Muslim sues for "discrimination" for not accommodating her.

[Conserative Morality]

So sure of yourself on this, huh?

Tell me, were you just as sure of yourself about the "cutting up hijab with scissors" hoax? Or what about the Yasmin Seweid one?

The what?

[Ostroeuropa]

You're the one who pretended religion isn't more ridiculous. I'm pointing out that factually speaking, you're wrong about that. That's not a prejudice.

"It's not a prejudice, it's a fact!"

You really make the parallels too easy.

Are you disputing that there's less evidence for god than there is for germs killing people?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

At least germs exist and do transfer on occasion, so yes, it's significantly less ridiculous to be afraid of things that actually exist and kill people than to be afraid of the wrath of a non-existent entity.

Thank you for proving my point that this has nothing to do with sexism or suitability for the job, but your anti-theistic prejudices that would not be out of place for a 15-year-old newly deconverted from fundamentalism who thinks that he has found The Secret that has been hidden from the world.

Still doesn't refute his point.

There is evidence of germs. There is no evidence of a god or gods.

End of story.

[Kramanica]

I'm on a phone, m8.

Then you should have recognized that you were short on information and not pressed the matter instead of making yourself look like a fool.

Ah yes, what would I do without your help?

Thank you for proving my point. You are being exceptionally helpful today!

Hm.

“The easiest way to think of this is to think of people on a spectrum,” says Simon Rego, PsyD, director of psychology training and the cognitive behavioral training program at Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York City. “On one end are people who don’t have any concern about germs, in the middle are those with appropriate levels of concern, and at the other end would be the mysophobics,” otherwise known as germaphobes.

It's actually an imbalance of neurochemicals (particularly dopamine and serotonin) that runs in cycles, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that. That would require more than two clicks to cure your ignorance on the matter, after all!

Yes, I can see it manifesting itself right now. You definitely have chemical imbalance in your brain.

You are bitter, sad, pathetic individual. You get no joy out of your life so instead you LARP as an intelligent person on NSG. And you blame it all on your bi-polar disorder. As if that somehow makes up for you being an utterly shitty individual. Your life is a meaningless shell of anguish and bitterness. And that's most likely how you'll remain for the rest of your life. It's sad, isn't it? To know that this is all there is for you? Unfortunely I'm not here to be your therapist. I'm just here to mock you for being such an utterly pathetic person.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

So sure of yourself on this, huh?

Tell me, were you just as sure of yourself about the "cutting up hijab with scissors" hoax? Or what about the Yasmin Seweid one?

The what?

I'd have thought both hoaxes were brought up here. Anyone else recall posts from here on either one?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Thank you for proving my point that this has nothing to do with sexism or suitability for the job, but your anti-theistic prejudices that would not be out of place for a 15-year-old newly deconverted from fundamentalism who thinks that he has found The Secret that has been hidden from the world.

Still doesn't refute his point.

There is evidence of germs. There is no evidence of a god or gods.

End of story.

It proves that it's not about sexism for Ostro, but about preventing people from practicing their faith.

[Conserative Morality]

Are you disputing that there's less evidence for god than there is for germs killing people?

There's less evidence for irrational avoidance of germs being helpful than there is for God, because there is plenty of proof that irrational avoidance of germs is actually unhelpful, while notions of the divine merely suffer from a lack of evidence, not evidence against.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Then you should have recognized that you were short on information and not pressed the matter instead of making yourself look like a fool.

Ah yes, what would I do without your help?

Hm.

Yes, I can see it manifesting itself right now. You definitely have chemical imbalance in your brain.

You are bitter, sad, pathetic individual. You get no joy out of your life so instead you LARP as an intelligent person on NSG. And you blame it all on your bi-polar disorder. As if that somehow makes up for you being an utterly shitty individual. Your life is a meaningless shell of anguish and bitterness. And that's most likely how you'll remain for the rest of your life. It's sad, isn't it? To know that this is all there is for you? Unfortunely I'm not here to be your therapist. I'm just here to mock you for being such an utterly pathetic person.

...said the person with no evidence.

I don't care where you stand on this debate, there's nothing good that could come out of the worthless brain of someone with such baseless certainty about the personal life of someone they don't know.

[Camicon]

Way to completely miss the point.

Correcting an assumption after having been discriminated against/assaulted doesn't change the fact that someone was discriminated against/assaulted.

Doing X does not mean that Y never happened.

And Farah interprets her religion as proscribing physical contact based on the relationship between the men and women in question. Spouses are not proscribed against touching each other, only others of the opposite sex to whom they are not married. This is prudish, not sexist.

It's not an assumption if you communicate a certain stance without being clear about it.

If she had explicitly told the man "I do not shake hands with men because of my religion." would you say he's "Assuming" shit by thinking that's the extent of her position?

Then why not IMPLICITLY communicating that fact?

She views touching men other than her husband as bad in and of itself, and does not view touching women the same way.

Farah said she could not shake the interviewer's hand - not "I can't shake mens hands", but "I can't shake your hand" - and the interviewer told her to leave.

Farah made no reference to the interviewer's sex or gender, or to her religion.

The interviewer assumed she wouldn't shake his hand because he was a man. He assumed that she would shake the hands of women. He assumed that she wouldn't greet all of the company's potential customers in an equal manner. He assumed this was because of her religion. He told her to leave, and she did.

And, again, not touching men to whom you are not married is prudish, not sexist. At worst, you could argue that the assumption the religion makes in proscribing physical contact with members of the opposite sex (but not the same sex) as being homosexual erasure. But it certainly isn't sexist.

[Ostroeuropa]

Still doesn't refute his point.

There is evidence of germs. There is no evidence of a god or gods.

End of story.

It proves that it's not about sexism for Ostro, but about preventing people from practicing their faith.

People can have more than one motivation at a time, though simple minded folk who can't grapple with more than one idea at once may not have much experience of that. I'm sure you do though, so why say this?

As for "preventing people from practicing their faith", it's more a matter of not tolerating religion when it causes problems in society and seeking to crack down on it. In this case, sexism.

[Kramanica]

Ah yes, what would I do without your help?


Yes, I can see it manifesting itself right now. You definitely have chemical imbalance in your brain.

You are bitter, sad, pathetic individual. You get no joy out of your life so instead you LARP as an intelligent person on NSG. And you blame it all on your bi-polar disorder. As if that somehow makes up for you being an utterly shitty individual. Your life is a meaningless shell of anguish and bitterness. And that's most likely how you'll remain for the rest of your life. It's sad, isn't it? To know that this is all there is for you? Unfortunely I'm not here to be your therapist. I'm just here to mock you for being such an utterly pathetic person.

...said the person with no evidence.

I don't care where you stand on this debate, there's nothing good that could come out of the worthless brain of someone with such baseless certainty about the personal life of someone they don't know.

It isn't baseless certainty. He readily admits to being a bitter invidual.

I'm doing nothing more than pointing it out.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It proves that it's not about sexism for Ostro, but about preventing people from practicing their faith.

People can have more than one motivation at a time, though simple minded folk who can't grapple with more than one idea at once may not have much experience of that. I'm sure you do though, so why say this?

As for "preventing people from practicing their faith", it's more a matter of not tolerating religion when it causes problems in society and seeking to crack down on it. In this case, sexism.

Not shaking hands doesn't cause problems in society, and it wasn't about sexism, it was just extreme prudishness.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Still doesn't refute his point.

There is evidence of germs. There is no evidence of a god or gods.

End of story.

It proves that it's not about sexism for Ostro, but about preventing people from practicing their faith.

Eh, it could be both. He reminds me of me a few years ago when I was at peak MRA. I still think there are some kernels of truth to men's rights ideology, but there comes a point of obsession where one can have a hair-trigger sensitivity to the slightest evidence of misandry. When you're the fedora'd type (ie. Fluttershy avatar) the combination of misandry with religion can feel worse than the sum of its parts.

[Camicon]

No, the problem was the incorrect assumption of the interviewer that she would be discriminatory in her greetings because of her religion.


Physical contact is not necessary for the work of interpreting. The company in question said that not shaking hands it not a problem.


She could very well have tried to correct the interviewer's incorrect assumption. Maybe she decided that she didn't want to work for a company that had a knob like him conducting their interviews, didn't press the matter because she no longer wanted the job. It doesn't matter. It doesn't change the fact that she was discriminated against.

If someone punches me in the face because they think I insulted their brother/sister, explaining to them that I did not doesn't change the fact that I was assaulted.

It is also unclear if she got a chance to explain herself, as the interviewer "immediately" ended the interview process.

Which is a moot point in any event. She was discriminated against, regardless of whether or not she did, or was even given a chance to, explain herself.

[Conserative Morality]

Ah yes, what would I do without your help?

Oh, sweetie, you don't need my help. You do you just fine on your own.

Hm.

Are you agreeing with me now? Or are you not reading what you copy and paste?

Yes, I can see it manifesting itself right now. You definitely have chemical imbalance in your brain.

Nice one!

You are bitter, sad, pathetic individual. You get no joy out of your life so instead you LARP as an intelligent person on NSG. And you blame it all on your bi-polar disorder.

No, not at all. When was the last time I used bipolar disorder as an excuse on here? I think I apologized to someone last time I went a few months without my medicine, but that was via TG. I actually get plenty of joy out of my life. NSG is just a convenient time waster when nothing interesting is going on.

As if that somehow makes up for you being an utterly shitty individual. Your life is a meaningless shell of anguish and bitterness.

Not really, tbh. I'm exceptionally bitter about politics, but my personal life is actually pretty okay.

And that's most likely how you'll remain for the rest of your life. It's sad, isn't it? To know that this is all there is for you?

Actually, if I could live the rest of my life the way I am now, I would love that, save I'd like to move out of my town.

Unfortunely I'm not here to be your therapist. I'm just here to mock you for being such an utterly pathetic person.

3/10, poor attempts at projection, didn't even bother to secret police up my post history to make actual founded assertions, instead relying on a single phrase in my sig. See me after class.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

...said the person with no evidence.

I don't care where you stand on this debate, there's nothing good that could come out of the worthless brain of someone with such baseless certainty about the personal life of someone they don't know.

It isn't baseless certainty. He readily admits to being a bitter invidual.

I'm doing nothing more than pointing it out.

Yeah, but come on. You were claiming to know a hell of a lot more than that. And you had no reason to.

[Ostroeuropa]

Are you disputing that there's less evidence for god than there is for germs killing people?

There's less evidence for irrational avoidance of germs being helpful than there is for God, because there is plenty of proof that irrational avoidance of germs is actually unhelpful, while notions of the divine merely suffer from a lack of evidence, not evidence against.

Ah, even sillier, you're denying evidence that religion is detrimental to society in many ways exists.

It's not an assumption if you communicate a certain stance without being clear about it.

If she had explicitly told the man "I do not shake hands with men because of my religion." would you say he's "Assuming" shit by thinking that's the extent of her position?

Then why not IMPLICITLY communicating that fact?

She views touching men other than her husband as bad in and of itself, and does not view touching women the same way.

Farah said she could not shake the interviewer's hand - not "I can't shake mens hands", but "I can't shake your hand" - and the interviewer told her to leave.

Farah made no reference to the interviewer's sex or gender, or to her religion.

The interviewer assumed she wouldn't shake his hand because he was a man. He assumed that she would shake the hands of women. He assumed that she wouldn't greet all of the company's potential customers in an equal manner. He assumed this was because of her religion. He told her to leave, and she did.

And, again, not touching men to whom you are not married is prudish, not sexist. At worst, you could argue that the assumption the religion makes in proscribing physical contact with members of the opposite sex (but not the same sex) as being homosexual erasure. But it certainly isn't sexist.

He rightly concluded she wouldn't shake his hand because he was a man. He rightly concluded that this was because of her religion. These are the ideas she communicated with him implicitly and took the effort to communicate.

She made no reference or even an attempt to also allude to adherence to principles of egalitarianism. She made no effort to communicate that she would treat potential customers in an equal manner. She made no effort to communicate that she would likewise not shake the hands of women (because of egalitarian principles, not her religion.)

You are blaming him for her poor communication. He made an entirely reasonable conclusion.

[United Muscovite Nations]

There's less evidence for irrational avoidance of germs being helpful than there is for God, because there is plenty of proof that irrational avoidance of germs is actually unhelpful, while notions of the divine merely suffer from a lack of evidence, not evidence against.

Ah, even sillier, you're denying evidence that religion is detrimental to society in many ways exists.

Farah said she could not shake the interviewer's hand - not "I can't shake mens hands", but "I can't shake your hand" - and the interviewer told her to leave.

Farah made no reference to the interviewer's sex or gender, or to her religion.

The interviewer assumed she wouldn't shake his hand because he was a man. He assumed that she would shake the hands of women. He assumed that she wouldn't greet all of the company's potential customers in an equal manner. He assumed this was because of her religion. He told her to leave, and she did.

And, again, not touching men to whom you are not married is prudish, not sexist. At worst, you could argue that the assumption the religion makes in proscribing physical contact with members of the opposite sex (but not the same sex) as being homosexual erasure. But it certainly isn't sexist.

He rightly concluded she wouldn't shake his hand because he was a man. He rightly concluded that this was because of her religion. These are the ideas she communicated with him implicitly and took the effort to communicate.

She made no reference or even an attempt to also allude to adherence to principles of egalitarianism. She made no effort to communicate that she would treat potential customers in an equal manner. She made no effort to communicate that she would likewise not shake the hands of women.

You are blaming him for her poor communication. He made an entirely reasonable conclusion.

I thought you said they didn't have to provide a reason for not doing something?

[The South Falls]

I think you can interpret without handshakes.

[Conserative Morality]

I think you can interpret without handshakes.

If you can't give another human being a full body massage with your tongue, how are you supposed to read their body language? smh, the subtleties of communication are lost on this generation!

[Reploid Productions]

Timeout for thread check. Go get some coffee or something.

[Reploid Productions]

'Person'

You presume that the objectors acknowledge Muslims are people.

Anything to keep those dirty musselmen out!

but I wouldn't expect you to understand that. That would require more than two clicks to cure your ignorance on the matter, after all!

poor attempts at projection, didn't even bother to secret police up my post history to make actual founded assertions, instead relying on a single phrase in my sig. See me after class.

Dude, really? You should know better, you even managed to go a full year since your last run-in with moderation! You can debate with people without the counter-baiting. And just because you got flamed doesn't give you a free pass to effectively taunt the other guy with "I know you are but what am I?"

*** Conserative Morality, WARNED for flamebaiting. ***

there's nothing good that could come out of the worthless brain of someone with such baseless certainty about the personal life of someone they don't know.

You're another one that should know better. You can argue with someone without making cheap jabs at their intelligence in the process. Attack the argument, not the poster!

*** LimaUniformNovemberAlpha, WARNED for flaming/baiting. ***

With the easy ones outta the way...

You are bitter, sad, pathetic individual. You get no joy out of your life so instead you LARP as an intelligent person on NSG. And you blame it all on your bi-polar disorder. As if that somehow makes up for you being an utterly shitty individual. Your life is a meaningless shell of anguish and bitterness. And that's most likely how you'll remain for the rest of your life. It's sad, isn't it? To know that this is all there is for you? Unfortunely I'm not here to be your therapist. I'm just here to mock you for being such an utterly pathetic person.

You have been around plenty long enough to know better. Being provoked does not excuse a flaming tirade like this. You've been deleted in August 2014, March 2017, and most recently in January this year. You have 18 forumside warnings, 15 forum bans, and a host of unofficial warnings and assorted notations logged about your pattern of problem behaviors across multiple nations. Yet you persist in the same problem behaviors time and time again, that you have been engaging in for the past four years.

*** Kramanica, DEAT and two-week forumban while site staff discuss whether or not it's time to upgrade to Delete-On-Sight. ***


~Evil Forum Empress Rep Prod the Ninja Mod
~She who wields the Banhammer; master of the mighty moderation no-dachi Kiritateru Teikoku

[Camicon]

Farah said she could not shake the interviewer's hand - not "I can't shake mens hands", but "I can't shake your hand" - and the interviewer told her to leave.

Farah made no reference to the interviewer's sex or gender, or to her religion.

The interviewer assumed she wouldn't shake his hand because he was a man. He assumed that she would shake the hands of women. He assumed that she wouldn't greet all of the company's potential customers in an equal manner. He assumed this was because of her religion. He told her to leave, and she did.

And, again, not touching men to whom you are not married is prudish, not sexist. At worst, you could argue that the assumption the religion makes in proscribing physical contact with members of the opposite sex (but not the same sex) as being homosexual erasure. But it certainly isn't sexist.

He rightly concluded she wouldn't shake his hand because he was a man. He rightly concluded that this was because of her religion. These are the ideas she communicated with him implicitly and took the effort to communicate.

She made no reference or even an attempt to also allude to adherence to principles of egalitarianism. She made no effort to communicate that she would treat potential customers in an equal manner. She made no effort to communicate that she would likewise not shake the hands of women.

You are blaming him for her poor communication. He made an entirely reasonable conclusion.

He incorrectly concluded she wouldn't shake his hand because he was a man. In truth, Farah wouldn't shake his hand because she doesn't shake the hands of anyone, man or woman. She doesn't shake the hands of anyone because she believes her religion proscribes physical contact between individuals of the opposite sex that are not married to each other, and she doesn't want to act in a manner that would appear to be discriminatory.

However, whether or not she referenced or alluded to her egalitarian greeting mannerisms is irrelevant, because it doesn't change the fact that she was discriminated against.

I am blaming that knob of an interviewer for not doing his fucking job and asking questions of a prospective employee. Holy shit, you want to talk about what people should have done, how about the interviewer who didn't ask the interviewee any questions? Had I been the interviewer, and she told me she can't shake my hand, I would have immediately asked "Why is that?". And, depending on her response, I might ask some follow up questions to determine if her greeting mannerisms might violate the company's anti-discrimination policies. Even if she told me that she greeted men and women differently, and I thought that would be a violation of the anti-discrimination policies, I would simply inform her that (if hired) the company might require her to use a single form of greeting for all clients. Problem solved, disaster averted, pack it up motherfuckers I just saved the goddamn world! And I wasn't an asshole about it!

Your victim blaming is completely ridiculous.

And where's your outrage about Mike Pence's more overtly prudish beliefs and behaviour?

[Petrasylvania]

He rightly concluded she wouldn't shake his hand because he was a man. He rightly concluded that this was because of her religion. These are the ideas she communicated with him implicitly and took the effort to communicate.

She made no reference or even an attempt to also allude to adherence to principles of egalitarianism. She made no effort to communicate that she would treat potential customers in an equal manner. She made no effort to communicate that she would likewise not shake the hands of women.

You are blaming him for her poor communication. He made an entirely reasonable conclusion.

He incorrectly concluded she wouldn't shake his hand because he was a man. In truth, Farah wouldn't shake his hand because she doesn't shake the hands of anyone, man or woman. She doesn't shake the hands of anyone because she believes her religion proscribes physical contact between individuals of the opposite sex that are not married to each other, and she doesn't want to act in a manner that would appear to be discriminatory.

However, whether or not she referenced or alluded to her egalitarian greeting mannerisms is irrelevant, because it doesn't change the fact that she was discriminated against.

I am blaming that knob of an interviewer for not doing his fucking job and asking questions of a prospective employee. Holy shit, you want to talk about what people should have done, how about the interviewer who didn't ask the interviewee any questions? Had I been the interviewer, and she told me she can't shake my hand, I would have immediately asked "Why is that?". And, depending on her response, I might ask some follow up questions to determine if her greeting mannerisms might violate the company's anti-discrimination policies. Even if she told me that she greeted men and women differently, and I thought that would be a violation of the anti-discrimination policies, I would simply inform her that (if hired) the company might require her to use a single form of greeting for all clients. Problem solved, disaster averted, pack it up motherfuckers I just saved the goddamn world! And I wasn't an asshole about it!

Your victim blaming is completely ridiculous.

And where's your outrage about Mike Pence's more overtly prudish beliefs and behaviour?

Obviously Mike Pence refuses to be in a room alone with another woman because gynocentrism, aka Mother gripping his balls like a beer can.

[Ostroeuropa]

He incorrectly concluded she wouldn't shake his hand because he was a man.

Nope. I've literally gone over this specifically with you.
Her statement makes it entirely clear.

She does not shake hands with men because of her religion. She does not shake hands with women because she wants to treat everyone equally.
She won't shake his hand because he is a man, she wouldn't shake a womans hand either because she wants to treat people equally.

Those are her motivations.

In truth, Farah wouldn't shake his hand because she doesn't shake the hands of anyone, man or woman. She doesn't shake the hands of anyone because she believes her religion proscribes physical contact between individuals of the opposite sex that are not married to each other, and she doesn't want to act in a manner that would appear to be discriminatory.

The AND there is precisely the point. She has different motivations for why she won't shake a mans hand why she wont shake a womans hand. One is based in sexism.

However, whether or not she referenced or alluded to her egalitarian greeting mannerisms is irrelevant, because it doesn't change the fact that she was discriminated against.

That fact is precisely what we're disputing.

I am blaming that knob of an interviewer for not doing his fucking job and asking questions of a prospective employee. Holy shit, you want to talk about what people should have done, how about the interviewer who didn't ask the interviewee any questions?

I agree he did poorly, but not to the extent a lawsuit is required or justified.

Had I been the interviewer, and she told me she can't shake my hand, I would have immediately asked "Why is that?". And, depending on her response, I might ask some follow up questions to determine if her greeting mannerisms might violate the company's anti-discrimination policies.

Indeed, this would have been a better approach.

Even if she told me that she greeted men and women differently, and I thought that would be a violation of the anti-discrimination policies, I would simply inform her that (if hired) the company might require her to use a single form of greeting for all clients. Problem solved, disaster averted, pack it up motherfuckers I just saved the goddamn world! And I wasn't an asshole about it!

It's not being an asshole to conclude someone is not worth your time on the basis of them signalling sexist attitudes. He simply declined to have as high a standard of evidence as you or I would require before writing someone off.

Your victim blaming is completely ridiculous.

She isn't a victim. She communicated an idea. He received and understood that communication. He decided from that evidence to dismiss her.

And where's your outrage about Mike Pence's more overtly prudish beliefs and behaviour?

He shouldn't do what he's doing and i've said as much before. Where's the thread on it? I can show you my outrage