Muslim sues for "discrimination" for not accommodating her.

[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.

She already did win.

Ah. Good.

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.

There are two kinds of supporters of laicite: those who live in nations where religion threatens to overwhelm the secular government, and those who have extremely thin skin who can't stand the thought of religions they don't follow being allowed but don't have the guts to call for state atheism.

[Camicon]

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.

When the cause for removal is based on her being a Muslim, then yes, it's discriminatory. Doesn't matter that the interviewer was a knob.

[Ethel mermania]

Assuming all men are only interested in one thing, and shaking hands is only encouraging that demon, is very much sexist.

How do you know she wasn't trying to prevent herself from being tempted?

Thats not what the religion teaches.

[Ostroeuropa]

She already did win.

Ah. Good.

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.

There are two kinds of supporters of laicite: those who live in nations where religion threatens to overwhelm the secular government, and those who have extremely thin skin who can't stand the thought of religions they don't follow being allowed but don't have the guts to call for state atheism.

Religion has already overwhelmed the secular government where I live. Religious privileges are enshrined in law. We have a literal state church.

[Camicon]

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.

A straight up refusal might be impolite. Being replaced with another form of greeting is not.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

She did win her suit.

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

No, it's a commentary on the self-refuting nature of "religious accommodation," and that aspect of my point is not negated by my... somewhat misinterpreting the lawsuit, as the latter has no bearing on the former.

[Petrasylvania]

She already did win.

Ah. Good.

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.

There are two kinds of supporters of laicite: those who live in nations where religion threatens to overwhelm the secular government, and those who have extremely thin skin who can't stand the thought of religions they don't follow being allowed but don't have the guts to call for state atheism.

Or state theocracy of their choice.

[Kramanica]

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

A straight up refusal might be impolite. Being replaced with another form of greeting is not.

Perhaps to you. Others might not see it that way. A company not wanting to take that risk is perfectly understandable and acceptable.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

How do you know she wasn't trying to prevent herself from being tempted?

Thats not what the religion teaches.

Who gets to say how to interpret the mess of contradictions that is the Qur'an?

[Kramanica]

Thats not what the religion teaches.

Who gets to say how to interpret the mess of contradictions that is the Qur'an?

Memri TV.

[Conserative Morality]

A straight up refusal might be impolite. Being replaced with another form of greeting is not.

Perhaps to you. Others might not see it that way. A company not wanting to take that risk is perfectly understandable and acceptable.

"It's okay not to shake hands if you're autistic or a germophobe, but not if you're religious!"

They are truly not taking that risk, I see!

Things would be much easier if you were honest, tbh.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Gah, misinterpreted the story. My bad.

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



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.

When the cause for removal is based on her being a Muslim, then yes, it's discriminatory. Doesn't matter that the interviewer was a knob.

Except that the cause for removal, as far as they were consciously aware, was her refusal to abide by the same rules they have for everyone else. By what standard does anything else count?

[The South Falls]

Thats not what the religion teaches.

Who gets to say how to interpret the mess of contradictions that is the Qur'an?

Every religious book has its contradictions, and I know it's bad to engage in whataboutism, but what if it was the bible?

[Petrasylvania]

In other news...

Muslim couple denied Swiss citizenship over no handshake

Denying citizenship application over a handshake is pretty dickish, but no doubt the usual suspects will applaud especially since it only applies to Dirty Muslims.

[Kramanica]

Perhaps to you. Others might not see it that way. A company not wanting to take that risk is perfectly understandable and acceptable.

"It's okay not to shake hands if you're autistic or a germophobe, but not if you're religious!"

They are truly not taking that risk, I see!

Things would be much easier if you were honest, tbh.

Lol. Where'd you get that strawman from?

Put it away, plz.

[Camicon]

A straight up refusal might be impolite. Being replaced with another form of greeting is not.

Perhaps to you. Others might not see it that way. A company not wanting to take that risk is perfectly understandable and acceptable.

Bowing is a customary form of greeting for the Japanese. If she was ethnically Japanese, and bowed instead of shaking hands, would anyone be making a fuss?

Forcing physical contact on a person that does not want said physical contact is far more impolite than placing your hand over your heart.

[The South Falls]

Who gets to say how to interpret the mess of contradictions that is the Qur'an?

Memri TV.

That creepy mouse-hosting channel? If so, welcome to a world where everything should die.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Who gets to say how to interpret the mess of contradictions that is the Qur'an?

Every religious book has its contradictions, and I know it's bad to engage in whataboutism, but what if it was the bible?

Show me where I advocated for religious accommodation based on Christian beliefs.

[Ostroeuropa]

In other news...

Muslim couple denied Swiss citizenship over no handshake

Denying citizenship application over a handshake is pretty dickish, but no doubt the usual suspects will applaud especially since it only applies to Dirty Muslims.

Switzerland is notoriously strict on everyone when it comes to applications, and literally require that the community you live among testify you are actively trying to emulate swiss culture and its norms for your application to be granted.

If you go there and do anything other than try to be as Swiss as you can, you will be rejected.

[Internationalist Bastard]

"It's okay not to shake hands if you're autistic or a germophobe, but not if you're religious!"

They are truly not taking that risk, I see!

Things would be much easier if you were honest, tbh.

Lol. Where'd you get that strawman from?

Put it away, plz.

That’s literally what happened here

[The South Falls]

In other news...

Muslim couple denied Swiss citizenship over no handshake

Denying citizenship application over a handshake is pretty dickish, but no doubt the usual suspects will applaud especially since it only applies to Dirty Muslims.

That makes absolutely no sense. Since we respect Christian religious beliefs, why not respect Muslim ones? The ones that don't pose harm, anyway.

[Conserative Morality]

Lol. Where'd you get that strawman from?

Put it away, plz.

De har också uppgett att förhållanden som bacillskräck och autism är legitima skäl för attinte ta i hand.

Wow what a strawman I made

[Camicon]

When the cause for removal is based on her being a Muslim, then yes, it's discriminatory. Doesn't matter that the interviewer was a knob.

Except that the cause for removal, as far as they were consciously aware, was her refusal to abide by the same rules they have for everyone else. By what standard does anything else count?

No, it was an assumption made by the interviewer that she refused to shake hands with him, a male, because she was Muslim. He thought that this would lead her to shake hands with women, which would go against the company's non-discriminatory policies. Not shaking hands isn't a problem, by the company's own admission. The Interviewer wrongly assumed that she would be discriminatory towards the customers because of her religion.

[Kramanica]

Perhaps to you. Others might not see it that way. A company not wanting to take that risk is perfectly understandable and acceptable.

Bowing is a customary form of greeting for the Japanese. If she was ethnically Japanese, and bowed instead of shaking hands, would anyone be making a fuss?

If she refused to shake their hand and bowed instead then yeah, probably. It's not really her placing her hand on her heart that is the issue. It's just the straight up refusal to shake hands.

Forcing physical contact on a person that does not want said physical contact is far more impolite than placing your hand over your heart.

Then she should probably have found a different place to work.

[Ostroeuropa]

Except that the cause for removal, as far as they were consciously aware, was her refusal to abide by the same rules they have for everyone else. By what standard does anything else count?

Not, it was an assumption made by the interviewer that she refused to shake hands with him, a male, because she was Muslim. He thought that this would lead her to shake hands with women, which would go against the company's non-discriminatory policies. Not shaking hands isn't a problem, by the company's own admission. The Interviewer wrongly assumed that she would be discriminatory towards the customers because of her religion.

Did she make any effort to dispel this notion?

Suppose I say in an interview, for whatever reason, that I hate sluts. Would it be their fault or mine to conclude I hated promiscuous women but I actually hate both promiscuous men and women?

Communication is a thing and she was not effective at communicating her stance here. That's a pretty damning thing for an interpreter. She signalled adherence to religion and its discriminatory practices. She did not signal any adherence to a culture of treating everyone the same. The interviewer was perfectly justified in their conclusion.

It's not "Wrongly making an assumption".

If you look at her statement, it's clear that it IS her religion that causes her to think shaking hands with MALES is bad, but it's her adherence to culture of treating people the same way that causes her to treat women the same way.
She doesn't believe shaking hands with women is bad in and of itself like she does for men.

No matter how you slice it, that's a sexist attitude.