Skip to comments.
Woman fired for eating bacon (Offending Muslims a Termination Offense in Orlando)
Washington Times ^
| Aug 16, 2004
| Inside the Beltway--John McCaslin
Posted on 08/17/2004 2:32:06 PM PDT by SauronOfMordor
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-49 next last
I was hearing about this on talk radio while I was driving. I'd love to hear how this turns out. Can anybody imagine what would happen if a business prohibited something in the workplace because it was offensive to Catholics, then fired somebody for violating the order?
To: SauronOfMordor
2
posted on
08/17/2004 2:33:45 PM PDT
by
BrooklynGOP
(www.logicandsanity.com)
To: SauronOfMordor
A company should be allowed to make its own rules.
That being said, if a Muslim was fired for sacrificing a goat on company time and property, and got fired, I'm sure the outrage from the left would be defeaning.
3
posted on
08/17/2004 2:33:52 PM PDT
by
Guillermo
(It's the 99% of Mohammedans that make the other 1% look bad.)
To: SauronOfMordor
Didn't this happen last month?
Or am I having deja` vu all over again?
To: Guillermo
"That being said, if a Muslim was fired for sacrificing a goat on company time and property, and got fired, I'm sure the outrage from the left would be defeaning."Or if a Muslim was to marry a 9-year-old girl...
5
posted on
08/17/2004 2:40:39 PM PDT
by
Redbob
To: SauronOfMordor
But bacon is delicious....
6
posted on
08/17/2004 2:41:30 PM PDT
by
brewcrew
To: SauronOfMordor
The Moslem should not be forced to eat pork, but their preventing other people from doing so is simply ridiculous.
To: SauronOfMordor
So does that mean any business can fire Muslims for violating a "no turban" rule? Yeah, like the courts would uphold that...
This politically-correct crap has got to go!
8
posted on
08/17/2004 2:44:29 PM PDT
by
Prime Choice
(I remember when John Kerry last lied to us. It is seared into my mind.)
To: Redbob
Didn't the Prophet (may peace be upon him) marry a girl when she was 7 and consumate it when she was 9 (and he was 54)?
9
posted on
08/17/2004 2:48:08 PM PDT
by
Mr. Lucky
To: Guillermo; Redbob
If a guy rushed into the office you work and shot the woman in the next cubicle it would be a heinous crime. Unless it's an "honor killing". Then it's just a cultural quirk. < sarc off >
10
posted on
08/17/2004 2:48:17 PM PDT
by
NewRomeTacitus
(http://www.numbersusa.com makes a difference!)
To: SauronOfMordor
From the article I was reading on this the other day, the problem was not because she ate pork, but because she didn't listen after being twice asked not to cook pork in the company microwave where muslim employees prepared their food.
This seems two different issues to me. In any case, I think some clarification is needed here of exactly what happened.
11
posted on
08/17/2004 2:51:13 PM PDT
by
I still care
(Have you heard about the Democrat cocktail? It's ketchup with a chaser.)
To: SauronOfMordor
how about the fact that 'they' use there left hand for what i use TP for. now,seems to me, shouldn't i be a Little PO if i have to use something they have used their handS on???
12
posted on
08/17/2004 2:52:21 PM PDT
by
camas
To: Unam Sanctam
but their preventing other people from doing so is simply ridiculous.
They obviously look at is as a Food Jihad.
13
posted on
08/17/2004 2:54:04 PM PDT
by
ErnBatavia
("Dork"; a 60's term for a 60's kinda guy: JFK)
To: Guillermo
"A company should be allowed to make its own rules."
Not exclusively.
To: Guillermo
The company is incorporated, so it has to abide by federal and state rules and regulations WRT these things.
I predict the woman wins this one.
To: Guillermo
"A company should be allowed to make its own rules."
Really? What if a company had a rule prohibiting crosses because they were offensive to Muslims? What if the company had rules against prayer mats because they offended Catholics?
What if a company had rules prohibiting all non Muslims from working there because they were offensive to Muslims? What if a company had rules prohibiting blacks from working for them because they offended white supremacists?
Owners used to have the freedom to run their business however they saw fit, but those days are gone. So who decides who has to be tolerant of what? You?...the Muslims?
Why is it the majority has to be tolerant of minorities but minorities don't have to be tolerant of the majority?
The answer is, everyone has to be tolerant of everyone. Unless the court is completely hypocritical, this lady will win a big religious discrimination suit against this company.
16
posted on
08/17/2004 3:01:44 PM PDT
by
monday
To: I still care
"From the article I was reading on this the other day, the problem was not because she ate pork, but because she didn't listen after being twice asked not to cook pork in the company microwave where muslim employees prepared their food."
Thanks for the clarification. It sounds to me like the Muslim employees needed to buy their own microwave in that case. If she cooked pork in their microwave then I could see where the company might have a point, but a "company" microwave must tolerate all sorts of cuisine or it is a racist and intolerant microwave.
17
posted on
08/17/2004 3:07:24 PM PDT
by
monday
To: monday
Really? What if a company had a rule prohibiting crosses because they were offensive to Muslims? What if the company had rules against prayer mats because they offended Catholics?They should have the right to do the above, as it is THEIR company.
What if a company had rules prohibiting all non Muslims from working there because they were offensive to Muslims? What if a company had rules prohibiting blacks from working for them because they offended white supremacists?
All the above should be OK as well, as it is THEIR company. No one has the right not to be offended.
So who decides who has to be tolerant of what
The owners
Why is it the majority has to be tolerant of minorities but minorities don't have to be tolerant of the majority?
Yeah, that sucks that that's the case. No one should be forced to tolerate another on their own private property.
18
posted on
08/17/2004 3:07:48 PM PDT
by
Guillermo
(It's the 99% of Mohammedans that make the other 1% look bad.)
To: SauronOfMordor
The firm in question
Rising Star Telecommunications appears to be owned by a Black Muslim. The management team has deleted their bios from the website, but on another thread a link to the
archive was posted.
For some reason, having a stridently Muslim telecom/engineering/Internet company operating in the US is "interesting" to me. Their Current project is:
Current Projects
- The Oasis Al Iman client: Capitol Performance International, Inc. (IBC) The British Virgin Islands and Rising Star Telecommunications, Inc.
- Rising Star is currently supervising a large scale complex telecommunication project that involves setting up an Application Service Provider that provides unique features inculding:
- Filtered Access to the World Wide Web
- Virtual Web
- E-Store Web Casting access to Flat Electronic Data Interface (FEDI)
- Additionally, in support of FEDI, RSTI is supervising the building of state-of-the-art telecommunications, teleconferencing facilities and television studios globally.
- The engineering challenge involves multi-point secure satellite and ground communication systems with complete redundancy and the ability to prevent and avoid the hazzards of fraudulent access, misuse, sedition, pornography, elicit solicitations, corporate espionage and intrusion, hostile enviormental acts, war, weather and natural disasters
|
19
posted on
08/17/2004 3:15:59 PM PDT
by
SauronOfMordor
(That which does not kill me had better be able to run away damn fast.)
To: savedbygrace
"The company is incorporated, so it has to abide by federal and state rules and regulations" Let's analyze your reasoning.
A newspaper is "incorporated."
A "federal and state rules and regulations" forbids the incorporated newspaper disparaging or disagreeing with legislators in articles or editorials.
According to you the "corporation" has to abide by those "rules and regulations."
What happen to Amendment I? Where in the incorporation papers from the state of incorporation does it state you, as a stockholder/property owner of the incorporation, "forfeit" constitutionally protected rights?
20
posted on
08/17/2004 3:50:00 PM PDT
by
tahiti
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-49 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson