locutius wrote on Jun 26
th, 2009 at 9:00am:
Soren wrote on Jun 25
th, 2009 at 9:33pm:
Then making a claim on the basis of her muslim upbringing and morals is absurd, just as a muslim taxi driver refusing to take seeing eye dogs is an absurdity.
Hardly an absurdity if it makes sense to him, but he has acted illegally and should be punished and rightly so.
There's the diff. Not every point of view is equal. The Muslim taxi driver who refuses to take seeing eye dogs in Minneapolis has no case, moral or otherwise, and what does or does not make sense to him is beside the point. Taxi driving and cocktail waitressing are jobs people apply for, not sold into. Like application, resignation IS an option.
The cocktail waitress who objects to wearing a perfectly ordinary red dress and cites her Muslim upbringing as the basis for her objections - but then says on her blog that religon has nothing to do with it - is sucking and blowing simultaneously. None of the other waitresses objected and it was an issue only for her, with objections based on her Muslim upbringing and cultural interpretation.
As the bar said, she resigned. She didn't want to wear the dress, she resigned "Managers said the dress was chosen by other staff, and produced photos of waitress Amanda Bjursten modelling it in the bar in Mayfair, central London. She said she was "completely comfortable" in the dress. "
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2048121.eceBut therev is no money in resignation. It is bullsh!t that she she was not trying this on for the 20k as she herself pointed out that her case, if won, mandates that amount - a fact she knew before she launched her case. It is utter crap that an employer has to give notice of any future uniform changes at the time of an interview.
So on the basis of her claims, there was no case. But this aburd tribunal had to find a way not to seem unsympathetic once the Muslim feelings were read into the record. So this absurd tribunal awarded other people's money for 'hurt feelings'.
In effect this is money for what the tribunal takes to be hurt feelings experienced in England but rooted in Muslim upringing and the interpretation of red dresses in the culture of that upbringing and being hurt in England precisely because of the dissonance between the upbringing and the experience in Rome -I mean englaand.
It is absurd exactly for the same reason as your lne is about the taxi driver's case being "Hardly an absurdity if it makes sense to him". It is a one way nonsense.
One day a muslim checkout operator sues Sainsbury's for being 'forced' to handle alcohol. The next day a muslim taxi driver refuses to take people with duty free booze in his cab. Then along comes Polly and wants to work in a cocktail bar but only in loose fitting black clothes. Then Fatima the Hijabi wants to work in a hip and groovy hair salon but wants to come to work in a hijab, all non-hip and ungroovy. The day after that, Fatma the niqabi teacher's assistant sues because the school wants her to uncover her facee when she is teaching the nippers pronunciaton.
And on it goes. Muslim Bin Laden lookalike PC sues because boss noticed resemblance. Muslim PC with bizarre beard is hurt by other coppers finding his beard bizarre.
And waddaya know? The pattern that is obvous to all is an illusion, a malicouss or paranoid illusion!! These are not Muslims-trying-it- on cases. Oh no. These are all workers rights issues, don't you know.
And look over there! What's that? Well, blow me down if it's not the BNP, Pauline, Le Pen, Wilders, Howard, UKIP, Danish People's Party, Fortuyn, Van Gogh, Hirsi Ali, Spencer, Steyn, Limbaugh, Jones and the rest. Wonder what brings them here., popular buggers.
Yes there is an immense difference between the two cases. The taxi driver took on a job that has a preset of non negotiable conditions and expectations, and in the case of transporting guide dogs that is covered by legislation. As a minimum I would expect him to be made to apologies to the person he has agrieved, be given a written warning and resit his theory test. If it is a dismissable offence then he should be dismissed and no compensation would be due him other than backpay. BUT REMEMBER he agreed to those pre-existing conditions......the Barmaid had NEW conditions put on her after she had started the job.
That is the DIFF. I would expect a grade 11 Legal Studies student to get this.