you....it shouldn't be like that.

Should not be, but is.

If a group feels descriminated against for long enough, they're going to begin to resent those doing the descrimination.

And in some cases, it is needed.

British discrimination against Americans = Americans through their tea in the harbour and sent them packing.

try being a woman at an engineering college taught by old white men who still remember a time when if there was a woman in the class it meant some guy lost his spot in the school and was going to be sent to Vietnam.

So after running into enough of this attitude in different people, of the same basic groupings. "Old white men teaching in Engineering" do you think that you might begin to get a bad taste in your mouth about them, before they even open theres to tell you how your place is in the kitchen wearing a dress? That maybe you might want to stick there outdated beliefs back in their faces? How would that be different?

I just got a hard time with either side claiming innocence in this. I'm pretty sure that a Muslim, in the US, would feel Christian values being forced down there throat pretty constantly. Probably would feel many people think they are morally inferior and wrong in there beliefs (after all, they are all terrorists right?) and it seems understandable that they have a point where they decide that they are going to stand up for what they believe in as well, in the same way, and stick there beliefs down the throats of the people that have been doing it to them.

Which in turn escalates things from the other side, back and forth it goes getting worse and worse, and eventually something really bad has to happen for people to wake up. Lets just hope it doesn't get that far... again.

 

[Infinite]

I dunno, I think the discrimination could easily be a two way thing. Don't think so? Dress up like a Muslim, grab a copy of the Q'ran and try to get through Ariport security. I bet it takes a little longer...

Then there was that story a while back about a US Senator(?) wanting to be sworn in on the Q'ran instead of the bible... and then turned out some broadcaster completely made it up...

If Muslims are being descriminated against for there beliefs, I'm really not suprised some might want to fire a little of that back the other way.

The fact that it feels like religious discrimination is heading back to the middle ages on many different sides does seem rather worrysome though.

While I agree that intolerance runs rampent everywhere that isn't quite the point. Muslims are not being denied cab jobs they are simply being required to follow federally mandated laws in regards to handicapped people.

The question isn't are Muslims being descriminated against but is in fact is the US government policies on handicapped people discriminating against Muslims.

That answer is no therefore it is fairly cut and dry.

 

[Infinite]

ahh but what counts as easy, in the article one flight attendant said she had to ask 5 or 6 cabs before she could find a ride cause she was carrying a bottle of wine from France.....that to me is not easy....

I agree notice all my if's.

IF 9 out of every cab driver is muslim then the burden of service falls on the woman with the wine. Therefore they would be required to service her and take her to her destination.

If 1 out of every 9 cabs is muslim and in reality it doesn't impact the process heavily say adds 2 minutes to the cab wait time. Then the burden is on the muslims and they should be able to refuse fares.

 

[Andrew Green]

The question isn't are Muslims being descriminated against but is in fact is the US government policies on handicapped people discriminating against Muslims.

I think it is both. And in a sense I think the descrimination against Muslims / Arabs is a bigger problem, and here is why:

It is public. Yes, public sources are sources for descrimination against Muslims / Arabs. Police, politicians, etc. It's all there.

Now as far as I know Cab companies are private. I believe many actually work as self employed under the banner of another. I could be wrong as I'm not a taxi-expert. But I am quite sure they aren't paid by the government.

That would give them a little more descretion over who they allow in a cab that they, or a private company owns would it not?

That said, the airport should also be within its rights to refuse them airport licenses if they refuse the airports passengers, and they should probably do so.

 

[Ray]

Now as far as I know Cab companies are private. I believe many actually work as self employed under the banner of another. I could be wrong as I'm not a taxi-expert. But I am quite sure they aren't paid by the government.

That would give them a little more descretion over who they allow in a cab that they, or a private company owns would it not?

Now, wait a minute. If I were a member of a religion that "forbids" its members to drink alcoholic beverages and I decided that I will not let you ride in my taxi because you have a bottle of wine then...That sounds wrong to me, if I were to simplify it then it could be said that I can positively ID you as a member of another religion by your possesion of the bottle of wine and therefore I am making the judgement to not give you a ride because you are not a member of my religion. Therefore I have to believe that not giving those taxi rides is illegal discrimination.

If I wish to not give rides to people in (legal) possesion of alcohol, then I should not become a taxi cab driver. Just as I will not become a bartender because I (in fact) do belong to a religion that "forbids" alcoholic beverages--and if I did become a bartender and felt like I shouldn't have to serve drinkers because of my religion then everyone who hears of my plight will just laugh of the ridiculousness of the situation that I created for myself.

 

[Andrew Green]

Suppose I run a martial arts school, now suppose I turn someone away because they have a criminal record. They've done there time, and as far as the law goes they are free and clear. How is that different?

Maybe my personal beliefs tell me not to teach people with a criminal record. Maybe this persons tell him not to drive people when doing so breaks the rules of his religion?

Not a great career choice, but as far as descrimination goes, it really doesn't seem that bad compared to a good deal of other stuff that goes on and is "accepted."

But it seems simple enough, airport says "You discriminate against our customers, don't come here. Send drivers that will take anyone that gets off a plane."

If they complain they are being descriminated against because of there religion, remind them that they are welcom back when they stop descriminating against others for their beliefs / dissabilities.

What's the big deal?

 

[Cryozombie]

But it seems simple enough, airport says "You discriminate against our customers, don't come here. Send drivers that will take anyone that gets off a plane."

If they complain they are being descriminated against because of there religion, remind them that they are welcom back when they stop descriminating against others for their beliefs / dissabilities.

What's the big deal?

Well, it may be that simple up there in Canada, I dunno... but the situation is far more complicated here...

I dunno how it works up there, but if Muslim cab drivers refuse service to people because of their religion, and they are told they cant service the airport by Airport management, the Airport WILL get sued by Jessee Jackson, or The ACLU, or another Liberal group or person who wants to scream injustice... But if they are allowed NOT to carry those passengers, the city or organization who issues the cab licences will come under attack for not forcing the situation, probably by some of the same groups I just mentioned. So there isn't a SIMPLE answer... someone is gonna take the shaft.

 

[Andrew Green]

I agree, but it shouldn't be a big deal. It should be a easy fix.

Then politics and lawyers gets involved.

One side will want to sue the drivers. The other side will want to sue the airport. All over what is a very minor issue. But, whatever gets you a mob to lead I guess.

 

[Cryozombie]

But, whatever gets you a mob to lead I guess.

Yup.

 

[Rich Parsons]

My Opinions:

Service Dog and the person with them should always be accepted.

Alcohol in a closed container should not be an issue.
Alcohol in an open container that might be in violation of the law or may cause a reaction from the smell is open to discussion.

 

[michaeledward]

Thanks to the ACLU and like minded lawyers we got this whole new bag of the right to NOT do something or the right TO do something based on personal beliefs and so forth... this is a growing and disturbing trend with intolerance growing in this country.
Used to be I recall cab drivers basically didn't care if you were a goat sacrificing satan worshipper as long as you paid your fare. Personally I don't see how being in the presence of someone of differing beliefs is going to affect your status with your own beliefs.
I associated and lived among LDS (Mormons) for over 16 years and I wasn't bothered by the fact that they didn't drink, smoke, didn't do things on sunday or whatever! Some of them were bothered by my smoking and going out doing stuff (caving, working, shopping) on Sunday but I just didn't hang out with them. Of course it wasn't the church itself that was teaching intolerance... quite the opposite, the leaders actually encouraged tolerance amongst "non-members" but individuals had their own brand, way of thinking of what tolerance was.
It's ridiculous and it drives a wedge between people when saying "your beliefs interfere with mine." So? What difference does it make if someone doesn't face east and plants their head on a carpet two or three times a day or doesn't go to church on Saturday instead of Sunday, or drinks wine instead of water or grape juice for their sacrament or whatever!??
A job is a job and while it must be awfully nice to be able to switch from one job to another as easily as it takes to change your socks, some folks (like moi) don't have that luxury or ease of capability. I get a job that requires me to work on a Sunday then I'll do my best to get there, if possible.
This growing intolerance, not only in this country but world wide is just

I'm wondering if you are actually going to reference an American Civil Liberties Union lawsuit? or if you are just using that as a slur.

I am very curious about any lawsuit brought by the ACLU that imposed restrictions as described here.


EDIT ...

After posting this ...

and MA-Caver, I don't intend for that 'using it as a slur' to sound nasty .... I'm trying to point out that ACLU is often used as a code word to mean other things ... such as when the term 'Liberal' is used to shut down an argument by a 'Wingnut'.


... I went to the ACLU web site. The following link reports on the ACLU's defense of religious freedom and religous practice. I see many instances of protecting an individual's religous practices from employer policies that are restrictive. But I don't see any suits where two individuals, who presumably have equal protections under the law, are contested, and the ACLU backs one over the other --- as in a pharmacist not filling an emergency contraceptive perscription for a minor ... or not selling EC to an adult woman ... based on religous belief.

http://action.aclu.org/site/PageServer?pagename=FJ_donationhome



And, I want to thank you. For making this reference, as you have, you reminded me that our common liberties are important, and demand defending. I have made my annual contribution to become a 'Card Carrying Member of the American Civil Liberties Union'. Won't you?

http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/26526res20060824.html

 

[michaeledward]

Then there was that story a while back about a US Senator(?) wanting to be sworn in on the Q'ran instead of the bible... and then turned out some broadcaster completely made it up...

As others have pointed out, Congress Ellison from Minnesota is Muslem and had the photo op swearing in on Jefferson's Koran.

I just want to add that NO congressperson is sworn in on the Bible. Congressmen, Senators, Presidents and Supreme Court Justices swear an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. If they choose to use a holy book, it is a personal choice, not supported by any document in the government.