Muslim sues for "discrimination" for not accommodating her.

[Pope Joan]

There are many people who are squeamish about shaking hands. It seems like a foolish policy.

Maybe a short polite bow could be substituted?

[The Lone Alliance]

>Cake shop doesn't want to make cakes for specific customers because of said customers sexuality
>Muslim woman doesn't shake hands with people because of her religious beliefs

In what world do you live where these two situations look even remotely similar?

The reason they didn't want to bake a cake is because of their religious beliefs too.

Today I learned Christians don't have religious beliefs.

[Kramanica]

No it's only evil when Christians are doing it.

>Cake shop doesn't want to make cakes for specific customers because of said customers sexuality
>Muslim woman doesn't shake hands with people because of her religious beliefs

In what world do you live where these two situations look even remotely similar?

Wew.

The cake shop owner didn't want to bake a specific type of cake for the customer because it explicitly represented something that went against their religious beliefs.

Try again.

[Gravlen]

>Cake shop doesn't want to make cakes for specific customers because of said customers sexuality
>Muslim woman doesn't shake hands with people because of her religious beliefs

In what world do you live where these two situations look even remotely similar?

Both cases they're refusing because of their religious beliefs. How are they different?

In one case the person in question refuses to do his or her job in order to fulfill a task requested by someone else, in the other the person in question is willing to do his or her job in order to fulfill a task requested by someone else...

[Ostroeuropa]

Both cases they're refusing because of their religious beliefs. How are they different?

In one case the person in question refuses to do his or her job in order to fulfill a task requested by someone else, in the other the person in question is willing to do his or her job in order to fulfill a task requested by someone else...

In the first, there is no part of the job that requires they take every commission.

In the second, they are hired in a diplomatic fashion and representing the company to others. If they cannot represent the company in the manner they want to be represented, that's that. By refusing to shake hands, she is refusing to do her job, especially as communication is not merely verbal and tactile communication is a key aspect of human society. Her job is literally to facilitate communication, and right off the bat in the interview, she said she refuses to do so in certain ways deemed normal for society. If she up and decided she can't translate profanity too, that would likewise be a problem, no matter how sincere her belief.

She has refused to communicate the companies message.

[Kramanica]

Both cases they're refusing because of their religious beliefs. How are they different?

In one case the person in question refuses to do his or her job in order to fulfill a task requested by someone else, in the other the person in question is willing to do his or her job in order to fulfill a task requested by someone else...

They refused to do their job in order to fulfill a task requested by someone else...

What was this task?

[United Muscovite Nations]

No it's only evil when Christians are doing it.

>Cake shop doesn't want to make cakes for specific customers because of said customers sexuality
>Muslim woman doesn't shake hands with people because of her religious beliefs

In what world do you live where these two situations look even remotely similar?

Those look extremely similar to me, and both religious objectors are in the right, imo.

[Ostroeuropa]

In one case the person in question refuses to do his or her job in order to fulfill a task requested by someone else, in the other the person in question is willing to do his or her job in order to fulfill a task requested by someone else...

They refused to do their job in order to fulfill a task requested by someone else...

What was this task?

The real comparison is, she is entirely allowed to refuse money and a job if it goes against her religion to perform it, just like the cake guys.

Had the company absolutely lost its shit and sued to try and force her to accept the job, that would be the equivalent, and we'd rightly see it as stupid.

[Camicon]

You're assigning motivations, the truth of which you have no way of knowing.

The reason she doesn't shake hands is because of her religious beliefs.

viewtopic.php?p=30388747#p30388747

You:

I would argue that the motivation is irrelevant.

If someone's actions display a pattern of prejudice, discrimination, antagonism, dislike of, or contempt for someone based on race/sex, then that person is racist/sexist. Agreed?

Is there a reason you're using a double standard here?

There's no double standard.

Farah made a conscious decision to avoid acting in a sexist manner.

The reason she doesn't shake hands is because of her religious beliefs.

If the religious beliefs result in sexism, that is no defense.
Suddenly the motivation matters to you when it's a Muslim and misandry. Curious.

Her religious beliefs result in prudish, not sexist, behaviour. There's nothing in Islam that says wives shouldn't touch their husbands. What some people interpret as a proscription on touching men to whom they are not married is not sexist, because the discrimination is made based on the relationship between the man and the woman.

>Cake shop doesn't want to make cakes for specific customers because of said customers sexuality
>Muslim woman doesn't shake hands with people because of her religious beliefs

In what world do you live where these two situations look even remotely similar?

Both cases they're refusing because of their religious beliefs. How are they different?

Farah is refusing to participation in a non-universal social custom with everyone she meets.
The cake shop is refusing to provide a service for specific people because of who they are.

Pretty significant difference.

>Cake shop doesn't want to make cakes for specific customers because of said customers sexuality
>Muslim woman doesn't shake hands with people because of her religious beliefs

In what world do you live where these two situations look even remotely similar?

The reason they didn't want to bake a cake is because of their religious beliefs too.

>Cake shop doesn't want to make cakes for specific customers because of said customers sexuality
>Muslim woman doesn't shake hands with people because of her religious beliefs

In what world do you live where these two situations look even remotely similar?

Wew.

The cake shop owner didn't want to bake a specific type of cake for the customer because it explicitly represented something that went against their religious beliefs.

Try again.

Non-universal social customs are not equivalent to services provided by a business, which have to adhere to specific anti-discrimination practices.

[Conserative Morality]

"It's okay to not shake hands for other reasons, but not for your religion!"

tbh if she doesn't win it'll be a surprise and a travesty.

[Ostroeuropa]

"It's okay to not shake hands for other reasons, but not for your religion!"

Literally this yes. Laicite society.

[United Muscovite Nations]

"It's okay to not shake hands for other reasons, but not for your religion!"

tbh if she doesn't win it'll be a surprise and a travesty.

She already did win.

[Kramanica]

viewtopic.php?p=30388747#p30388747

You:


Is there a reason you're using a double standard here?

There's no double standard.

Farah made a conscious decision to avoid acting in a sexist manner.

If the religious beliefs result in sexism, that is no defense.
Suddenly the motivation matters to you when it's a Muslim and misandry. Curious.

Her religious beliefs result in prudish, not sexist, behaviour. There's nothing in Islam that says wives shouldn't touch their husbands. What some people interpret as a proscription on touching men to whom they are not married is not sexist, because the discrimination is made based on the relationship between the man and the woman.

Both cases they're refusing because of their religious beliefs. How are they different?

Farah is refusing to participation in a non-universal social custom with everyone she meets.
The cake shop is refusing to provide a service for specific people because of who they are.

Pretty significant difference.

The reason they didn't want to bake a cake is because of their religious beliefs too.

Wew.

The cake shop owner didn't want to bake a specific type of cake for the customer because it explicitly represented something that went against their religious beliefs.

Try again.

Non-universal social customs are not equivalent to services provided by a business, which have to adhere to specific anti-discrimination practices.

Yes, and an employee must adhere to certain standards that the company they work for requires in order to represent them positively.

If they behave in a way that a potential employer interprets as impolite then they won't get hired. She isn't entitled to the job.

[Petrasylvania]

"It's okay to not shake hands for other reasons, but not for your religion!"

tbh if she doesn't win it'll be a surprise and a travesty.

A Muslim woman losing a lawsuit in what right-wingers call Swedenstan would kind of undermine that assertion on the other hand.

[Internationalist Bastard]

"It's okay to not shake hands for other reasons, but not for your religion!"

tbh if she doesn't win it'll be a surprise and a travesty.

Im interested on how the religious liberty committee will react

[United Muscovite Nations]

"It's okay to not shake hands for other reasons, but not for your religion!"

Literally this yes. Laicite society.

Your idea of laicite is pointlessly restrictive. What you basically want is a society where people must have a secular reason for everything they do.

[Camicon]

There's no double standard.

Farah made a conscious decision to avoid acting in a sexist manner.

Her religious beliefs result in prudish, not sexist, behaviour. There's nothing in Islam that says wives shouldn't touch their husbands. What some people interpret as a proscription on touching men to whom they are not married is not sexist, because the discrimination is made based on the relationship between the man and the woman.


Farah is refusing to participation in a non-universal social custom with everyone she meets.
The cake shop is refusing to provide a service for specific people because of who they are.

Pretty significant difference.

Non-universal social customs are not equivalent to services provided by a business, which have to adhere to specific anti-discrimination practices.

Yes, and an employee must adhere to certain standards that the company they work for requires in order to represent them positively.

If they behave in a way that a potential employer interprets as impolite then they won't get hired. She isn't entitled to the job.

And if placing your hand over your heart in greeting is taken to be more impolite than shaking a hand, to the point where it cripples your ability to interpret, then you might have a point.

It doesn't. You don't.

[Gravlen]

In one case the person in question refuses to do his or her job in order to fulfill a task requested by someone else, in the other the person in question is willing to do his or her job in order to fulfill a task requested by someone else...

In the first, there is no part of the job that requires they take every commission.

Regardless, they elected to not do the job due to religious convictions.

In the second, they are hired in a diplomatic fashion

Huh?

and representing the company to others. If they cannot represent the company in the manner they want to be represented, that's that. By refusing to shake hands, she is refusing to do her job, especially as communication is not merely verbal and tactile communication is a key aspect of human society. Her job is literally to facilitate communication, and right off the bat in the interview, she said she refuses to do so in certain ways deemed normal for society.

Her job would be to interpret. Whether or not she greeted the person she interprets for - and whether or not it is a policy of her employment that she does so (which, despite what they said, it wasn't, since they allow people not to shake hands as greetings) - is immaterial to the task, which is to interpret. That task was something she was willing to do.

If she up and decided she can't translate profanity too, that would likewise be a problem, no matter how sincere her belief.

Your hypotheticals are not interesting.

She has refused to communicate the companies message.

Not really.

[Ostroeuropa]

Literally this yes. Laicite society.

Your idea of laicite is pointlessly restrictive. What you basically want is a society where people must have a secular reason for everything they do.

Not necessarily must have a secular reason for everything they do. They can also have no reason for the things they do.

[Gravlen]

In one case the person in question refuses to do his or her job in order to fulfill a task requested by someone else, in the other the person in question is willing to do his or her job in order to fulfill a task requested by someone else...

They refused to do their job in order to fulfill a task requested by someone else...

What was this task?

They refused to bake a cake.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Your idea of laicite is pointlessly restrictive. What you basically want is a society where people must have a secular reason for everything they do.

Not necessarily must have a secular reason for everything they do. They can also have no reason for the things they do.

So you want to punish people for being religious, so that they will only be religious in secret? That is also pointlessly restrictive.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

https://metro.co.uk/2018/08/16/muslim-woman-rejected-from-job-for-not-shaking-mans-hand-is-awarded-3000-7849508/

TL;DR: Muslim woman refuses to shake job interviewer's hand. Cites religious faith. Claims discrimination when not given the job.

If you're going to do a TL;DR, you should do it accurately.

TL;DR: Muslim woman refuses to shake job interviewer's hand. Cites religious faith. Isn't allowed to finish the interview, and is told that she won't get the job. Interviewer says it would have been OK if she had refused to shake hands because of a fear of germs or due to autism, but not for religious reasons. Claims discrimination when not given the job.

The verdict is found here.

Gah, misinterpreted the story. My bad.

Still though... my question about the religious beliefs that require one to violate those of others remains.

Except that Farah Alhajeh doesn't shake hands with men or women, which this company would have learned if they hadn't thrown her out of the building immediately.

Which still leaves behind the question of how much time they have to give an applicant to explain themselves before they jump to conclusions.

Or whether it even constitutes a "discriminatory" decision if the reason for removing someone from the premises is based on a misunderstanding.

[Vassenor]

"It's okay to not shake hands for other reasons, but not for your religion!"

tbh if she doesn't win it'll be a surprise and a travesty.

She did win her suit.

[Petrasylvania]

"It's okay to not shake hands for other reasons, but not for your religion!"

tbh if she doesn't win it'll be a surprise and a travesty.

She did win her suit.

So basically OP is a rant on an imaginary ISIS victory.

[Kramanica]

Yes, and an employee must adhere to certain standards that the company they work for requires in order to represent them positively.

If they behave in a way that a potential employer interprets as impolite then they won't get hired. She isn't entitled to the job.

And if placing your hand over your heart in greeting is taken to be more impolite than shaking a hand, to the point where it cripples your ability to interpret, then you might have a point.

It doesn't. You don't.

Its Europe. Handshakes are an extremely common greeting. Many will interpret a refusal to shake their hand as being impolite and rude.