Donald Trump Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
on_the_hill said:
What about using religion as an excuse to not provide birth control?
Click to expand...
Find a job that doesn’t require you provide birth control. There are lots of fields that have nothing to do with birth control.

To mangle a phrase from the 60’s – God never promised you a rose garden.
 
Funny world we live in. The Washington Post reports that Obama has killed dozens to hundreds of Muslim civilians with drone strikes and, silence. One Trump supporter doesn’t know the proper Arabic pronounciation of the hijab, and the internet explodes. A sad and frivolous people we are.
 
exnihilo said:
I think private businesses should be able to hire and fire employees for any reason.
Click to expand...
For any reason, huh? So you think an employer should be able to fire someone because they’re Catholic or black or fat, etc., because he doesn’t like Catholics or black people or fat people?
 
Thorolfr said:
For any reason, huh? So you think an employer should be able to fire someone because they’re Catholic or black or fat, etc., because he doesn’t like Catholics or black people or fat people?
Click to expand...
People should only be fired if they can’t do the job.
 
ucfengr said:
Funny world we live in. The Washington Post reports that Obama has killed dozens to hundreds of Muslim civilians with drone strikes and, silence. One Trump supporter doesn’t know the proper Arabic pronounciation of the hijab, and the internet explodes. A sad and frivolous people we are.
Click to expand...
As I said above, it isn’t just that the woman mispronounced the word “hijab” but that she thought the TSA should not be employing people who wear them. And I don’t think it has as much to do with what one Trump supporter said, but with Mr. Trump’s encouragement of these kinds of prejudiced statements (that someone who wears a hijab should not be allowed to work for the TSA).
 
Thorolfr said:
For any reason, huh? So you think an employer should be able to fire someone because they’re Catholic or black or fat, etc., because he doesn’t like Catholics or black people or fat people?
Click to expand...
Absolutely. That is a basic right of property owners. The legal system that prohibits such practices is costly, discriminatory and abusive. Not to mention it is completely unnecessary in modern times when any hint of discrimination is met with widespread outrage and boycott.
 
ucfengr said:
Funny world we live in. The Washington Post reports that Obama has killed dozens to hundreds of Muslim civilians with drone strikes and, silence. One Trump supporter doesn’t know the proper Arabic pronounciation of the hijab, and the internet explodes. A sad and frivolous people we are.
Click to expand...
Catholic answers forum has a policy against campaigning for a candidate. It would be a fair thing if it’s also banned to campaign against a candidate, as multiple threads on this site attempt to do, just like the mainstream media does 24/7.
 
sallybutler said:
Find a job that doesn’t require you provide birth control. There are lots of fields that have nothing to do with birth control.

To mangle a phrase from the 60’s – God never promised you a rose garden.
Click to expand...
It was as lame example I gave.
 
sallybutler said:
People should only be fired if they can’t do the job.
Click to expand...
Sure. At the same time, the law of the US specifically states that appropriate accommodations must be made regarding sex, disability, and religion. If certain headgear is a religious requirement (not only while worshiping, but all the time), then the headgear must be allowed, unless it can be reasonably shown that the wearing of such headgear could endanger the health and safety of others. As such, employers must allow Muslim women to wear hijabs, Orthodox Jewish men to wear marmalukes, and Sikh men to wear turbans. In restaurants, where head covering is required to minimize food contamination - or any other workplace that requires a certain head covering, both Muslim women and Orthodox Jewish men could easily cover their religious head covering with the company’s headgear. The turbans for Sikh men would be more difficult to cover, but if an accommodation is possible, it must be made. This also goes for disabilities - if a person is able to do the job but needs a reasonable accommodation to have access to the equipment required to do the job (such as Braille/text converters and screen readers for blind employees; wheelchair-accessible desks and automatic doors for people who use wheelchairs; T-coil sound systems for people who use hearing aids; etc.). And it also goes for sex - the most notable example of this is the requirement of having clean, private, non-restroom areas where nursing women can pump breast milk.

As for exnihilo’s statement, that an employer should be able to fire whoever he/she wishes for any reason (or no reason at all), the problem is that businesses usually equate being fired = you did something wrong, and are less likely to hire an employee if he/she has been fired for any reason, even if the reason was that the boss’s husband/wife was jealous.
 
powerofk said:
Sure. At the same time, the law of the US specifically states that appropriate accommodations must be made regarding sex, disability, and religion. If certain headgear is a religious requirement (not only while worshiping, but all the time), then the headgear must be allowed, unless it can be reasonably shown that the wearing of such headgear could endanger the health and safety of others. As such, employers must allow Muslim women to wear hijabs, Orthodox Jewish men to wear marmalukes, and Sikh men to wear turbans. In restaurants, where head covering is required to minimize food contamination - or any other workplace that requires a certain head covering, both Muslim women and Orthodox Jewish men could easily cover their religious head covering with the company’s headgear. The turbans for Sikh men would be more difficult to cover, but if an accommodation is possible, it must be made. This also goes for disabilities - if a person is able to do the job but needs a reasonable accommodation to have access to the equipment required to do the job (such as Braille/text converters and screen readers for blind employees; wheelchair-accessible desks and automatic doors for people who use wheelchairs; T-coil sound systems for people who use hearing aids; etc.). And it also goes for sex - the most notable example of this is the requirement of having clean, private, non-restroom areas where nursing women can pump breast milk.

As for exnihilo’s statement, that an employer should be able to fire whoever he/she wishes for any reason (or no reason at all), the problem is that businesses usually equate being fired = you did something wrong, and are less likely to hire an employee if he/she has been fired for any reason, even if the reason was that the boss’s husband/wife was jealous.
Click to expand...
Believe it or not, I think we are close. If the employer request a uniform and you don’t want too wear the uniform, you should have no protection against being fired.

If you are in a wheelchair, but are able to do everything the job requires, the employer should not be able to fire you. Adding a wheelchair ramp for a person with a desk job is not the same as having to hire another person to do the parts of your job you don’t want to do.

However, if job requires you have two hands, for example, a masseuse, and you have no hands, or a certification, such as a medical degree and you never graduated from high school, or you are not Catholic and you want to teach Confirmation classes using your religion’s theology, you should not be given special considerations.

The boss is called boss for a reason.
 
powerofk said:
As for exnihilo’s statement, that an employer should be able to fire whoever he/she wishes for any reason (or no reason at all), the problem is that businesses usually equate being fired = you did something wrong, and are less likely to hire an employee if he/she has been fired for any reason, even if the reason was that the boss’s husband/wife was jealous.
Click to expand...
Employers may well comsider this. But the issue is whether the determination of whether an employee can be fired is up to the employer or the state. As it stands now you can be fired, and therefore have potential employers look poorly upon you as a possible employee, if you say oppose homosexuality or same sex marriage. That doesn’t seem fair to me but is fair according to most people and our government.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top