Xref: utzoo soc.women:8443 soc.singles:12027 alt.flame:1021
Path: utzoo!hoptoad!amdcad!ames!rutgers!mit-eddie!ooblick
From: ooblick@eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry)
Newsgroups: soc.women,soc.singles,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Christmas Celebration
Keywords: Religious intolerance
Message-ID: <7712@eddie.MIT.EDU>
Date: 20 Dec 87 14:05:41 GMT
References: <3445@ihlpl.ATT.COM> <7706@eddie.MIT.EDU> <5409@sol.ARPA> <7709@eddie.MIT.EDU> <22254@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: ooblick@eddie.MIT.EDU (Mikki Barry)
Organization: MIT, EE/CS Computer Facilities, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 63

In article <22254@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (James Wilbur Lewis) writes:

>>Is it
>>all right for me (who owns my own company, thank you) to have a 
>>"white" party for my employees?  How about a "female only" party?

>Why not?  Especially regarding "female only" parties...seems to
>me that this goes on ALL THE TIME.  Should we chastise the SWE (*) for
>not going out of their way to make men feel welcome at their
>functions? Is my desire for "Christianspace" in my company any
>less valid for someone else's need for "womanspace" in hers? 

You know something, I have finally figured it out.  The only *real*
reason why soneone would INSIST on calling their corporate party a 
*christmas* party is to perpetuate their religion over all others.
And goddess forbid if you happen to disagree.

And, in case it has taken awhile for this to sink in, I will state it again,
using *company* funds, *company* facilities, and/or *company* time to
perpetuate one religion over another, one sex over another, one race
over another, etc. etc. is a pretty damn slimey thing to do at best,
and illegal at worst.  Systematically excluding a group or groups of
workers at company functions can be classified as harrassment.  It
is only when it is religion that it is termed "silly" or "insignificant".

So "silly" and "insignificant" that many companies go out of their way
to call their parties "holiday" parties and keep the religious crap out
of it.  Why is common courtesy to repugnant?  Why (I ask again) is it so
goddamn difficult to change the NAME of the party?

>See my above comment about antagonizing one's employees.  If 90%
>of my employees want to have a Christmas party, and would be offended
>if I didn't let them have one, should I be *forced* to accomodate the 9%
>who don't give a damn, or the 1% who are going to make a big stink about it?

If 90% of my employees don't want blacks on the staff and would be offended
if I hired one, should I be *forced* to accomodate the 9% who don't
give a damn, or the 1% who are going to make a big stink about it?  Don't
you see what you are saying here?

>And if 90% of your employees feel cheated when you don't let them have a
>Christmas party?  Mikki, I think you're showing quite a bias *against*
>those who would like to celebrate religious holidays.  

On my time, while I am paying them?  Or should I pay for their religious 
holiday with my money?  If 90% of your employees were satanists, would
you pay for their holiday with your money, on your time?  If 90% of
your employees were KKK would you pay for *their* holiday on your time?

>Yep, those poor atheists(***)...they're being FORCED to endure these unspeakable
>Christian customs. (You know, like mistletoe, Christmas trees, eggnog, forced
>vacations, Santa Claus...all right there in the Bible...uhhh, somewhere....
>right?)  The horror! The inhumanity!

Have you been purposely ignoring what I've been saying all this time?
I said that changing the name of the party to *holiday* party, and
removing nativity scenes, religious trappings and bible quotes would
serve to minimize the exclusion of other religious factions in the workplace.
Why have you turned it into the belief that I somehow want to squash
christians?  

Happy Solstice,
Mikki Barry