- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: PF Chang's to pay $80,000 after EEOC finds religious discrimination in Birmingham, Alabama
Posted on 9/16/25 at 11:53 am to Contra
Posted on 9/16/25 at 11:53 am to Contra
quote:
Wrong. There was a point in time that business used to be closed on Sundays; however, greed has gripped this country to where corporations basically tell you to screw your religious beliefs. This country has gone backwards.
On the other hand, religion is sayin screw your business and your ability to grow it if they are required to close on Sundays. A business should have the right to do either. A potential employee should be able to assess where to go apply and have personal agency in that decision
0
Posted on 9/16/25 at 12:01 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
This statement isn't just for legal reasons. To keep employees happy you have to be consistent and fair. I have to go out of my way to offer vape breaks these days. The non-vapers have to be made aware they can take that same break as well. I have nothing but 18-23 year old women and you cannot have someone getting more than another. They only recognize what they want and that is it. No consideration for other's for the most part
quote:This is a headache I'm glad I don't have to deal with.
You get it. A lot of folks haven't had to work around this crap in the past so they don't understand how much of a burden these rules create for employers. These sorts of things are easy for people in "professional" careers to deal with. Extremely difficult for everyone else.
It makes me grateful that I have a professional career as a bean counter, NOT a bean seller.
This post was edited on 9/16/25 at 12:22 pm
Posted on 9/16/25 at 12:03 pm to Loco Uno
quote:Not sure if you are kidding but I had several Seventh Day Adventists work for me over my career and being SDA, healthcare work is excused from the things you can't do on Sunday. Empirically speaking, that's why many go into healthcare.
So, all the college football fans suddenly become Seventh Day Adventists so they get Saturday off?
Posted on 9/16/25 at 12:06 pm to Diamondawg
quote:
SDA
People think Mormons are weird. SDA is a very weird bunch.
Posted on 9/16/25 at 12:07 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
Why is that the only way to get rid of it?
That's not self-evident at all.
Because that will make it obvious how much of a burden these rules are. There is currently no real movement to repeal the Civil Rights Act. No serious candidate would even come close to putting that on a platform. The only way to fix it is to make it so obviously burdensome that it makes no sense to keep it anymore.
This post was edited on 9/16/25 at 12:08 pm
Posted on 9/16/25 at 12:33 pm to wareaglepete
quote:
People think Mormons are weird. SDA is a very weird bunch.
I've worked with both but I think the scales would tip toward Mormons on weirdness vs. SDA . That being said, it's hard to find people that are more avid followers of their faith than those two.
Posted on 9/16/25 at 12:34 pm to imjustafatkid
Sounds pretty ridiculous.
If you’re hiring someone for a job and they tell you that they won’t work specific days that you need them to work, then you don’t have to hire them.
I don’t give a frick what their reason is for not working on certain days. If they refuse to work certain days that you need them, you can’t hire them. End of story.
If you’re hiring someone for a job and they tell you that they won’t work specific days that you need them to work, then you don’t have to hire them.
I don’t give a frick what their reason is for not working on certain days. If they refuse to work certain days that you need them, you can’t hire them. End of story.
Posted on 9/16/25 at 12:39 pm to imjustafatkid
quote:
No serious candidate would even come close to putting that on a platform.
Not sure that's true either, but even if it is, that's why I asked why you wouldn't challenge it in court. It's a Constitutional issue.
quote:
Because that will make it obvious how much of a burden these rules are.
And so what, Democrats will get concerned about the regulatory burdens placed on employers? You might as well advocate for encouraging abortions because if we can just push the numbers up over 2 million a year, then the Democrats will realize that it should be considered murder.
They don't and never will give a squirt of piss about regulatory burdens that employers have to deal with. No matter how obvious it is now or becomes later.
Your position might work if you were talking about using the CRA to benefit white people over minorities in some statistically significant way, for example.
But if the victims of the CRA are just employers, forget it. Leaning into that will never cause them to become sympathetic to that group.
This post was edited on 9/16/25 at 12:41 pm
Posted on 9/16/25 at 12:42 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
Not sure that's true either, but even if it is, that's why I asked why you wouldn't challenge it in court. It's a Constitutional issue.
Oh I thought you were trying to be serious.
Posted on 9/16/25 at 3:32 pm to jcaz
quote:
If he’s willing to be available every day except Sunday then that’s a reasonable request IMO.
What if that is their busiest day and every other employee is required to work it?
Stupid for the government to get involved in scheduling of employees.
Posted on 9/17/25 at 9:36 am to Bjorn Cyborg
Agreed. Especially when the employee cna easily seek other employment. Instead, they get to play the lottery for free
Page 7 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News