>> Now suppose you get offered a job in a porn shop, and you morally 
>> don't approve of porn. Do they have the right to take away your benefits?
> 
> Simple, don't apply at the porn shop in the first place ..

As I understand it, the idea is that a case worker is assigned to you 
who finds jobs from their database that you might be suited to.

One would assume that some sanity is applied while searching it though...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:

> "They" can't offer you a job in a porn shop. The sex industry is not allowed to
> advertise at the dole, or what ever it's called this week.

Well OK, but how about a slaughterhouse if you're a vegan or something?

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

On 26-Jan-09 9:22, scott wrote:
>> The family are close friends.
>>
>> Court Prohibits School from Punishing American Indian Student for His 
>> Long Braids
>> http://www.aclutx.org/article.php?aid=672
> 
> What would have happened if the boy had just said that he *liked* 
> wearing his hair long, and would be really offended if he had to cut it 
> or wear it hidden away?  Once the magic R word is brought in though, 
> suddenly entire organisations are forced to change by law-makers scared 
> of making decisions against religion.
> 
> Anyway, has the school dropped the rule now, or will lots of other kids 
> suddenly be joining his religion too?
> 
> Oh well, maybe someone will turn up at the school next week, claiming 
> that his religion states his chest must be visible at all times.  Would 
> certainly have made hot summer days more comfortable at my school :-)

Would you than change religion if you moved to e.g. Finland?

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> 
> Well OK, but how about a slaughterhouse if you're a vegan or something?
> 

Depends are you the "Meat is Unhealthy" variety, or the "Please don't 
kill teh fuzzy animals, they have dreams and aspirations, too!" variety?

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:41:33 +0000, Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

>Stephen wrote:
>
>> "They" can't offer you a job in a porn shop. The sex industry is not allowed to
>> advertise at the dole, or what ever it's called this week.
>
>Well OK, but how about a slaughterhouse if you're a vegan or something?

I don't know.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:41:07 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

> As I understand it, the idea is that a case worker is assigned to you
> who finds jobs from their database that you might be suited to.

But the case worker doesn't apply for the job or force you to.  That's 
left up to the individual who is looking for the job.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Now suppose you get offered a job in a porn shop, and you morally 
>>> don't approve of porn. Do they have the right to take away your 
>>> benefits?
>>
>> Simple, don't apply at the porn shop in the first place ..
> 
> As I understand it, the idea is that a case worker is assigned to you 
> who finds jobs from their database that you might be suited to.
> 
> One would assume that some sanity is applied while searching it though...
> 
Never assume.. ;) lol Something similar in the US, but not quite as 
stupid. You have to, "take an active interest in finding work", or 
something like that, which usually means looking through books filled 
with crap that you are either not qualified for, or which pays worse 
than anything on the planet and would give the guy from Dirty Jobs 
serious pause. In other words, jobs that are either not worth your time, 
not viable, or no one in their mind would take. Its like they want any 
excuse possible to declare you, "unwilling to look", so they can stop 
paying out. :p

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

andrel wrote:
> I understand the US court point of view. Sort of. I think there are two 
> major holes in this theory. 1) what to do if someone claims that 
> something is not religious, do you have to believe him too? 2) what to 
> do with atheists, can they make up there own religious statements or is 
> on the contrary their statement less worthy than of someone that says he 
> does believe in god?

Functionally.. The later, since while their right to not believe is 
protected, their lack of an "organized religion" (which is what the 
founders feared and distrusted in the first place, ironically), means 
they function as "secular" entities, without the those protections. 
I.e., as though they, even if they had a group, building, etc., would be 
the equivalent of any other secular non-profit, not the equivalent of a 
church.

As for #1, no, they have to take the word of the person claiming it "is" 
religious, since the state cannot determine, based on the words or 
anyone other than the religions adherents, what is and isn't. Mind, if 
someone of authority in the church "said" is wasn't, then... it would 
come down to how high the authority was, and maybe how many people in 
the church agreed with that determination.

Personally, I think the only "valid" way to handle it is to either a) 
treat them exactly like any other organization, thus taking away the 
"special" protections they get, or b) if that isn't possible (and its 
not in the US), require that they provide clear specifics on the matter 
as to what they views and policies "are", such that only in cases 
sufficiently dissimilar as to require a new rule, do they get to, "make 
shit up", oh sorry, "make a such a new rule", for that case. Let the 
courts deal with each church on the basis of that churches "stated" 
rules, and require that those rules must change "prior" to a case, not 
in the middle of it. If they decide "after" someone is sent to prison 
for refusing the pay the plumber, or some similar BS, that they can set 
some rule that states that plumbers must "choose" to do the work for 
free, as part of their service to the church (yeah, there was another 
idiot case like this too, and the plumber lost), *after* the ruling and 
what ever results. Not just invent one in the middle, whole cloth, 
because they don't want to pay it.

In other words, if they have rules, make them follow those rules, by 
having them clearly posted "before" they make choices about who to hire, 
fire, pay, not pay, throw out, invite in, and so on. If they break their 
own rules, then they should be judged "by" those rules, not on the basis 
of something that pull out of their backsides at the last minute, and 
all the clergy nod and say, "Yep, its all been that way forever, the 
smell is just from us serving beans last night!"

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

>> Oh well, maybe someone will turn up at the school next week, claiming 
>> that his religion states his chest must be visible at all times.  Would 
>> certainly have made hot summer days more comfortable at my school :-)
>
> Would you than change religion if you moved to e.g. Finland?

That's the point though, how does the school/court know how serious your 
religion is.  How do they tell between someone like me who just says it for 
the sake of it to get something their way, or for other people who really 
are serious about it?

I'm not saying the boy in the OP is not serious about his religion, but 
suppose he wasn't and just wanted to wear his long hair to school to be 
cool?  He's managed to get a court to order a school to change its rules 
just by mentioning the R word.  Should that be allowed?

Post a reply to this message

>> One would assume that some sanity is applied while searching it though...
>>
> Never assume.. ;) lol Something similar in the US, but not quite as 
> stupid. You have to, "take an active interest in finding work", or 
> something like that, which usually means looking through books filled 
> with crap that you are either not qualified for, or which pays worse 
> than anything on the planet and would give the guy from Dirty Jobs 
> serious pause. In other words, jobs that are either not worth your time, 
> not viable, or no one in their mind would take. Its like they want any 
> excuse possible to declare you, "unwilling to look", so they can stop 
> paying out. :p

Yeah, sounds like what I had when I graduated. The caseworker is all 
like "ah, I see you have some experience cleaning fridges. We have 
*lots* of cleaning jobs."

Apparently her job isn't to help me find meaningful employment. Her job 
is to get me off benefits as fast as humanly possible so they can stop 
paying me.

At this point, my mum kinda went all HULK-SHASH on her ass. (She does 
that sometimes.) And it's true - I didn't spent 6 years (and tens of 
thousands of pounds) in higher education so I could wash fridges.

*looks around*

...damn, I fail! :-/

Post a reply to this message