Muslim Judicial Council issues short fatwa on homosexuality

[konfab]

I a agree about the thing about the cake etc. What I do think though is that a business should put it up on display though that certain people will not be served though. If you are going to discriminate like that, then make it clear so people dont go to the trouble of doing business with you.

I agree 100%. I would actually pose it as a legal requirement if they want to discriminate against people.

 

[konfab]

Interesting. In your opinion should those same companies also get to decide what sort of person they want to employ too? Like if they don't want to employ Muslims can they do that?

Yes. If a company chooses to not employ the best people for the job, it will only hurt them in the long run.

Eskom was forced to employ people according to their skin colour according to retarded government quotas. And look where they are now.

 

[porchrat]

Yes. If a company chooses to not employ the best people for the job, it will only hurt them in the long run.

Eskom was forced to employ people according to their skin colour according to retarded government quotas. And look where they are now.

So not COVID vaccinated is acceptable reason as well?

 

[Nerfherder]

It makes a difference, yes. Not all Muslim communities are the same and they are not all extremists. So religions don't approve of gay people, what's new? Same as Catholics and Orthodox Jews and almost every other religion you can think of.

They are not all the same but the authority that governs that community has made a statement. Well actually a ruling.
There must be a point to this statement, doesn't feel random.

 

[konfab]

Well this country has decided it wants to only do business with a certain type of person... how is that different.
(for me its stupid and prejudicial either way you look at it.)

BEE and AA are national laws that cowardly companies are too scared to ignore. That is vastly different from a private company making choice to do it themselves.

You say that now... Imagine if your movement or job prospects were limited because of who you are.

I would never be able to get into a senior position in a government job because of my skin colour. That is their problem.

What if there were areas where only Muslims could go.

Freedom of movement doesn't apply to private property. But even if you were dealing with private property, excluding whole classes of people for arbitrary reasons is their problem.

 

[Nerfherder]

BEE and AA are national laws that cowardly companies are too scared to ignore. That is vastly different from a private company making choice to do it themselves.


I would never be able to get into a senior position in a government job because of my skin colour. That is their problem.


Freedom of movement doesn't apply to private property. But even if you were dealing with private property, excluding whole classes of people for arbitrary reasons is their problem.

You are letting scale cloud your judgement.

 

[konfab]

So not COVID vaccinated is acceptable reason as well?

I have never said any of the reasons were "acceptable" for discrimination. They are not. Being allowed to discriminate and endorsing discrimination are two different concepts.

As for covid vaccines being mandatory, the issue for me is that the majority of the issue was with companies that changed the conditions of their employment. If an employee signed that they would comply with any medical procedure the company wanted done on them, then that was part of the employment contract. However vaccination status was definitely not part of any employment contract for most people. Which means companies had no right to impose a condition of employment on them.

Nevertheless, if a company only wants to employ vaccinated staff members, that is their issue.

 

[konfab]

You are letting scale cloud your judgement.

How?

Do you think the only reason that cellphone companies don't give a toss about a customer's race is because of the anti-discrimination clauses in the constitution?

 

[porchrat]

I have never said any of the reasons were "acceptable" for discrimination. They are not. Being allowed to discriminate and endorsing discrimination are two different concepts.

I meant acceptable for the company. Your personal feelings on the matter are not tied to that I agree.

As for covid vaccines being mandatory, the issue for me is that the majority of the issue was with companies that changed the conditions of their employment. If an employee signed that they would comply with any medical procedure the company wanted done on them, then that was part of the employment contract. However vaccination status was definitely not part of any employment contract for most people. Which means companies had no right to impose a condition of employment on them.

Nevertheless, if a company only wants to employ vaccinated staff members, that is their issue.

Most employment contracts tend to include clauses about adhering to company policies past and future.

If the company's policy is mandatory COVID vaccination, and one refuses to comply, then company is justified to act against that employee right?

Note not saying I agree or disagree with this, asking about this in accordance with the framework you're proposing here. It sounds like under those circumstances the company is justified?

 

[Senor]

A gay local imam says he felt “sore” after the Muslim Judicial Council this week issued a fatwa condemning a gay lifestyle for followers of Islam.... IOL.

I spat my coffee out, laughing, from just that first line.

 

[C4Cat]

It's mostly the Abrahamic religions that don't like the gays actually.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find any significant number of Muslims that will agree that homosexuality is acceptable. Rejecting it is pretty core to the faith.

For example I saw a poll from the UK where over half the Muslims in that country thought homosexuality should be illegal. Note, not that they don't think it's morally acceptable, but ultimately a personal choice, that the country should actually make it illegal. This is the UK, a supposedly civilised first world country.

True, but it's not completely unknown, especially in the West.

Ibn Rushd-Goethe Mosque - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Concilier islam et homosexualité, le combat de Ludovic-Mohamed Zahed

Ludovic-Mohamed Zahed (à droite), premier musulman français à s’être marié religieusement à un homme, vient de sortir un livre, "Le Coran et la chair". Il y raconte son difficile parcours et y dévoile…

www.france24.com

Is Cape Town's women and gay-friendly mosque a sign of new Muslim attitudes?

A Muslim academic recently opened a gay- and women-friendly mosque in Cape Town, South Africa, which was largely regarded as a response to the culture of exclusion and conservatism in the Muslim faith. And despite receiving death threats and fierce criticism, experts say the house of worship's...

www.pbs.org

Gay Mosque in Cape Town - rainbopedia.org

LGBTQ+ Muslims Find Sanctuary in Cape Town Mosque

rainbopedia.org

My only point is that there are a variety of Muslim communities, like any other religion. The MJC here comes out with a relatively moderate statement, with no condemnation, and some posters immediately go to executions and throwing people of buildings in extremist communities elsewhere.

Liberalism and progressivism within Islam - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[konfab]

Most employment contracts tend to include clauses about adhering to company policies past and future.

If the company's policy is mandatory COVID vaccination, and one refuses to comply, then company is justified to act against that employee right?

Note not saying I agree or disagree with this, asking about this in accordance with the framework you're proposing here. It sounds like under those circumstances the company is justified?

They would be justified, provided it is within the scope of the employment contract. But that would have to be for a labour court to decide. For example, they would have to show it is within the operational requirements. And if they regard that vaccines are part of operational requirements, then the company should take the liability of those requirements.

For example, lets say it is part of operational requirements for an employee to work with live, high voltage electricity. Given it is a highly dangerous job, the company would automatically be regarded as being liable for anything that happens.

If they think vaccine requirements are necessary for a "safe" work environment, then they should be fully willing to take the risk of covering the liability for any side effects of the vaccines. And with vaccines this would be easy because they are broadly safe. But you mention this to a company and they squirm.

 

[porchrat]

They would be justified, provided it is within the scope of the employment contract. But that would have to be for a labour court to decide. For example, they would have to show it is within the operational requirements. And if they regard that vaccines are part of operational requirements, then the company should take the liability of those requirements.

For example, lets say it is part of operational requirements for an employee to work with live, high voltage electricity. Given it is a highly dangerous job, the company would automatically be regarded as being liable for anything that happens.

Operational requirements makes sense to me and I feel it's a good rule of thumb. Thanks for expressing your framework so well.

 

[Desig]

Neanderthals.

The religion of peace is at odds with the modern world honestly. Needs to die out already but alas it appeals to a basic consciousness who need basic rules on which hand to eat with, which hand to wipe their arses with etc

 

[Pak Fa Fui]

What do say about trans people and pronouns

 

[Desig]

What do say about trans people and pronouns

No issue

 

[porchrat]

True, but it's not completely unknown, especially in the West.

<removed links for brevity>
My only point is that there are a variety of Muslim communities, like any other religion. The MJC here comes out with a relatively moderate statement, with no condemnation, and some posters immediately go to executions and throwing people of buildings in extremist communities elsewhere.

Liberalism and progressivism within Islam - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Agreed. This statement From the MJC doesn't mean all Muslims comply and agree like robots.

I do however imagine that one will find those that disagree with what the MJC has said to be an extreme minority. You'll likely also find a surprisingly large amount of Muslims believing this statement wasn't condemning enough. (I know I was surprised by that UK poll on the legality of homosexuality)

One could walk through life assuming all Muslims are anti homosexuality and be right probably 9.9/10 times. Maybe more. You could go through life assuming all Muslims believe that homosexuality should be punished by the state and probably be right more than 5/10 times. Similar for the death penalty for homosexuality. That's a sad and scary thought.

I was just pointing out mainly that it's not really all religions that feel this way about homosexuality. The vast majority of them don't care. It's really just the big 3 Abrahamic ones.

 

[konfab]

Operational requirements makes sense to me and I feel it's a good rule of thumb. Thanks for expressing your framework so well.

I had this exact fight with my employer, and won because the term "operational requirements" very features very heavily in our employment contracts. They had to admit that for the vast majority of employees, an employee not taking the covid vaccine would not seriously impact their business. I mean if they are worried about uptime due to employee sickness, then they would have to stop employees from drinking, smoking and eating cake in their free time.

There were a few employees who had to do site visits to sites where a vaccine certificate was required to enter, so for those employees, it was mandatory (but all those employees had taken the vaccine anyway so it was a moot point).

 

[porchrat]

I had this exact fight with my employer, and won because the term "operational requirements" very features very heavily in our employment contracts. They had to admit that for the vast majority of employees, an employee not taking the covid vaccine would not seriously impact their business. I mean if they are worried about uptime due to employee sickness, then they would have to stop employees from drinking, smoking and eating cake in their free time.

There were a few employees who had to do site visits to sites where a vaccine certificate was required to enter, so for those employees, it was mandatory (but all those employees had taken the vaccine anyway so it was a moot point).

I'm down with this. If it prevents you performing your role at the institution then it's a valid reason to take action. Same goes for hiring to me. If your sexuality or vaccination status or religion or something prevents you from performing the role then it's valid to reject you on that basis.

I can't think of specific examples outside of religion say for example as a position as a something like a priest of mullah or something, but maybe some valid scenarios exist, who knows.

I suppose these are the sorts of scenarios that require the words "unfair discrimination" in the Bill of Rights.

 

[Spizz]

You just hate Muslims you Islamophobe.

I don't hate Muslims, I just hate pious, brainwashed, hypocrites of all religions who want to tell others what to do.