the middle eastern stores around my neighborhood, and there are quite a few of
them, co not close during Ramadan, but those who work there and are observant
Muslims do not eat or drink during the day. As the end of the day approaches,
they make all sorts of delicious foods in anticipation of the break fast at the
end of the day…I asked one of the youngish guys who work there and is always
very friendly and helpful if it was hard for him to be around food during the
fast times, and he said very simply, yes. Unlike the Jewish Sabbath that
proscribes the handling of money or the doing of any work on the holy day,
Ramadan does not prohibit work, and I guess that is how these business owners
see it, work, not eating.
On Sep 9, 2015, at 2:29 PM, Roger Loran Bailey (Redacted sender
"rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx" for DMARC) <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Speaking of closing your business on your religious holiday, that reminds me
of an example of what happens when religion meets economic reality. A few
years ago I used to occasionally go into a store named The Middle Eastern
Mart. Then Ramadan came along and it was closed for a month. It almost lost
my business entirely because in that time I got used to going somewhere else.
But it was more convenient, so when it opened again I was back. Then the next
year and another Ramadan came along and the store was closed only a few days
before it opened again. I dropped in and asked the proprietor why he was not
closed for Ramadan. He said rather exasperatedly, "I can't afford Ramadan!" I
thought it sounded like he needs a shorter holiday.
On 9/9/2015 1:05 PM, Alice Dampman Humel wrote:
and this is precisely what they have no right to do…they are free to not
have abortions, to not use burt control, to not have homosexual
relationships, to not shop on whatever holy day their religion binds them
to, to close their own business on that day if they own a business,
whatever. But they have no right to impose any of that on the rest of us if
the law says differently, the secularly defined law, not a religious one…
and this is what I don’t quite understand why there’s not more objection,
louder opposition to, this imposition of somebody else’s religious laws on
others. Kim Davis doesn’t believe in gay marriage? Fine. Then she should
not enter into one. But part of her job is to issue marriage licenses, and
if the law permits gays to marry, or a man to marry a sheep, or a woman to
marry a tree, then it is up to her to issue the license whether she likes
the choice of spouse or not…again, to trot out everyone’s favorite
yardstick: what if she, in 2015, even in Kentucky, refused to issue a
marriage license to an interracial couple? It’s not for her to impose her
religious views on others, and if she can’t overcome herself to uphold civil
law, then she should find another job.
Alice
On Sep 9, 2015, at 10:58 AM, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
But they've been imposing their will on us, they and the Catholic Bishops.
No federal funds for abortion. And that Supreme Court decision last year,
didn't that have to do with on the job medical insurance benefits for birth
control? And all those state regulations that have eliminated abortion
clinics and added on requirements for women before they can get their
abortions?
Miriam
________________________________
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alice Dampman
Humel
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 9:25 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Fwd: [act-chat] Oops! National Federation of
the Blind Sued for Religious Discrimination by EEOC
Abdulah and all,
I get so furious every time I hear yet another story about this sniveling
sack of shit Kim Davis and all her brainwashed evangelical cohorts and
supporters, including the odious Mike Huckabee.
They keep yapping about how their religious freedom is being taken away. And
no one contradicts them, no one seems to have the balls to say to them, "You
have no idea what the concept of religious freedom even means. You have no
idea whatsoever what it means to have no religious freedom. You are free to
unobstructed and unchallenged practice any religion you choose, complete
with whatever demands it makes of you, to comply with all the dicta attached
to that religion, from the standard denominations of the world's religions,
even the wacko sects of those religions, right down to pastafarianism. What
you are not permitted to do is impose those beliefs and their restrictions
on others. We do not live in a theocracy. We are under no obligation to
observe any religion's laws if we ourselves do not subscribe to that
religion. And you can't make us, no matter how hard you try to shoehorn the
concept of religious freedom into this form of tyranny, right up there with
fascism of the worst order. The lack of religious freedom means that you
will be thrown in jail for mouthing off about your wacko beliefs and/or
practicing them. When that happens, then we'll talk about how Christians are
being persecuted and you right wing evangelicals are being deprived of your
religious freedom. Bullshit. So until then, shut up and go away."
Something like that.think I"m ready for prime time yet? :)
Alice
On Sep 9, 2015, at 3:22 AM, abdulah aga <abdulahhasic@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi
Hmmmm So it means that USA as capitalism People like more religion
then money?,
So Saudi Arabia we know is religion country,
but they are work even Fridays,
in Saudi Arabia is Fridays weekend,
So I don't know then what start going on in USA with people:
Maybe they are want to make all USA as Vatican? or what?.
Abdulah Hasic.
-----Original Message----- From: Frank Ventura
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 11:57 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Fwd: [act-chat] Oops! National
Federation of the Blind Sued for Religious Discrimination by EEOC
I wonder what would happen if people refused to work on religious
days for Walmart, somehow I dount the EEOC would have the guts to go after
Wallyworld.
-----Original Message-----
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of abdulah aga
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2015 4:30 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Fwd: [act-chat] Oops! National
Federation of the Blind Sued for Religious Discrimination by EEOC
Hi
I don't know where this lead us?
When people start use religion to much as esquse for something then
is not
good:
other word that esquse lead us in Couse or some type of mess,
I know how looks like and I past true all this things
So I would like ask smart NFB why they are didn't do sem thinks in
my case with TX comition for the blind?
I would like ask smart NFB what would bee hempen if Muslim people
say we don't work Fridays, because of are religion?
-----Original Message-----
From: Miriam Vieni
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 3:11 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Fwd: [acb-chat] Oops! National
Federation of the Blind Sued for Religious Discrimination by EEOC
I guess the NFB is a bit narrow in their definition of
discrimination? They recognize it only when it happens to blind people?
Miriam
________________________________
From: blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:blind-democracy-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Charles
Krugman (Redacted sender "ckrugman@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" for DMARC)
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2015 3:38 PM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Re: Fwd: [acb-chat] Oops! National
Federation of the Blind Sued for Religious Discrimination by EEOC
and the stupidity award goes to the National Federation of the
Blind! I wonder whether the NFB membership will be apprized of this.
Chuck
From: R. E. Driscoll Sr <mailto:llocsirdsr@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 2015 9:39 AM
To: blind-democracy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [blind-democracy] Fwd: [acb-chat] Oops! National Federation
of the Blind Sued for Religious Discrimination by EEOC
All:
This came in the morning mail. It had rather long "TO and COPY"
sections which I have deleted... Further details may be found in the link.
R. E. (Dick) Driscoll, Sr.
National Federation of the Blind Sued for Religious Discrimination
by EEOC
Advocacy Group Terminated an Employee because He Would Not Work on
the Sabbath, Federal Agency Charged
BALTIMORE - The National Federation of the Blind, the largest
organization of blind and low-vision people in the United States, violated
federal law when it refused to allow an employee to observe his Sabbath and
instead terminated him because of his religion, the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) charged in a lawsuit it announced today.
According to the lawsuit, Joseph R. Massey II is a practicing Hebrew
Pentecostal, a Christian denomination, and abstains from working from sunset
Friday to sunset Saturday based on his sincerely-held religious beliefs.
The National Federation of the Blind hired Massey for a bookkeeping
position at its Baltimore office in November 2013. In January 2014, the
Federation told Massey he had to work certain Saturdays. Massey explained
he could not work Saturdays due to his religious faith and suggested
alternatives such as working on Sundays or working late on week nights other
than Fridays. EEOC charged that the Federation refused to provide any
reasonable accommodation and instead fired Massey because he could not work
Saturdays due to his religious beliefs.
Such alleged conduct violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, which prohibits employers from discriminating against individuals
because of their religion and requires employers to reasonably accommodate
an employee's sincerely-held religious beliefs unless doing so would impose
an undue hardship on the employer. EEOC filed suit (EEOC v. The National
Federation of the Blind, Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-02484-GLR) in U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland, Baltimore Division,
after first attempting to reach a pre-litigation settlement through its
conciliation process.
"Employees should not have to choose between their jobs and their
religious convictions when a religious accommodation will not unduly burden
others,"
said EEOC Philadelphia District Director Spencer H. Lewis, Jr.
EEOC Regional Attorney Debra M. Lawrence added, "Most religious
accommodations are not unduly costly, such as allowing an employee to switch
his schedule to observe his Sabbath. No employee should be forced to choose
between earning a living and following the dictates of his faith."
EEOC's Philadelphia District Office has jurisdiction over
Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia and parts of New Jersey and
Ohio. Its legal staff also prosecutes discrimination cases arising from
Washington, D.C. and parts of Virginia.
EEOC enforces federal laws prohibiting employment discrimination.
Further information about the agency is available at its website,
www.eeoc.gov
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.eeoc.gov&d=BQMCaQ&c
=cBOA5YEoZuz9KdLvh38YxdrPtfJt83ckXekfBgq5xB0&r=CK8oOj7-JYZnTDmB5orNTVZXar6Nr
snGtGHfQ5m79Do&m=X-azbiIlLDe6yFm40VOo18BkP3dAM0rd0Ra4aH1VCUU&s=r8E7HDDW1tHlr
NnXx76co9RJpg0MAQYmFeuiHLDXiq8&e=> .
http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/national-federation-of-the-blind-sued-36517
/?utm_source=JD-Supra-eMail-Digests
<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.jdsupra.com_legalne
ws_national-2Dfederation-2Dof-2Dthe-2Dblind-2Dsued-2D36517_-3Futm-5Fsource-3
DJD-2DSupra-2DeMail-2DDigests&d=BQMCaQ&c=cBOA5YEoZuz9KdLvh38YxdrPtfJt83ckXek
fBgq5xB0&r=CK8oOj7-JYZnTDmB5orNTVZXar6NrsnGtGHfQ5m79Do&m=X-azbiIlLDe6yFm40VO
o18BkP3dAM0rd0Ra4aH1VCUU&s=2h2gkTHVm-iso4Gw9uPk127o2sQOVIxWkTz82tm4L2k&e=>
<http://mandrillapp.com/track/open.php?u=30489975&id=ec68daf2a10b47949ad494e
7b411a6fc>
________________________________
Avast logo <http://www.avast.com/> This email has been checked for
viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com <http://www.avast.com/>
