Yeah, let's just ignore the people who murder fertility clinic doctors because of what the Church teaches them. Let's just ignore the people who beat up gays because "those faggots are against the nature of God". Let's just ignore the parish who let an autistic boy die because they tried to beat the devil out of his body.
Yes, those are the exceptions. The real religious freaks who do not represent real Christians... just like suicide bombers don't represent real Muslims.
I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from. There is no argument about what you've posted here. Yes, those are exceptions. Although, I would argue that Islamic extremism is both more violent and more widespread within Isalm than the above examples are within Christianity.
I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from. There is no argument about what you've posted here. Yes, those are exceptions. Although, I would argue that Islamic extremism is both more violent and more widespread within Isalm than the above examples are within Christianity.
What was the point of blocking Alligator alley back in '01 or '02 because a couple of 'muslim' students were talking crap in a restaurent in Florida. That story had an old lady who overhead the converstaion. Helicopters, bomb squads, robots, etc. were used and broadcast on national TV for several hours to figure out that it was 'mistake'. How long has this organization in Florida that we are talking about been in business? Again, is this the only instance of a stupid company rule that deserves national debate on television?
On a note, I am not a racist shitbag just because I think some Churches are full of it. The word fanatic doesn't mean suicide bombers and murderers. I did my schooling in a Christian mission school.
Why attack catholics? Last I checked there were far more noteworthy cases of christians trying to impose their beliefs on others.
Giant, I have read many of your posts only to conclude that you are suffering from some sort of mental condition that forces you to type bad responses impulsively. Furthermore I see most of your replies as ill-informed misinterpretations of what other people are trying to convey. On the bright side you?re scratching at the toes of 4000 posts, so no one here expects you to stop now.
Its not a matter of who everyone should be going after. This is a matter of someone getting fired because of religous discrimination. You can dispute that the horrible christians started the crusades umpteen years ago, and how it was a completely horrible time as a result of the catholic church, but guess what... it has nothing to do with this woman and her lunch.
What was the point of blocking Alligator alley back in '01 or '02 because a couple of 'muslim' students were talking crap in a restaurent in Florida. That story had an old lady who overhead the converstaion. Helicopters, bomb squads, robots, etc. were used and broadcast on national TV for several hours to figure out that it was 'mistake'. How long has this organization in Florida that we are talking about been in business? Again, is this the only instance of a stupid company rule that deserves national debate on television?
On a note, I am not a racist shitbag just because I think some Churches are full of it. The word fanatic doesn't mean suicide bombers and murderers. I did my schooling in a Christian mission school.
2. The rule is CLEARLY based on religion. Imposing it on people who do not practice said religion is ILLEGAL.
Employers can make policies. These policies should be written, or employees can claim that they don't exist. Secondly, an employer cannot make a policy that is based on his religious beliefs and then make adherence to that policy a condition of employment.
Seriously...someone refute that.
If this was a Cathlolic banning beef on Good Friday, how would you feel?
I have to agree with SDW here. This is AMERICA. I have a right to eat what I want for lunch and not have my employer discriminate against me because I don't practice THEIR religion. I don't care if it's in the company rule book or not. It shouldn't be in the rule book in the first place. A muslim can eat what he wants. A christian can eat what he wants. An atheist can eat what he wants. We all choose what goes down our throats and it DOES NOT affect anybody else.
If the owner is so terribly offended by pork products, then it's HIS responsibility to install two separate refrigerators. One for Muslims/Jews. And another for everybody else.
I simply cannot believe everyone here is siding with this discriminating business owner. If he wants to maintain a Muslim only business then he needs to hire only Muslims. If he wants the benefits of a multi-cultural staff than he needs to be tolerant of everyone's RIGHT to choose what they eat for lunch. FORCING employees to eat by a Muslim's diet is DISCRIMINATION.
I would be terribly offended if my employer forced me to only abide by their Chinese diet and threatened termination if I brought in McDonalds.
You have no right to eat whatever you want. That right doesn't exist. You can't drink alcohol on the job unless you want to get fired. The reasoning doesn't apply to all people, and thus a rule as such descriminates against those that have a high alcohol tolerance.
An employer can dictate pretty much any damn thing they want to dictate under current rules as long as it is within business property or on company time. These rules make sense to a large degree, and you have the choice of being employed by a facist or not.
Edit: and let's get this straight. in no way shape or form is this descrimination. she doesn't practise a religion that requires her to eat pork. she isn't being unfairly treated because she eats pork off premisis.
Let me clarify my point. Obviously no one has a right to eat pork. But no one has the right to FORCE me to NOT eat pork. Why is this so hard to understand?
We are either a free society or we are not. An employer does not have the right to force religious codes and/or rituals onto its staff.
A BLT does NOT impair my ability to perform my job. Alcohol does. Bad analogy, so try again.
Comments
Originally posted by talksense101
Why don't we start reporting on the fanatical churches down south?
Yes....because teaching people to love their neighbor is such a crime?
<saecasum>
Singing the third verse of Amazing Grace will bread new terrorists...
</sarcasum>
you must be a biggot, a Christian-phob perhaps.
Stop the hate
Originally posted by SDW2001
The rule is CLEARLY based on religion. Imposing it on people who do not practice said religion is ILLEGAL.
If this was a Cathlolic banning beef on Good Friday, how would you feel?
Why attack catholics? Last I checked there were far more noteworthy cases of christians trying to impose their beliefs on others.
<saecasum>
Saecasum? I think this is either a sedimentary layer composed mostly of fossilized mollusk shells, or some part of insect anatomy. Not sure which.
Singing the third verse of Amazing Grace will bread new terrorists...
Does it also fry or bake the terrorists, or simply leave them standing there coated in crumbs?
</sarcasum>
Okay, maybe this has something to do with botany.
Originally posted by Scott
Those those too dumb to realize the reason why this is in the news is because the woman's lawyer is trying to get money from this company.
You're fired.
Originally posted by SDW2001
2. The rule is CLEARLY based on religion. Imposing it on people who do not practice said religion is ILLEGAL.
WRONG!
Originally posted by giant
Why attack catholics? Last I checked there were far more noteworthy cases of christians trying to impose their beliefs on others.
Why address the point?
Originally posted by tonton
Yeah, let's just ignore the people who murder fertility clinic doctors because of what the Church teaches them. Let's just ignore the people who beat up gays because "those faggots are against the nature of God". Let's just ignore the parish who let an autistic boy die because they tried to beat the devil out of his body.
Yes, those are the exceptions. The real religious freaks who do not represent real Christians... just like suicide bombers don't represent real Muslims.
I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from. There is no argument about what you've posted here. Yes, those are exceptions. Although, I would argue that Islamic extremism is both more violent and more widespread within Isalm than the above examples are within Christianity.
Originally posted by SDW2001
I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from. There is no argument about what you've posted here. Yes, those are exceptions. Although, I would argue that Islamic extremism is both more violent and more widespread within Isalm than the above examples are within Christianity.
Violent, yes.
Widespread, without question no.
Originally posted by Harald
Violent, yes.
Widespread, without question no.
I dispute that. Especially as it pertains to Christians in this country.
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
WRONG!
Excellent response.
Not.
Originally posted by SDW2001
That's crazy. A propoganda war? How so? ...
What was the point of blocking Alligator alley back in '01 or '02 because a couple of 'muslim' students were talking crap in a restaurent in Florida. That story had an old lady who overhead the converstaion. Helicopters, bomb squads, robots, etc. were used and broadcast on national TV for several hours to figure out that it was 'mistake'. How long has this organization in Florida that we are talking about been in business? Again, is this the only instance of a stupid company rule that deserves national debate on television?
On a note, I am not a racist shitbag just because I think some Churches are full of it. The word fanatic doesn't mean suicide bombers and murderers. I did my schooling in a Christian mission school.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Excellent response.
Not.
It got you to respond
Originally posted by Hassan i Sabbah
Blimey.
Did you know that in India they have cities, air conditioning, weather reports with computer graphics in and even MP3 players? It's great there.
Furthermore, I used to go out with a girl from South India and I can report that neither she nor her parents smelled of cow urine.
read the passage again, but read slowly this time as to not miss any of the blatent sarcasm applied in the response.
Originally posted by giant
Why attack catholics? Last I checked there were far more noteworthy cases of christians trying to impose their beliefs on others.
Giant, I have read many of your posts only to conclude that you are suffering from some sort of mental condition that forces you to type bad responses impulsively. Furthermore I see most of your replies as ill-informed misinterpretations of what other people are trying to convey. On the bright side you?re scratching at the toes of 4000 posts, so no one here expects you to stop now.
Its not a matter of who everyone should be going after. This is a matter of someone getting fired because of religous discrimination. You can dispute that the horrible christians started the crusades umpteen years ago, and how it was a completely horrible time as a result of the catholic church, but guess what... it has nothing to do with this woman and her lunch.
Originally posted by talksense101
What was the point of blocking Alligator alley back in '01 or '02 because a couple of 'muslim' students were talking crap in a restaurent in Florida. That story had an old lady who overhead the converstaion. Helicopters, bomb squads, robots, etc. were used and broadcast on national TV for several hours to figure out that it was 'mistake'. How long has this organization in Florida that we are talking about been in business? Again, is this the only instance of a stupid company rule that deserves national debate on television?
On a note, I am not a racist shitbag just because I think some Churches are full of it. The word fanatic doesn't mean suicide bombers and murderers. I did my schooling in a Christian mission school.
as is very obvious in your last paragraph
Originally posted by SDW2001
1. The rule was UNWRITTEN.
2. The rule is CLEARLY based on religion. Imposing it on people who do not practice said religion is ILLEGAL.
Employers can make policies. These policies should be written, or employees can claim that they don't exist. Secondly, an employer cannot make a policy that is based on his religious beliefs and then make adherence to that policy a condition of employment.
Seriously...someone refute that.
If this was a Cathlolic banning beef on Good Friday, how would you feel?
I have to agree with SDW here. This is AMERICA. I have a right to eat what I want for lunch and not have my employer discriminate against me because I don't practice THEIR religion. I don't care if it's in the company rule book or not. It shouldn't be in the rule book in the first place. A muslim can eat what he wants. A christian can eat what he wants. An atheist can eat what he wants. We all choose what goes down our throats and it DOES NOT affect anybody else.
If the owner is so terribly offended by pork products, then it's HIS responsibility to install two separate refrigerators. One for Muslims/Jews. And another for everybody else.
I simply cannot believe everyone here is siding with this discriminating business owner. If he wants to maintain a Muslim only business then he needs to hire only Muslims. If he wants the benefits of a multi-cultural staff than he needs to be tolerant of everyone's RIGHT to choose what they eat for lunch. FORCING employees to eat by a Muslim's diet is DISCRIMINATION.
I would be terribly offended if my employer forced me to only abide by their Chinese diet and threatened termination if I brought in McDonalds.
This is extraordinarily offensive.
You have no right to eat whatever you want. That right doesn't exist. You can't drink alcohol on the job unless you want to get fired. The reasoning doesn't apply to all people, and thus a rule as such descriminates against those that have a high alcohol tolerance.
An employer can dictate pretty much any damn thing they want to dictate under current rules as long as it is within business property or on company time. These rules make sense to a large degree, and you have the choice of being employed by a facist or not.
Edit: and let's get this straight. in no way shape or form is this descrimination. she doesn't practise a religion that requires her to eat pork. she isn't being unfairly treated because she eats pork off premisis.
We are either a free society or we are not. An employer does not have the right to force religious codes and/or rituals onto its staff.
A BLT does NOT impair my ability to perform my job. Alcohol does. Bad analogy, so try again.