My husband just came home with a rant....

[Homicidalheathen]

....who pulled his daughter out of a dorm room at college. Why? Because she was rooming with a bi-sexual witch.

Of coarse my husband had to bite his toungue...he IS married to such and raising such type people.

[crunchy_pickle (5)]

....who pulled his daughter out of a dorm room at college.  Why?  Because she was rooming with a bi-sexual witch.

Of coarse my husband had to bite his toungue...he IS married to such and raising such type people.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm a little confused as to why your husband had to bite his tongue. I mean he could've stated that those are his beliefs, but at the same time I'm sure he could see his point as well. You raise your children a certain way and you hope the best for them. Maybe he felt his daughter was easily influenced by other people? If that was the case, I could understand why he'd want to pull her out of the dorm. He didn't raise her to be a bisexual witch.

If I was raising my daughter to be a homosexual Satanist, I certainly wouldn't want her sharing a dorm with a heterosexual Catholic if I felt she was easily influenced and I was still supporting her. Fortunately, my daughter is a strong minded individual, and respects my beliefs and opinions in life. Maybe his daughter is not mature enough yet to make her own decisions in life. Most college kids these days still need direction and guidance.

Of course, there comes a time when everyone has to make their own decisions. That time is when that person is mature and responsible enough to handle all of their affairs financial and otherwise. I will never let my children dishonor me under my own roof. If they choose to later on, that's their choice.

[Guest Game of Chance]

I'm a little confused as to why your husband had to bite his tongue.  I mean he could've stated that those are his beliefs, but at the same time I'm sure he could see his point as well.  You raise your children a certain way and you hope the best for them.  Maybe he felt his daughter was easily influenced by other people?  If that was the case, I could understand why he'd want to pull her out of the dorm.  He didn't raise her to be a bisexual witch.

If I was raising my daughter to be a homosexual Satanist, I certainly wouldn't want her sharing a dorm with a heterosexual Catholic if I felt she was easily influenced and I was still supporting her.  Fortunately, my daughter is a strong minded individual, and respects my beliefs and opinions in life.  Maybe his daughter is not mature enough yet to make her own decisions in life.  Most college kids these days still need direction and guidance.

Of course, there comes a time when everyone has to make their own decisions.  That time is when that person is mature and responsible enough to handle all of their affairs financial and otherwise.  I will never let my children dishonor me under my own roof.  If they choose to later on, that's their choice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not sure I understand the relevance of your response. The probable reason why he had to bite his tongue is that he likes to earn his paycheck in a headache-free environment.

[crunchy_pickle (5)]

I'm not sure I understand the relevance of your response.  The probable reason why he had to bite his tongue is that he likes to earn his paycheck in a headache-free environment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So it's ok to to deal with religious persecution in the workplace then? I'm sorry but I'm not a big fan of people infringing the rights of others at work. Having to bite your tongue is hardly a headache-free environment.

[Guest Game of Chance]

So it's ok to to deal with religious persecution in the workplace then?  I'm sorry but I'm not a big fan of people infringing the rights of others at work.  Having to bite your tongue is hardly a headache-free environment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Last time I checked, we have the first amendment in this country. I'm not sure how his rights were infringed. He could have freely spoken up within all limits of legality, but the question arises...is it worth it? Depends on your personality and temperament I suppose.

[crunchy_pickle (5)]

Last time I checked, we have the first amendment in this country.  I'm not sure how his rights were infringed.  He could have freely spoken up within all limits of legality, but the question arises...is it worth it?  Depends on your personality and temperament I suppose.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I guess, but most workplaces are against abuse of any form, whether it be sexual, ethnic, religious, sexual preference, handicap, etc. That shit has no place in the workplace and should not be tolerated i.e. biting your tongue. Clearly if he had to bite his tongue, the guy said something offensive, and whether it was directed at him or not, it's a form of verbal abuse. It's no different than offending a woman by looking at porn on your lunch break.

[Guest Game of Chance]

I guess, but most workplaces are against abuse of any form, whether it be sexual, ethnic, religious, sexual preference, handicap, etc.  That shit has no place in the workplace and should not be tolerated i.e. biting your tongue.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It didn't sound like abuse from the post. Sounded like one guy was freely speaking and another guy disagreed. Last time I checked, the constitution still allows for that.

[Shade Everdark]

I might point out, too, that it also depends on how exactly this coworker father talked about pulling his daughter out of this dorm room.

If he were matter-of-fact, or even tactful (doubtful, yes, but possible), for example, "I asked the housing administration at my daughter's university to move her to a different dorm room; I wasn't comfortable with her rooming with that person," while it still technically counts as bias, perhaps even closet bigotry, it doesn't really come across that way, and HH's husband would have looked bad for pointing this out.

On the other hand, her husband might have been more justified if the coworker had something to the effect of, "I'm not having MY daughter sharing a room with a promiscuous, VD-transmitting, Satan-worshipping slut!" He might well have appeared to have more justification by making a reply, in this instance, but as has already been pointed out, some people don't consider it worth the trouble to take up a cause, for one incident, that often can simply be ignored. If it continues, however...that would change things.

Note: My examples, obviously, are clearly exaggerated for purposes of highlighting the different manners in which essentially the same information can be transmitted.

[crunchy_pickle (5)]

It didn't sound like abuse from the post.  Sounded like one guy was freely speaking and another guy disagreed.  Last time I checked, the constitution still allows for that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I guess our opinions differ on this matter. I believe in equality and while I agree that First Amendment rights are important, there are certain sensitive topics that should be avoided in the workplace. No one should have to feel uncomfortable or be angered, at their place of work because of a co-worker's beliefs and them openly expressing them. Harassment direct or indirect is still harassment...

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of l964 prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing, and other terms and conditions of employment. Title VII covers employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments. It also applies to employment agencies and to labor organizations, as well as to the federal government.

Under Title VII:

* Employers may not treat employees or applicants less - or more - favorably because of their religious beliefs or practices. For example, an employer may not refuse to hire individuals of a certain religion, may not impose stricter promotion requirements for persons of a certain religion, and may not impose more or different work requirements on an employee because of that employee's religious beliefs or practices.

* Employees cannot be forced to participate -- or not participate -- in a religious activity as a condition of employment.

* Employers must reasonably accommodate employees' sincerely held religious beliefs or practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer. A reasonable religious accommodation is any adjustment to the work environment that will allow the employee to practice his religion. Flexible scheduling, voluntary substitutions or swaps, job reassignments and lateral transfers and modifying workplace practices, policies and/or procedures are examples of how an employer might accommodate an employee's religious beliefs.

* An employer is not required to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs and practices if doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employers' legitimate business interests. An employer can show undue hardship if accommodating an employee's religious practices requires more than ordinary administrative costs, diminishes efficiency in other jobs, infringes on other employees' job rights or benefits, impairs workplace safety, causes co-workers to carry the accommodated employee's share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work, or if the proposed accommodation conflicts with another law or regulation.

* Employers must permit employees to engage in religious expression if employees are permitted to engage in other personal expression at work, unless the religious expression would impose an unde hardship on the employer. Therefore, an employer may not place more restrictions on religious expression than on other forms of expression that have a comparable effect on workplace efficiency.

* Employers must take steps to prevent religious harassment of their employees. An employer can reduce the chance that employees will engage unlawful religious harassment by implementing an anti-harassment policy and having an effective procedure for reporting, investigating and correcting harassing conduct.

It is also unlawful to retaliate against an individual for opposing employment practices that discriminate based on religion or for filing a discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under Title VII.

[crunchy_pickle (5)]

I guess this is why I feel so strongly about certain issues. I think America tolerates a lot to shit comfortably, whether it be from other Americans or the government itself violating the laws that protect us.

Really though, it's bad enough that we have to deal with the prejudice of ignorant people in our everyday lives much less in the workplace.

[float]

I don't see how any of that applies

its not like his job was being threatened unless he agreed with the father

so do you consider it harrassment every time someone has a different opinion on any subject?

I mean according to the line of thought that noone should every be upset at work...I guess noone should ever talk to anyone about anything, because someone might get their feelings hurt if they disagree.

Too much PC bullshit in this country...I say the world needs to grow up and grow some balls....people have a right to disagree

[Guest Game of Chance]

Well, I guess our opinions differ on this matter.  I believe in equality and while I agree that First Amendment rights are important, there are certain sensitive topics that should be avoided in the workplace.  No one should have to feel uncomfortable or be angered, at their place of work because of a co-worker's beliefs and them openly expressing them.  Harassment direct or indirect is still harassment...

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of l964 prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing, and other terms and conditions of employment. Title VII covers employers with 15 or more employees, including state and local governments. It also applies to employment agencies and to labor organizations, as well as to the federal government.

Under Title VII:

    * Employers may not treat employees or applicants less - or more - favorably because of their religious beliefs or practices. For example, an employer may not refuse to hire individuals of a certain religion, may not impose stricter promotion requirements for persons of a certain religion, and may not impose more or different work requirements on an employee because of that employee's religious beliefs or practices.

    * Employees cannot be forced to participate -- or not participate -- in a religious activity as a condition of employment.

    * Employers must reasonably accommodate employees' sincerely held religious beliefs or practices unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer. A reasonable religious accommodation is any adjustment to the work environment that will allow the employee to practice his religion. Flexible scheduling, voluntary substitutions or swaps, job reassignments and lateral transfers and modifying workplace practices, policies and/or procedures are examples of how an employer might accommodate an employee's religious beliefs.

    * An employer is not required to accommodate an employee's religious beliefs and practices if doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employers' legitimate business interests. An employer can show undue hardship if accommodating an employee's religious practices requires more than ordinary administrative costs, diminishes efficiency in other jobs, infringes on other employees' job rights or benefits, impairs workplace safety, causes co-workers to carry the accommodated employee's share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work, or if the proposed accommodation conflicts with another law or regulation.

    * Employers must permit employees to engage in religious expression if employees are permitted to engage in other personal expression at work, unless the religious expression would impose an unde hardship on the employer. Therefore, an employer may not place more restrictions on religious expression than on other forms of expression that have a comparable effect on workplace efficiency.

    * Employers must take steps to prevent religious harassment of their employees. An employer can reduce the chance that employees will engage unlawful religious harassment by implementing an anti-harassment policy and having an effective procedure for reporting, investigating and correcting harassing conduct.

It is also unlawful to retaliate against an individual for opposing employment practices that discriminate based on religion or for filing a discrimination charge, testifying, or participating in any way in an investigation, proceeding, or litigation under Title VII.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, funny you mention this, because actually, all of that is thrown out the window if its a privately held company. There was a case earlier this year of a privately held Arabic company that fired an employee (a christian, not that its really relevant) for eating a ham sandwich in the lunchroom. The company was completely in its legal rights.

Funnier still is that I think that the point of this post was merely to share a simple anecdote, not necessarily get involved in a political debate.

IMO, people need to be a little thicker skinned. There are assholes in the world, deal with it. The worst thing that ever happened to this country is the possibility of frivolous law suits for cases just like this.

[crunchy_pickle (5)]

I don't see how any of that applies

its not like his job was being threatened unless he agreed with the father

so do you consider it harrassment every time someone has a different opinion on any subject?

I mean according to the line of thought that noone should every be upset at work...I guess noone should ever talk to anyone about anything, because someone might get their feelings hurt if they disagree.

Too much PC bullshit in this country...I say the world needs to grow up and grow some balls....people have a right to disagree

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So along those lines it would be alright for me to say that your race (using the loose and ignorant definition of the word) is inferior to my race in the workplace correct? People have a right to disagree yes, but there's a fine line between disagreeing and harassment that violates civil rights in the workplace.

[Guest Game of Chance]

So along those lines it would be alright for me to say that your race is inferior to my race in the workplace correct?  People have a right to disagree yes, but there's a fine line between disagreeing and harassment that violates civil rights in the workplace.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My response would be a smile and a "Sure it is buddy"

[crunchy_pickle (5)]

My response would be a smile and a "Sure it is buddy"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yet, you don't see the problem in you tolerating this? I'll admit, that I've always been very tolerant of people, however tolerance in matters such as this is a weakness. This is why people bitch instead of act. They're so accustomed to tolerating anything they have to deal with and shrugging it off that they would freely sacrifice all of their rights as long as they saved one. The right to bitch about it. You're right on one thing. People do need to be a little thicker skinned, and have a little more backbone.

[Guest Game of Chance]

Yet, you don't see the problem in you tolerating this?  I'll admit, that I've always been very tolerant of people, however tolerance in matters such as this is a weakness.  This is why people bitch instead of act.  They're so accustomed to tolerating anything they have to deal with and shrugging it off that they would freely sacrifice all of their rights as long as they saved one.  The right to bitch about it.  You're right on one thing.  People do need to grow some balls.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, I really don't. My paycheck (and more importantly, the convenience of earning it in a stress-free environment) is more important to me than someone else's closed minded views. I care more about me and mine than I do changing some ignorant's viewpoint.

The fact is Crunchy, you can't change people. People can only change themselves.

And now, we're officially thread-drifting.

And no, I don't care to spin it off.

[Homicidalheathen]

He being the boss and in someone else company...meaning...this job depends on him....yah....he has to be very careful.

I'm not sure I understand the relevance of your response.  The probable reason why he had to bite his tongue is that he likes to earn his paycheck in a headache-free environment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Homicidalheathen]

Oh yah, and I lost my last job for being found out....about being a witch....christian company....me and this girl were going to file a complaint together but she backed out and I didn't want to go it alone.

[crunchy_pickle (5)]

No, I really don't.  My paycheck (and more importantly, the convenience of earning it in a stress-free environment) is more important to me than someone else's closed minded views.  I care more about me and mine than I do changing some ignorant's viewpoint.

The fact is Crunchy, you can't change people.  People can only change themselves.

And now, we're officially thread-drifting.

And no, I don't care to spin it off.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well this isn't really thread drifting at all, but it's not like I don't see your point. I just don't agree with it. I think that tolerating civil injustice is no better than promoting it. You can't change people, but if you enforce policies at least the more ignorant people will keep their mouths shut. I guess it just doesn't make sense to me that so much emphasis is put on sexual and racial harassment despite laws that protect against all forms of harassment.

[Guest Game of Chance]

Well this isn't really thread drifting at all, but it's not like I don't see your point.  I just don't agree with it.  I think that tolerating civil injustice is no better than promoting it.  You can't change people, but if you enforce policies at least the more ignorant people will keep their mouths shut.  I guess it just doesn't make sense to me that so much emphasis is put on sexual and racial harassment despite laws that protect against all forms of harassment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's great. ::smiles::

See...its done just like that.

The point is

1. I tolerate whatever because I simply do not care enough to fight it. It really doesn't have an effect on me or my life, because I don't let it. To put in terms you might understand, "Forgive them Lord, for they know not what they do."

2. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result, which is exactly what you're doing by repeating the same argument again and again.

3. I really don't care to discuss this any further. Please, if you're going to talk about this, don't address me.

[Guest Megalicious]

....

[EvilEve]

Oh yah, and I lost my last job for being found out....about being a witch....christian company....me and this girl were going to file a complaint together but she backed out and I didn't want to go it alone.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

had you gone in alone, they probably would have just thrown it out (as the court system likes to use this term a lot) the window. LOVE our legal system, huh?

secondly, by your husband not saying anything when such a comment was made saved a lot of head-ache and harrassment.

let the naive people go around pretending that they know everything, and just sit back and watch them make fools of themselves. i'm not saying be a door-mat for them to religion/spiritual bash, just let them make their "point" and leave it at that. let them live their narrow hall-way lives, and you go about living yours. no harm done.

[Onyx]

Oh yah, and I lost my last job for being found out....about being a witch....christian company....me and this girl were going to file a complaint together but she backed out and I didn't want to go it alone.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How did the subject of your religion come up? (just curious)

I feel that was a very un-Christlike thing to do to you two. Sad how few people truly have morals. That's part of what turned me off my own church. I sometimes miss going and worshiping but then I remember the bad experiences and I change my mind.

[The_Dark]

OK. I've been avoiding this but...

The man has the right to his own opinion. He has the right to express it.. any damn where he wants. You don't have to listen. It would only be an infringment on HH's husbands rights if he was forced to listen to them in some way.

I have to tolerate your views, I dont have to accept them. Neither does anyone else. If you don't want to hear someone's closed minded views anymore, tell them, nicely, to stop. You don't have a legal case against someone for one instance... You have to tell them to stop and they have to do it again.

And CP, you have no choice but to Tolerate this... He has the same rights as you do. That means he is allowed to have differnt views than you do. I know in your perfect world everyone will think just like you.. but thats not the world the rest of us live in. We live in a world where everyone has equal rights. The man did nothing to break anyone's rights.

BTW, before I forget.. Crunchy Pickle.. I know your views on this. They offend me. Please stop posting about them or I shall be forced to sue you for offending my beleifs. (See, I can abuse the system too)

[Guest Megalicious]

.....