Muslim sues tesco for making him carry alcohol

[Iceforge]

Well i've said what i think, but Iceforge, are you actually trying to disbute the legitimacy of emotional weigh-ins?

Also, i meant that the reasction from people is what gives religion a "special place". People get outraged if religion is mentioned, when they should act the same as towards any "silly lawsuit".

You really read my last post and think they are still the same?

I laugh at people's stupidity in the other cases; I also think the lawsuits are wrong (under Danish law those lawsuits would not be very rewarding, but US and UK share principles when it comes to these kinds of lawsuits which makes a jury able to value how much the damage is worth)
Also, many of those famous lawsuits are much more rational than you'd actually think; Take the case with the hot coffee; The women spilled the coffee over her lap, burned herself on the hot coffee that she had not realised was THAT hot and she went to the employee she had made the purchase from and asked for a free refill; Being denied that new cup of coffee, she consulted a lawyer who then convinced her she could sue them for loads of millions of dollars (lawyers in the US are entitled a percentage of any settlements and the sorts)

I still think the outcome of the lawsuits (the coffee one) is morally wrong and twisted, but laughable.

The not so laughable part about this, is that he is actually suing them for not giving him positive discrimination; He was threated like every other employee, had to do the same as all the rest, and now, due to him screaming religion, he might end up with a big reward for it.

It is sick, because the moment you allow belief systems to be the cause of settlements, I would say it is equally valid with anything I claim I suddenly believe is wrong to be doing.

Oh, I got one, I think it is wrong if the womens bathroom and mens bathroom are not seperated by at least 100 meters, as my current place of employment doesn't meet this criteria, I would expect them to rebuild their million dollar facilities or just pay me my salary without me having to show up, that would be fair.
It got equally much merit; Both a bunch of made-up horseshit without any reason for the belief. End of story

 

[old.Tohtori]

Iceforge i get what you're saying, but it wasn't my point.

My point is, this is "outrageous" because religion is even in the case.

If a white guy filed a lawsuit "because i can't drinks alcohol", without the religious part, people would lol their way to the bank.

But as soon as someone, especially Muslim, person even whispers about religion, or someone brings it up i any way, western people become very defensive.

 

[Huntingtons]

agree wth toh, people get very stressed over it being religion.
and tris' example does carry no weight. Your personal belief has nothing to do with a religion which has been accepted as a real religion. if yours get accepted we could talk. but untill then, you're just a stupid idiot (not you, but your example)
and wondering how you iceforge, can know the difference between the women with the cats emotional distress and his emotional distress (which includes zealous beliefs)

 

[Mey]

Fuck it i'm going to work in boots or something and hope that I have to put the Johnnies out, if they make me do that i'll cry religion and pronounce my Catholic faith to all! How dare they make me touch contraception!

 

[Overdriven]

Fuck it i'm going to work in boots or something and hope that I have to put the Johnnies out, if they make me do that i'll cry religion and pronounce my Catholic faith to all! How dare they make me touch contraception!

Will buy pint if you ever got away with that.

 

[Chronictank]

Fuck it i'm going to work in boots or something and hope that I have to put the Johnnies out, if they make me do that i'll cry religion and pronounce my Catholic faith to all! How dare they make me touch contraception!

i dont get it

 

[Iceforge]

agree wth toh, people get very stressed over it being religion.
and tris' example does carry no weight. Your personal belief has nothing to do with a religion which has been accepted as a real religion. if yours get accepted we could talk. but untill then, you're just a stupid idiot (not you, but your example)
and wondering how you iceforge, can know the difference between the women with the cats emotional distress and his emotional distress (which includes zealous beliefs)

Person A and B goes to a restuarant, orders a meal. and serves food containing food item X.
Person A was allergic to food item X and dies. The lifepartner sues the restuarant.
Person B had religious/personal believes against eating food item X and is offended, and sues.

Who would you think had a better cause?

I can difference between them, like I did previous, how can you?
Different because it was a human and not a animal?

Both are not really a case, as they did not request the food to be without X, they just assumed it was without X, but I can pity the lifepartner of person A due to the distress of loosing a loved one, while I really can't stand people like person B

EDIT:

And Tohtori, the reason I am outraged due to the religious part, is what I think has been said before;
I can laugh at it when it is a personal belief, because I know it is going to be dismissed.
Here the courts are probarly going to reward the idiotic religious freak so much money that he never has to work ever again.
Can you see the difference?

 

[Chronictank]

Person A and B goes to a restuarant, orders a meal. and serves food containing food item X but doesnt tell customers item x is in the food.
Person A was allergic to food item X and dies. The lifepartner sues the restuarant.
Person B had religious/personal believes against eating food item X and is offended, and sues.

Who would you think had a better cause?

If they were both mislead there is no difference, if they didnt care the food was in there they would stil have a case because the company didnt clearly state what was in it

They don't have a case because of their circumstance or their belief, they have a case because the company is at fault for not doing what it is supposed to.
Their background/faith/belief has no relevance to the case other than the compensation they get if they win

Can you tell the difference?


The only reason it is even mentioned is because people like yourself make it an issue and like to deviate from the real reason it went to court

This thread illustrates perfectly how the anti-religion zelots see a faith mentioned and go overboard losing sight that the fact is the case is going to be built around him claiming he was discriminated against
regardless of the context or if it is based around a belief, if indeed they picked on him it is wrong and they are breaking the law so should be punished accordingly
Or are you suggesting if they were indeed bullying him they should be let off because he played the faith card?

 

[Iceforge]

If they were both mislead there is no difference, if they didnt care the food was in there they would stil have a case because the company didnt clearly state what was in it

They don't have a case because of their circumstance or their belief, they have a case because the company is at fault for not doing what it is supposed to.
Their background/faith/belief has no relevance to the case other than the compensation they get if they win

Can you tell the difference?

I think it is the responsibility of the person ORDERING the food to mention if they do not want or is allergic to any substance that the food COULD contain.

Besides, working for a company like Tesco, not realising handling alchohol would be part of the duty when working at a depot is like not realising that milk is bad for you if you're lactose intolerant.

The only reason it is even mentioned is because people like yourself make it an issue and like to deviate from the real reason it went to court

What? I said it earlier, he went to his boss and asked to be re-assigned so he did not have to handle alchohol, i.e. asking for positive discrimination, he was told "no", he then could basicly quit and thus avoid handling alchohol or he could stay and handle alchohol.
That is in my world, FAIR.
If I am hired for a job and I don't like a certain aspect of my job, I ask my employer if I could avoid it, he tells me I can either do the aspect I don't like or quit, then those are the options I will choose from; If I really really hate it or feel strongly against it, I would quit and find a new job.

This thread illustrates perfectly how the anti-religion zelots see a faith mentioned and go overboard losing sight that the fact is the case is going to be built around him claiming he was discriminated against

No, he was not.

Discrimination would be if he was made do something others didn't have to do that he did not want to do.

Having to do what anybody else with the same job does, it NOT discrimination

You putting it in bold does not make it true, my friend.

But given, being harassed and victimized might be wrong, but at that point, he should have accepted how it was or quit the job already.

regardless of the context or if it is based around a belief, if indeed they picked on him it is wrong and they are breaking the law so should be punished accordingly

Well, true, if they indeed did.

But allow me to doubt the truth of any of his claims given that he claims that he thought Tesco didn't handle alchohol, but admits he had been to Sainsbury's, Lidl and Asda and noticing they sold alchohol there, he apperently just assumed Tesco would be the exception to the rule without investigating. To be honest, that is bogus. He is either a grade A idiot or he already knew and went looking for excatly this; An opportunity to sue someone and make some money.
I am going to go for option B, which seems most likely, which means he is abusing his religious views and tesco to make money, in which case making up lies about harassment and victimization would serve as advantages, and should thus be taken with a lot of critizism.

Or are you suggesting if they were indeed bullying him they should be let off because he played the faith card?

Or I am not for 1 second buying his bullshit stories and thus I think they should not unfairly be punished for someone else lying about them

 

[old.Tohtori]

Iceforge, this is what i meant with "disbute the legitimacy of emotional weigh-ins".

This is emotional problem, not physical.

If you want to compare this, then compare it to say, trauma caused by a bank robbery, kidnapping trauma(not physical), someone insulting you for being a minority etc.

 

[Iceforge]

Iceforge, this is what i meant with "disbute the legitimacy of emotional weigh-ins".

This is emotional problem, not physical.

If you want to compare this, then compare it to say, trauma caused by a bank robbery, kidnapping trauma(not physical), someone insulting you for being a minority etc.

Well, going off on a tangent then, but should we find out who is to blame and at fault first?

Someone getting trauma by a bank robbery = Bank robbers fault
Trauma by kidnapping = kidnappers fault
Someone insults you = live with it
Someone insults you for being a minority = Hmm, what kind? Religious? Then see above. Something you can't change? then the one insulting you
Being offended due to your religion = your own fault

 

[old.Tohtori]

Well it very much sounds like the point i was making, you're going off the tangent with this case 'cause it has the "R" word in it.

Even if the case wasn't about it.

Or there was no religion.

Or religion made humanity a 110% happy and perfect.

Hate-R

Anyway on the case.

I'm not saying this guy has a case, hell, it's in the job desription i assume, and he most likely knew there was gonna be alcohol on the premise, but what it oh so nicely boils down to, is that people who hate religion always say "religion shouldn't be treated special!" and when something happens that has the "R word" in it, they go apesh*t bonkers and treat it exactly like that, special.

Just to drive he point further up someones arse who thinks i'm attacking them; i've always said that religious nutters are nutters, but not all religious people are religious nutters, and while i see the point, and respect it, in someone saying "i don't believe", those who attack the "R word" with as much zeal as Paris Hilton on an unguarded cock are no better then said religious nutters.

 

[collegien]

Paris Hilton on an unguarded cock

.....hmmmmmm

not something i expected to read in this thread. Well done for getting it in <oooer>

 

[Chronictank]

I think it is the responsibility of the person ORDERING the food to mention if they do not want or is allergic to any substance that the food COULD contain.

I honestly cannot see any situation you are describing ending up in someone getting sued(sp?) nor being taken to court in the first place
If they knowingly ate something they are allergic to then it is their own fault, how can there be any case against it?
But we are digressing

What? I said it earlier, he went to his boss and asked to be re-assigned so he did not have to handle alchohol, i.e. asking for positive discrimination, he was told "no", he then could basicly quit and thus avoid handling alchohol or he could stay and handle alchohol.
That is in my world, FAIR.
If I am hired for a job and I don't like a certain aspect of my job, I ask my employer if I could avoid it, he tells me I can either do the aspect I don't like or quit, then those are the options I will choose from; If I really really hate it or feel strongly against it, I would quit and find a new job.

-snip-

Or I am not for 1 second buying his bullshit stories and thus I think they should not unfairly be punished for someone else lying about them

With all due respect that entire paragraph is drivvel, you dont know what happened behind the scenes other than what a paper famous for twisting words to create a contrevercial story has told you. You cannot back up whether i am wrong the same way i cannot discount whether you are.
However, Nor did i at any point justify any of his actions, if you scroll up and read again i said
IF he was discriminated against/victitimised/whatever (it makes little difference you get what i mean), IF he was bullied i did not make any statements of fact
I simply stated the fact that the case would not be anything to do with what he was asked to do, it would be over how he was treated as a result
IF he was singled out as a result, this is wrong and will come out in court

Again, his faith/background/beliefs/race/etc.. has nothing to do with it, as the case will be built around any laws that have been broken

 

[old.Tohtori]

.....hmmmmmm

not something i expected to read in this thread. Well done for getting it in <oooer>

I'm somewhat specialised in stuffing Paris Hilton in every hole i can


Yes.


I know

 

[aika]

Whats the difference between personal belief and religion?

/hides

 

[Raven]

One is personal belief the other is someone else's personal belief.

 

[Access Denied]

This is a load of fucking bollocks. Iceforge is right when he says that the guy new Tesco sold alcohol. I used to work for Morrisons and they did a walk round tour of the store pointing out everything before they even did the interviews. This is the same for all supermarkets. So he can't honestly claim that he didn't know they sold alcohol and that being in the warehouse he would have to handle it.

It is transparently clear that he is simply playing the religious discrimination card to make a fast buck. He says he asked for another role but if there wasn't one available he couldn't have one. As for the managers being asshats to him I can actually believe it but then managers are asshats to everyone, it doesn't matter what race/sex/religion/sexual preference they are. Managers see their workers as worthless peons and that's not going to change.

 

[Chronictank]

As for the managers being asshats to him I can actually believe it but then managers are asshats to everyone, it doesn't matter what race/sex/religion/sexual preference they are. Managers see their workers as worthless peons and that's not going to change.

And this is what the case is likely to be built on, not what religion he is

 

[Access Denied]

And this is what the case is likely to be built on, not what religion he is

Yup, however, if the reporting is accurate he has based his case on religious discrimination from the start. If he changes his case because that's not getting any play any judge worth his salt will throw the case out of court and/or charge him with purgury.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Yup, however, if the reporting is accurate he has based his case on religious discrimination from the start. If he changes his case because that's not getting any play any judge worth his salt will throw the case out of court and/or charge him with purgury.

Or there's a possibility that the "he's a muslim" has brought up some "propaganda" on the story.

Possibility note.

It might have been as simple as;

"We need you to move those beers."
"Sorry, i can't as my religion prohibits it."
"You'll do it or get fired you muslim twat!"

For all we know.

 

[Iceforge]

actually Chronic is right here.

Part I didn't spot right on last time I read it, near the end of the article (think I misread it as religious last time or something):

"Mr Ahmed, of Derby, who is suing the firm for racial discrimination, victimisation and harassment, should learn the outcome of the case later this week."

Apperently the religious discrimination is just part of the public statement of his sorrow and not certainly a part of the trial, not sure as harassment can include religious stuff, but either way, the case ain't solely or mainly build on religion.

My principles from earlier stand, but does not apply specificly to this case then if I am now reading the last bit right