http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_god_button_home_depot

I'd sue for no less than 7 figures.

I cant exactly blame Home Depot though.

If you see a muslim wearing " one nation , one Allah " would it really possible no issue will rise from it?

As it no doubt will , then i dont think its fair to have double standards.

Hmmm. I'd probably just have taken the damn button off. I'm opposed to litigation except in really dire circumstances, and I don't think this qualifies.

Fateweaver: If someone had had a button that said "Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious" or that expressed an atheist point of view, would you have a problem with that?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_god_button_home_depot wrote:"This associate chose to wear a button that expressed his religious beliefs. The issue is not whether or not we agree with the message on the button," Craig Fishel said. "That's not our place to say, which is exactly why we have a blanket policy, which is long-standing and well-communicated to our associates, that only company-provided pins and badges can be worn on our aprons."

Fishel said Keezer was offered a company-approved pin that said, "United We Stand," but he declined.

Whatever, this sounds like a problem between him and the company, who gave him the opportunity to express his support for his country. In choosing to deny that option, while continuing to string along a religious message, I feel that he forfeited any real argument.

At any rate, would it be okay for me to wear this too? I could paint it red, white, and blue.

LunaHound wrote:If you see a muslim wearing " one nation , one Allah " would it really possible no issue will rise from it?

Badda-bing...

Da Boss wrote:If someone had had a button that said "Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious" or that expressed an atheist point of view, would you have a problem with that?

Badda-boom...

I actually would have no problem with it. I live in an area with lots of Native Americans (3 reservations within 30 miles of my city). The wear native pride apparel all the time and it doesn't offend.

Of course the minute I put on a shirt wearing Caucasian pride or White pride I'd be asked to leave every store in town.

That is the problem with all this PC nonsense. As an American growing up I was told to support and love my Country. I still do. The "Pledge" was taken out of schools because it wasn't PC enough; public facilities are banning or prohibiting citizens of this country from wearing any type of apparel or flair that expresses our pride in where we are and what we stand for.

I'm sorry but if you aren't from around here and get offended by me wearing a button that says "One Nation under God" then by all means get back on the boat and drift back to whatever gak hole you came from. If you are from here and feel the same way then I too encourage you to grab the next ship out of this country and find a new home.

If I lost my job for that reason I'd sue and so would everyone else I know. Dress policy be damned, they infringed on his First Amendment rights. He'll win a lawsuit, guaranteed.

Word. If the policy is uniformly enforced then he needs to STFU. I hate people who look for lawsuits and frankly this one of them.

EDIT: I bet you didn't think Overdog Frazzled would say that didya!

Fateweaver wrote:If I lost my job for that reason I'd sue and so would everyone else I know. Dress policy be damned, they infringed on his First Amendment rights. He'll win a lawsuit, guaranteed.

I consider this to be one of the thinnest lines of logic, that can be used in a case like this.

"If you look at both sides of this argument, then there should be no dress policy anywhere (, freaking hilarious), and I should be able to show any of my beliefs, any damn time I fething please, feth you job, I am an Ameri-cun."

"Sir, all of our employees are Americans, U.S. citizens rather, and we have absolutely no interest in bending to every whim of our employees. We will however, allow you to express your patriotism, via this alternate button. If you choose to not take this option, you are pretty much out of a job... in a recession."

"I. AM. AN. AMERI-CUN"

"Sir, we understand that, but it hardly addresses the issue that we have with your button..."

I didn't fraz. Not often we end up on the same side in these arguments. Who should feel dirty? Me? You? Wrexasaur? Is it the good kind of dirty? These are the great questions of our time.

Fateweaver: If you have no problem with the other buttons/messages then fair dues to you. I think you should be able to wear whatever you want, but I don't think it hard enough to want to go to court over it, if ya get my meaning. And if I did, I wouldn't want a giant pile of cash.

hmm i'm going with Frazz on this one... its a frivolous law suit wasting my tax payer dollars.

Da Boss wrote:Fateweaver: If you ACTUALLY have no problem with the other buttons/messages then fair dues to you. I think you should be able to wear whatever you want, but I don't think it hard enough to want to go to court over it, if ya get my meaning. And if I did, I wouldn't want a giant pile of cash.

Fixed that for you...

Here is why.

The fact HD had an issue in the first place IS an issue. Had it been a button saying "Kill all Jews" or "Blacks are really Ni**as" then I could see it being an issue.

Maybe they should have just told him to cover up the word "God". I think that's the real issue is that he wore a button with a deities name that not everyone believes in.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Obama signs/shirt/buttons don't offend me. They make me laugh at the dumbass wearing it.

Wrexasaur wrote:

Da Boss wrote:Fateweaver: If you ACTUALLY have no problem with the other buttons/messages then fair dues to you. I think you should be able to wear whatever you want, but I don't think it hard enough to want to go to court over it, if ya get my meaning. And if I did, I wouldn't want a giant pile of cash.

Fixed that for you...

Fixed that for you...

Fateweaver wrote:Maybe they should have just told him to cover up the word "God". I think that's the real issue is that he wore a button with a deities name that not everyone believes in.

HD wrote:"...which is exactly why we have a blanket policy, which is long-standing and well-communicated to our associates, that only company-provided pins and badges can be worn on our aprons."

I can understand this completely. Without strict company policy, anything goes really.

Unless you are willing to claim that this policy is enforced to brain wash people (oh man, will that ever hold up in court), you still have no real point.

One more thing, no one goes to Home Depot, to hear about god, or even see things about god for that matter. If a diverse customer base, inclines a company to be strict about this kind of thing, more fething power to them; they pay your wage, you do your work. This is not a matter of "free speech", it is a matter of this guy being so high on his horse, that he cannot see the fact that the company was well within it's rights to reprimand him how they saw fit.

You argument is "free speech", which has little to do with the workplace... as a matter of fact, it has little to do with anything, besides your ability to be Christian Ameri-cun, outside of your job. You were not hired to present your beliefs, and a companies image is their business, not Christian McThompsons whim.

Fateweaver wrote: Maybe they should have just told him to cover up the word "God". I think that's the real issue is that he wore a button with a deities name that not everyone believes in.

Yes i believe thats the whole issue there.

This case reminds me of the British Airways staff member who was disciplined for wearing a crucifix.

The reason for disciplining her was that jewelry was not allowed to be worn by her grade of staff.

She countered that it was a religious symbol and BA countered that by saying that a crucifix is optional for Christians while a yarmulk (for example) isn't optional for Jews.

She went to industrial tribunal and lost.

In this case, the report makes it clear that the company is private so it isn't bound by the First Amendment and does not have to allow its staff to express themselves however they like.

He was offered a patriotic alternative and refused.

It looks an open and shut case which he will lose, unless he can turn up some evidence of unfair or discriminatory practices.

(O NOES!!! Tim is going to comment on this thread... TAKE COVER!!!)

I find it sad... Insert the rant I just posted in the "Little things that bother people greatly..." thread here.
Kinda like when I was asked by a classmate why I wore a Celtic Cross and a Pentacle at the same time... I was told they conflicted with each other, and I needed to take one off. You could guess which one...

On the other hand, when I go on a business trip, I need to wear nice clothes (not jeans, Batman shirt, and trench coat) and take my jewelry off. Hair in a nice pony tail, and no steel toes, etc...
If I walked into a conference room and ran demos for a 4 star general wearing that, I would be SOOO fired!!!

That doesn't mean we should be a secular country of robots that all do what they are told...

(Dammit, Tim... There is no logical conclusion to this train of thought. Continue, and you will get caught in a mental cycle loop...)
Sometimes I just want to stand on the moon, face the wold and shout, "FETH YOU!"

Ummm...hope HD takes the guy for legal fees for forcing a frivolous lawsuit on them.

Company has a blanket policy. Guy violates policy. Guy gets canned. Guy goes to lawyer and whines like the little gak he is.

Well, at least there is now an opening for someone who *wants* a job.

The thing with America is people can sue for the dumbest stuff.

Lady spilled coffee on herself because she is stupid. She sued maccas because if the coffee wasn't as hot as it was, it would not have burned her.

A guy breaks into a house, and breaks his leg. He sues the homeowners for damages.

The company had a policy. He did not abide by said policy. He refused the options they gave him. They fired him.

Take it like a man you little whinger.

Jimi Nemesis wrote:The thing with America is people can sue for the dumbest stuff.

There are lots of frivolous lawsuits, but note than in most cases they only report the case be filed, not a win for the plaintiff. This is because these cases almost never win a penny, but explaining that isn't anywhere near as exciting. Then if you actually look into the cases where the plaintiff wins the nature of the case is normally grossly misrepresented, such as with the Macca's coffee case.

There are some bizarre results, of course, it's a human process and lots of factors play a role, but the idea that there's free money out there for these people lodging false claims is just wrong.

Lady spilled coffee on herself because she is stupid. She sued maccas because if the coffee wasn't as hot as it was, it would not have burned her.

Except there's an issue of how hot one expects coffee to be. Yeah, spill coffee and you get burned, the area is a little tender for a week and you move. In the Macca's coffee case it took the lady about a minute to get her jeans off after spilling the coffee - the coffee was so hot that in that minute enough damage had been done that she needed skin grafts to her genitals. Which is outrageously hot coffee.

Outrageously hot coffee that had caused the store in question to receive many complaints before. That the store knew was the result of a faulty coffee machine, but that they hadn't bothered to fix.

I don't know about you, but I think that when people buy hot food or drink, it's fair enough to expect it to be hot, but also fair enough to expect it isn't so hot that a few seconds exposure ends up requiring skin grafts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fateweaver wrote:The fact HD had an issue in the first place IS an issue. Had it been a button saying "Kill all Jews" or "Blacks are really Ni**as" then I could see it being an issue.

Maybe they should have just told him to cover up the word "God". I think that's the real issue is that he wore a button with a deities name that not everyone believes in.

The company doesn't want to get into the mess of deciding what buttons are offensive and what buttons are not, so it has a storewide ban on all buttons. This guy ignored the policy, and after multiple warnings he was fired.

Now, you saw a story that set off your buttons and you didn't think about it fully before posting and pointing out how outraged you were. Fair enough, we all do that, but now a fair few people have pointed out that the company acted the only way it could. At this point you can admit your mistake and move, or go on aggressively not getting the point, it's up to you.

McDonald's did end up paying damages in the hot coffee case but it was something like $80,000 not the millions sued for.

Sebster, you rock. Often I feel like I am the only person who tries to correct the "hot coffee" lawsuit misunderstanding. You get major props for fighting against the ignorance of the one line story that gets told over and over again, and for sticking up for the truth of complex situations.

you win at the internets.

sebster wrote:Except there's an issue of how hot one expects coffee to be. Yeah, spill coffee and you get burned, the area is a little tender for a week and you move. In the Macca's coffee case it took the lady about a minute to get her jeans off after spilling the coffee - the coffee was so hot that in that minute enough damage had been done that she needed skin grafts to her genitals. Which is outrageously hot coffee.

Outrageously hot coffee that had caused the store in question to receive many complaints before. That the store knew was the result of a faulty coffee machine, but that they hadn't bothered to fix.

I don't know about you, but I think that when people buy hot food or drink, it's fair enough to expect it to be hot, but also fair enough to expect it isn't so hot that a few seconds exposure ends up requiring skin grafts.

That is absolutely horrific man...

Fizzywig wrote:Sebster, you rock. Often I feel like I am the only person who tries to correct the "hot coffee" lawsuit misunderstanding. You get major props for fighting against the ignorance of the one line story that gets told over and over again, and for sticking up for the truth of complex situations.

you win at the internets.

+1 indeed .

Do all you Americans talk like that?

Not only do I hope HD gets him for legal costs, I hope everywhere in the area where he lives blacklists him from getting a job.

However, I don't think it will be an "open and shut" case. With all the damn Christian groups out there, waiting to jump on something like this. I really think this is going to get a lot of publicity if the guy loses or wins.

One thing I've learned, is that religious bigots, regardless of religion, can't keep small gak like this to themselves. Any little loss is turned into "religious discrimination" and a little victory is turned into the equivilant of the victory over the Axis powers.

Wow you combined "damn Christian" and "religious bigot" into one handy post. Woops you dropped your name tag.

This need to be settled once and for all!

yeah well i guess this is the same things as us not being allowed to have anything Xmas related at work now. No one is allowed to give or recive Xmas cards or wear clothing with Xmas pics, or saying or play Xmas songs or even have a Xmas calander, just incase someone somewhere is offended by it.
I think it sucks big donkey hole....and i'll leave it at that.

Roze wrote:yeah well i guess this is the same things as us not being allowed to have anything Xmas related at work now. No one is allowed to give or recive Xmas cards or wear clothing with Xmas pics, or saying or play Xmas songs or even have a Xmas calander, just incase someone somewhere is offended by it.
I think it sucks big donkey hole....and i'll leave it at that.

To me thats different...and total BS.

Merry Christmas!

The company where I work sends out Christmas cards, has a tree in the reception lobby, hangs up tinsel and bunting, and organises at least two parties for everyone!

What miserable Gradgrindian hole do you work in, Roze?

Kilkrazy wrote:The company where I work sends out Christmas cards, has a tree in the reception lobby, hangs up tinsel and bunting, and organises at least two parties for everyone!

What miserable Gradgrindian hole do you work in, Roze?

One which has Labour Voters for Bosses -Badum Tish!-

Seriously though, this is becoming more and more common. Political Correctness to a Degree is fine, but since Labour took over it has gotten silly.

Frazzled wrote:

Roze wrote:yeah well i guess this is the same things as us not being allowed to have anything Xmas related at work now. No one is allowed to give or recive Xmas cards or wear clothing with Xmas pics, or saying or play Xmas songs or even have a Xmas calander, just incase someone somewhere is offended by it.
I think it sucks big donkey hole....and i'll leave it at that.

To me thats different...and total BS.

Merry Christmas!

All you get is coal from me... Santa knows... oh yes, Santa knows...

This is no war on religion its a war on christianity.
I got in trouble once for comeing to school with ashes on my head(look it up). But the muslim kid can were the turban and the jewish kid a yammaka(spelling?).

garret wrote:This is no war on religion its a war on christianity.
I got in trouble once for comeing to school with ashes on my head(look it up). But the muslim kid can were the turban and the jewish kid a yammaka(spelling?).

How is this a war on Christianity?

He wasnt allowed to wear a button, he was offered a replacement button but refused.

Why the feth would you go to school with ashes on your head?

Lord-Loss wrote:Why the feth would you go to school with ashes on your head?

It is quite obscure, and I simply can't connect ashes on someones head... to formal religious attire... it just isn't clear enough to me.

Lord-loss has a point, regardless of how you would connect those two things together, then equate it to a religious war.

Yeah, yeah... guy with a misplaced sense of authority. Oh, look, he's making irrelevant excuses to justify himself. Hope he gets nothing but a fat legal fee. Nothing to see here.

Lord-Loss wrote:

garret wrote:This is no war on religion its a war on christianity.
I got in trouble once for comeing to school with ashes on my head(look it up). But the muslim kid can were the turban and the jewish kid a yammaka(spelling?).

How is this a war on Christianity?

He wasnt allowed to wear a button, he was offered a replacement button but refused.

Why the feth would you go to school with ashes on your head?

Ash Wednesday Fool!

Wrexasaur wrote:
All you get is coal from me... Santa knows... oh yes, Santa knows...

Man I remember that Christmas Party.

Good Times, Good Times

Gwar! wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:
All you get is coal from me... Santa knows... oh yes, Santa knows...

Man I remember that Christmas Party.

Good Times, Good Times

Kilkrazy wrote:The company where I work sends out Christmas cards, has a tree in the reception lobby, hangs up tinsel and bunting, and organises at least two parties for everyone!

What miserable Gradgrindian hole do you work in, Roze?

i work for the NHS. But i work in a private lab, we don't deal with the public but apparently its by law.

Roze wrote:i work for the NHS.

This explains everything.

Anything with "National" in its name is a massive failure (no offence to you of course, it's not your fault).

I have to say though, it really makes me sad!
What in the world is offensive about santa? Please explain i really don't understand! Hes a big fat jolly man who gives you prezzies!!! I don't see how he offends anyone! I HATE Xmas decorations that flash and sing and i hate tinsle. My friends call me scrooge because i only ever have a black xmas tree with white lights. thats it. But i would NEVER complain about other peoples decorations or how they want to celebrate xmas....i just don't undersatnd.....Please give me the heads up what the issue is.

Roze wrote:I have to say though, it really makes me sad!
What in the world is offensive about santa? Please explain i really don't understand! Hes a big fat jolly man who gives you prezzies!!! I don't see how he offends anyone! I HATE Xmas decorations that flash and sing and i hate tinsle. My friends call me scrooge because i only ever have a black xmas tree with white lights. thats it. But i would NEVER complain about other peoples decorations or how they want to celebrate xmas....i just don't undersatnd.....Please give me the heads up what the issue is.

I once had a Co-Worker "Jokingly" mention that Santa was a Nazi because he didn't give presents to Jewish Children.

Some people are just insane

Its the same about the rabbi who saw a christmas tree in an airport and asked for it to be removed. All the other patrons caused a rucus that allowed the tree to stay in place.

BTW: Its only PC if the Christmas Tree is a "Holiday Tree" the Menorah is actually a "Holiday Candle Holder", and a fast is a "Holiday Diet". Oh and all the atheists and such don't get any more than 3 gifts over the entire holiday season(they can get some gifts, but not as much as many as the number received by those practicing religious holidays over the season).

halonachos wrote:Oh and all the atheists and such don't get any more than 3 gifts over the entire holiday season(they can get some gifts, but not as much as many as the number received by those practicing religious holidays over the season).

So what if my birthday is 4th of December?
What if I celebrate the Winter Solstice (which is all Christmas/other Christian Holidays are, Pagan Holidays Hijacked to convert people)without believing in any Deity?

Oh jeez...sorry i brought up Xmas guys. I didn't think.

That's differen't, birthdays are birthdays. However, the giving of presents represents the three wise men, etc.

Winter solstice really has no reason to send or receive presents, sure its the "time of rebirth", but its not the time of presents.

But roze, the whole christams thing is part of the PC topic of the previous posts. Our government tries to be fair, but at least one religion, or lack thereof, is always punished. To be PC is impossible and we shouldn't try to be so, just use common sense.

Home Depot FTW. Wasn't that whole 'under god' nonsense created back in the Red Scare days anyway? Godless commie heathens, burn you heretics!

Roze wrote:big fat jolly man

Santa encourages Obseity!

How is this in any way discriminatory?

Does he have Jewish/Muslim/Buddhist/Shintoist/Maoist/Druid/insert Religion here because I'm having a brainfart and can't think of any more former co-workers allowed to wear badges promoting their faith?

If not, then I suggest he stop claiming discrimination, especially given that they offered a company approved alternative badge, which was seemingly just as patriotic.

And as with most cases of this type, I wonder how many time he'd been in trouble with the Management before? Or is he yet another exemplary employee inexplicably ejected from his job by the Leftist Mafia?

halonachos wrote:But roze, the whole christams thing is part of the PC topic of the previous posts. Our government tries to be fair, but at least one religion, or lack thereof, is always punished. To be PC is impossible and we shouldn't try to be so, just use common sense.

good, at least i didnt send the off topic thread off topic

Roze wrote:What in the world is offensive about santa? Please explain i really don't understand!

Because Santa Claus, or Saint Nicholas as he was originally and traditionally called, is still a Christian symbol.

Plus you know.
Santa has the same letters as Satan. Jus' sayin'.

Da Boss wrote:Plus you know.
Santa has the same letters as Satan. Jus' sayin'.

And he is a Commie trying to brainwash our kids! I mean, think about it, sharing presents to only people who are Obedient and "Good". And he is always in Red!

And he enslaves Reindeer and forces them to pull a Overloaded cart THROUGH THE AIR! In the freezing fog, at speeds in excess of the speed of light!

Fun fact: All of the Reindeer Santa has are female

Whatta bastard.
I heard he enslaves elves in a hellish sweatshop somewhere in the far north too. They are forced to work all year, slaving away, unable to escape because of the inhospitable terrain that surrounds them. When they die, he just dumps thier shrivelled corpses outside for the bears.

Da Boss wrote:Whatta bastard.
I heard he enslaves elves in a hellish sweatshop somewhere in the far north too. They are forced to work all year, slaving away, unable to escape because of the inhospitable terrain that surrounds them. When they die, he just dumps thier shrivelled corpses outside for the bears.

Worse, he feeds them to the Reindeer! And forces Rudolf to be Like Doomrider! Her nose is Red for a Reason you know!

Hey, which santa are we talking about? A female Rudolph? Elves?

There's a santa that lives near sweden who rides a goat you know, they call the goat "the yule goat" because if you mess with santa, yule be next.

I really don't think you can call it persecution to be asked to remove a crucifix necklace to comply with a dress code of your job.

halonachos wrote:A female Rudolph?

Every single depiction of Santas Reindeer show them with Antlers, but "Both sexes grow antlers, which (in the Scandinavian variety) for old males fall off in December, for young males in the early spring, and for females in the summer." I very much doubt someone like Santa would be using Young, Temperamental and inexperienced Reindeer, so he must be using mature reindeer, and if they were male, would have no antlers

Kilkrazy wrote:I really don't think you can call it persecution to be asked to remove a crucifix necklace to comply with a dress code of your job.

But it is "acceptable" to call it if they ask you to remove kippot, turbans or Kirpan, which is a bit two faced IMO.

Kilkrazy wrote:I really don't think you can call it persecution to be asked to remove a crucifix necklace to comply with a dress code of your job.

That yes actually. many never take it off and view it as unChristian to do so.

Gwar! wrote:

Da Boss wrote:Plus you know.
Santa has the same letters as Satan. Jus' sayin'.

And he is a Commie trying to brainwash our kids! I mean, think about it, sharing presents to only people who are Obedient and "Good". And he is always in Red!

....you called ?

Gwar! wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I really don't think you can call it persecution to be asked to remove a crucifix necklace to comply with a dress code of your job.

But it is "acceptable" to call it if they ask you to remove kippot, turbans or Kirpan, which is a bit two faced IMO.

Well, not really, because the situation is different.

As I mentioned earlier, the wearing of a crucifix (for example, as in the BA case) is a choice for a christian, while the kirpan/yarmulke etc are compulsory for the relevant religions.

If christians want to be able to force employers to let them wear a crucifix, they need to get the Pope to make an ex cathedra proclamation on the subject. Even then it would only apply to Roman Catholics.

Let's say a Sikh wanted to become an NMR scanner operator. He would have to either remove his religious jewellery for safety reasons, or accept that the job is not for him.

I agree that if something is against dress code then it should be removed, unless doing so would mean certain death to the wearer.

This case makes it seem that the ONLY reason that the pin was to be removed was because it had "under God" on the pin. This would be wrong, removing it becuase of dress code is okay.

Similar to how we must remove hats, hoods, and sunglasses when entering a bank.

Kilkrazy wrote:[As I mentioned earlier, the wearing of a crucifix (for example, as in the BA case) is a choice for a christian, while the kirpan/yarmulke etc are compulsory for the relevant religions.

I would disagree strongly with that. Ardent catholics, at least here, don't view it as a choice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:
Similar to how we must remove hats, hoods, and sunglasses when entering a bank.

How about a burkha? (Actual cases)

How about a burkha for a driver's license pic? (actual case)

Kilkrazy wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I really don't think you can call it persecution to be asked to remove a crucifix necklace to comply with a dress code of your job.

But it is "acceptable" to call it if they ask you to remove kippot, turbans or Kirpan, which is a bit two faced IMO.

Well, not really, because the situation is different.

As I mentioned earlier, the wearing of a crucifix (for example, as in the BA case) is a choice for a christian, while the kirpan/yarmulke etc are compulsory for the relevant religions.

I would love to see the part of the torah that says that all jewish peoples must wear a yarmulke(going with your spelling) at all times. Not only have I met more than several jews who do not wear a yarmulke at all times, but it has been stated that they are only customary and not obligatory. With the whole kirpan thing, it looks like it can be turned to actually resemble a belt buckle, it says that its mandatory, but it looks more like a piece of jewelry that people who want to be "different" from the social norm would wear (a.k.a scene kids or wanabe gangsters).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yes, I agree with frazzled. Most catholics will LAWAYS have a crucifix on their persons at all times. Although I personally keep my crucifixes on the wall in my room and hanging from my car's rear-view mirror. This habit is one way to determine whether or not someone is a catholic or another type of christian.

Fateweaver wrote:I'm sorry but if you aren't from around here and get offended by me wearing a button that says "One Nation under God" then by all means get back on the boat and drift back to whatever gak hole you came from. If you are from here and feel the same way then I too encourage you to grab the next ship out of this country and find a new home.

And how many generations back does your family go? The assumption of priority due to how many ancestors you have had living there before you is an absurd one.

Roze wrote:yeah well i guess this is the same things as us not being allowed to have anything Xmas related at work now. No one is allowed to give or recive Xmas cards or wear clothing with Xmas pics, or saying or play Xmas songs or even have a Xmas calander, just incase someone somewhere is offended by it.
I think it sucks big donkey hole....and i'll leave it at that.

Where do you work? I mean, I know the NHS does not automatically rule out Christmas decor because I've been to hospitals that have up Christmas decor. The one where I did my knee re-hab even had a nativity scene, IIRC. Now, some hospitals may make a policy decision to not spend taxpayer money on decorations, or maybe some restrict decorations for hygiene/cleanliness reasons, but that is nothing to do with PC. I also used to work in the Civil Service and we had Christmas decor up their too.

Even if the NHS did ban Christmas decor in hospitals, I could understand it to a small degree. If you find decorations at Sainsbury's offensive, you could choose to not shop there. You can't really choose whether to need hospital treatment or not. I'd disagree with anyone who took offense at a Christmas tree, and think they were being ridiculous, but I would not consider when they need medical treatment the right time to confront them over their own silliness. I'd rather keep them alive and convince them to change their ways than let them die because they hesitated about going into a "Christian" hospital until it was too late.

Gwar! wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I really don't think you can call it persecution to be asked to remove a crucifix necklace to comply with a dress code of your job.

But it is "acceptable" to call it if they ask you to remove kippot, turbans or Kirpan, which is a bit two faced IMO.

The woman in question was asked to put her crucifix inside her BA uniform, not to remove it, which is very different. Also, there are very few Christian sects that require a cross to be worn at all, let alone for it to be worn visibly.

The notion that Christianity is being persecuted in the mainstream is a ludicrious one, and I say that as someone who works at a Catholic school. I am also pleased to report that my own workplace has zero issues with me being open about my atheism, and although I am reminded that I have a responsibility as part of my job to support a Catholic ethos and to allow the pupils the chance to practise their religion (Catholic or otherwise), I am not asked to deny my atheism or pretend to be Catholic.

Oh my word, a workplace that is (in this respect, at least) tolerant and reasonable... just like all of the other place I have worked.

I'm a part of the "sons of the revolution", does that give me priority?

Yes, I agree with frazzled. Most catholics will LAWAYS have a crucifix on their persons at all times. Although I personally keep my crucifixes on the wall in my room and hanging from my car's rear-view mirror. This habit is one way to determine whether or not someone is a catholic or another type of christian.

Does this mean I need to take off my dangling plate of nachoas and bottle of tequila from my car mirror? Of man!

Are you catholic? If you are, then you can just wear a crucifix or keep a statue of St.Nick on your dashboard. The reason why I have a crucifix on my rear-view is because it has prayer beads made out of olive wood and has some holy water from the holy grotto in jerusalem in it. Luckily I know a palestinian who works in jerusalem and he sent it to us for christmas.

Sorry, double post.

How the hell did this happen?

halonachos wrote:Are you catholic? If you are, then you can just wear a crucifix or keep a statue of St.Nick on your dashboard. The reason why I have a crucifix on my rear-view is because it has prayer beads made out of olive wood and has some holy water from the holy grotto in jerusalem in it. Luckily I know a palestinian who works in jerusalem and he sent it to us for christmas.

Very cool. No not myself but Mom and known quite a few-its Texas after all.

Mostly protestant then I guess. You know Mexico's 99% catholic, I thought it would rub off on you guys by now.

halonachos wrote:Oh and all the atheists and such don't get any more than 3 gifts over the entire holiday season(they can get some gifts, but not as much as many as the number received by those practicing religious holidays over the season).

Wow... Just, wow...

I respect your belief, but I have to disagree. Try to explain to my daughter that she shouldn't get presents like everyone else. She is 3 years old, she doesn't comprehend the concept of a pan-dimensional being.

Winter solstice really has no reason to send or receive presents, sure its the "time of rebirth", but its not the time of presents.

Wiki would like to give you a history lesson.

Wiki wrote:Yule, or Yule-tide, is a winter festival that was initially celebrated by the historical Germanic peoples as a pagan religious festival, though it was later absorbed into, and equated with, the Christian festival of Christmas. The festival was originally celebrated from late December to early January on a date determined by the lunar Germanic calendar. The festival was placed on December 25 when the Christian (Julian) calendar was adopted. Yule is attested early in the history of the Germanic peoples; from the 4th century Gothic language it appears in the month name fuma jiuleis.

About AD 730, the English historian Bede wrote that the Anglo-Saxon calendar included the months geola or giuli corresponding with either modern December or December and January. He gave December 25 as the first day of the heathen year and wrote that the Anglo-Saxons celebrated all night long to honor the Germanic divine "mothers": They began the year with December 25, the day some now celebrate as Christmas; and the very night to which we attach special sanctity they designated by the heathen term Mōdraniht, that is, the mothers' night.

Wiki wrote:Mōdraniht (Old English "Mothers-night") was an event held at New Years Day by the pagan Angles where a sacrifice was made. The event is attested by the medieval English historian Bede in his 8th century Latin work De temporum ratione. Scholars have proposed connections between the Anglo-Saxon Mōdraniht and celebrations involving the dísir, the idisi, and the Matres and Matrones practices by other Germanic peoples

In Norse mythology, a dís ("lady", plural dísir) is a ghost, spirit or deity associated with fate who can be both benevolent and antagonistic towards mortal people. Dísir may act as protective spirits of Norse clans. Their original function was possibly that of fertility goddesses who were the object of both private and official worship called dísablót, and their veneration may derive from the worship of the spirits of the dead. A particular trait of the dísir is the fact that they appear as collective beings. Scholarly theories hold that the North Germanic dísir and West Germanic Idisi are directly related, and that valkyries and norns may be types of dísir, and that the Fylgjur may also be connected to the concept.

Some of the first gifts that were given on that holiday in December were sacrifices to the Dis, in return of the gift of a bountiful harvest.

halonachos wrote:Mostly protestant then I guess. You know Mexico's 99% catholic, I thought it would rub off on you guys by now.

Oh it has, hence my greater knowledge of Catholics.

Let me append that post above by saying it is not my firm belief. I am a student of all religions, disciple of none.

I do fancy Odin (patron deity of Yule), but I don't worship him. Same with Christ and Hubbard's ideas.
I think they have very cool ideas that I keep in my philosophy, but that is all. Duality, the Life Wheel, dianetics and "do unto others" is good stuff.

I just don't like to be tied down by outdated rhetoric that is becoming more unattached from modern day life. Or contradictions in said rhetoric that are dismissed (or gasp! covered up.. *Cough* Oath of Vengeance *Cough*) to compensate for modern day life.
Just an personal opinion. I try to keep an open mind and play devil's advocate for all faiths. Sorry if I offend.

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:[As I mentioned earlier, the wearing of a crucifix (for example, as in the BA case) is a choice for a christian, while the kirpan/yarmulke etc are compulsory for the relevant religions.

I would disagree strongly with that. Ardent catholics, at least here, don't view it as a choice.

It seems to me it would depend on whether there is a piece of RC doctrine which says, "Thou shalt always wear a crucifix." Without a religious injunction, it would seem to be a personal choice, in a different sense to the wearing of the five Ks (Sikh.)

What I mean by an injunction is something which makes it a sin not to perform the required behaviour. There's a difference between a sin of commission or omission on the one hand, and failure to perform a meritorious act on the other hand.

For example, it is a sin (as a Roman Catholic) to use contraception, but it isn't a sin to not have children, though having children is meritorious within the sacrament of marriage.

I'm not aware of any such injunction about the wearing of a crucifix, however I'm not RC so maybe I just don't know.

Back on topic:

In the case in point, one might imagine that the management of Costco (can't remember the actual store's name) are strong supporters of the separation of state and religion on constitutional grounds, and do not wish their employees to blur the boundary.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

halonachos wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I really don't think you can call it persecution to be asked to remove a crucifix necklace to comply with a dress code of your job.

But it is "acceptable" to call it if they ask you to remove kippot, turbans or Kirpan, which is a bit two faced IMO.

Well, not really, because the situation is different.

As I mentioned earlier, the wearing of a crucifix (for example, as in the BA case) is a choice for a christian, while the kirpan/yarmulke etc are compulsory for the relevant religions.

I would love to see the part of the torah that says that all jewish peoples must wear a yarmulke(going with your spelling) at all times. Not only have I met more than several jews who do not wear a yarmulke at all times, but it has been stated that they are only customary and not obligatory. With the whole kirpan thing, it looks like it can be turned to actually resemble a belt buckle, it says that its mandatory, but it looks more like a piece of jewelry that people who want to be "different" from the social norm would wear (a.k.a scene kids or wanabe gangsters).

Well I'm far from an expert on Judaism. You should consult a rabbi.

The Sikh religious symbols include a sword. In modern life, that has been reduced to essentially a symbolic piece of jewellery. But isn't jewellery exactly what the BA woman and the CostCo guy are complaining about? The difference being that the Sikh symbols are an obligation, and the crucifix and "In God We Trust" badge aren't.

they are not the same. I'm not sure who brought up crucifixes.

at tblock, if you believe in those ghosts, and believe that sacrificing someone will indeed grant better harvests because it appeases some greater being, you aren't exactly an atheist are ya?

If you want to be a student of all religions then your daughter should get gifts for every holiday, christmas, channukah, eid, and she should also fast, unless you don't want to get into islam too much.

Atheism is a belief against a god, gods, or a higher being. Sacrifices being made to appease one of those beings denotes religion. Paganism=/=atheism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually killkrazy, condoms have recently been allowed to be used by catholics in order to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS.

Look at the protestant reformation and look what they did to churches, they took down all of the symbols and such.

Also, the sword thingy is worn on a belt and can be made to look like a belt buckle.

halonachos wrote:Atheism is a belief against a god, gods, or a higher being. Sacrifices being made to appease one of those beings denotes religion. Paganism=/=atheism.

Must... Resist.... Can't.... Failing....


SORRY!

Atheism can be either the rejection of theism, or the position that deities do not exist. In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.

halonachos wrote:at tblock, if you believe in those ghosts, and believe that sacrificing someone will indeed grant better harvests because it appeases some greater being, you aren't exactly an atheist are ya?

If you want to be a student of all religions then your daughter should get gifts for every holiday, christmas, channukah, eid, and she should also fast, unless you don't want to get into islam too much.

Atheism is a belief against a god, gods, or a higher being. Sacrifices being made to appease one of those beings denotes religion. Paganism=/=atheism.

tblock1984 wrote:Let me append that post above by saying it is not my firm belief. I am a student of all religions, disciple of none.

I do fancy Odin (patron deity of Yule), but I don't worship him. Same with Christ and Hubbard's ideas.
I think they have very cool ideas that I keep in my philosophy, but that is all. Duality, the Life Wheel, dianetics and "do unto others" is good stuff.

I just don't like to be tied down by outdated rhetoric that is becoming more unattached from modern day life. Or contradictions in said rhetoric that are dismissed (or gasp! covered up.. *Cough* Oath of Vengeance *Cough*) to compensate for modern day life.
Just an personal opinion. I try to keep an open mind and play devil's advocate for all faiths. Sorry if I offend.

Wiki wrote:Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.

I don't believe in "God"
I do believe in "Pan"

It is OK to say a fact or definition is wrong (if that is the case), not to make biased opinions on people's beliefs. When in doubt, ask, don't accuse...
Next question in our group learning experience, clearing up religious misunderstandings?

Those who think this guy has grounds for litigation based on the First Amendment need to re-read a little thing called the Bill of Rights...

The First Amendment wrote:Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Last time I checked, Congress didn't have a House of Lumber and a House of Appliances tacked onto the original two, nor did it make its members wear doofy orange aprons.

I didn't mean "you" as an atheists, but atheists in general.

If you sacrifice in belief that it appeases some higher being(god, allah, loki, zeus, fairies, etc) just anything you choose to idolize or worship you are practicing a form of theism. If you are truly an atheist, then you wouldn't sacrifice a person because you believe that there is no deity or being to appease.

So no, winter solstice presents are not for atheists, they're for theists.

Although your (Gwar!) wiki quote is, in the broadest sense ( ) correct, even the frame they put it in is odd. Atheism as rejection of theism means rejection of "belief in at least one god", or, as it says itself, the position that deities do not exist. It says pretty damn close to the same thing twice.

"Belief in no god" is not quite the same as "No belief in a god".

Most atheist philosophy (philosophy with a small 'p' rather than a capita 'P') (that I have read, anyway, which is not extensive, but more than most people) will position atheism according to the first statement rather than the second.

Of course, that does not rule out the second as a form of atheism, but I prefer to think of atheism as a positive thing.

However, much atheist thining will also go further, and I like to agree. I would in fact say I believe in a rational, explainable universe that does not have room for the supernatural, including "god".

In other words, I like to define atheism by what is does do, rather than what it doesn't. I like to see atheism as a way of thinking, rather than a set of thoughts.

Of course, just because I like to see it that way, it does not mean other atheists agree, let alone theists!!

halonachos wrote:So no, winter solstice presents are not for atheists, they're for theists.

Why? I don't believe in a Deity, I just happen to celebrate my birth on or close to the Winter Solstice. Does that make me a Theist now?

halonachos wrote:I didn't mean "you" as an atheists, but atheists in general.

If you sacrifice in belief that it appeases some higher being(god, allah, loki, zeus, fairies, etc) just anything you choose to idolize or worship you are practicing a form of theism. If you are truly an atheist, then you wouldn't sacrifice a person because you believe that there is no deity or being to appease.

So no, winter solstice presents are not for atheists, they're for theists.

o.O

WTH? You said:

Winter solstice really has no reason to send or receive presents, sure its the "time of rebirth", but its not the time of presents.

History disagrees with that statement. Atheism is not cited in that statement. It was in the sentence above it...

My daughter is an atheist in every sense. I am teaching her morals and ideas that I hold dear, but she can't comprehend God at three years of age. Therefore, she doesn't believe.
That is a decision I will let her make for herself. If she wants my help, I will gladly tell her what I believe, when the time comes. In our family, Holidays are traditions passed down by our ancestors. Why do we NEED a reason to be nice and give gifts?

wiki wrote:Theism in the broadest sense is the belief in at least one deity.

so the definitions of atheism are:
the rejection of the belief in at least one deity(using the formula theism=the belief in at least one deity).
the position that deities do not exist.

Either way, NO PRESENTS FOR YOU!!! Now tblock, you get presents because you have a theist view and can celebrate the winter solstice holiday of your choice.

Although I am sorry to say to fifty that you can only get 3 presents, unless its your birthday.

At Tblock:

Although 'Theism' as a term in its own right is generally applied specifically to 'God', 'Theism' as applied to 'Atheism' does not really mean "belief in God" with a capital 'G'.

The 'Theism' part of 'Atheism' refers more to a belief in that which is beyond rational explanation. Thus, atheism generally refers not only to belief in there being no God, but also a belief in there being no gods/divine universe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry, why can I only get three presents? I've read back, but can't find your reasons why...

And no tblock, she isn't an atheist. At a certain age, children are unaccountable in religion(for catholics) so if your daughter committed murder it really wouldn't be a sin because she doesn't comprehend it. If you don't know what something is you can't deny its existance or approve of its existance, so shes not an atheist, she just doesn't know yet.

Fifty wrote:Although your (Gwar!) wiki quote is, in the broadest sense ( ) correct, even the frame they put it in is odd. Atheism as rejection of theism means rejection of "belief in at least one god", or, as it says itself, the position that deities do not exist. It says pretty damn close to the same thing twice.

"Belief in no god" is not quite the same as "No belief in a god".

Most atheist philosophy (philosophy with a small 'p' rather than a capita 'P') (that I have read, anyway, which is not extensive, but more than most people) will position atheism according to the first statement rather than the second.

Of course, that does not rule out the second as a form of atheism, but I prefer to think of atheism as a positive thing.

However, much atheist thining will also go further, and I like to agree. I would in fact say I believe in a rational, explainable universe that does not have room for the supernatural, including "god".

In other words, I like to define atheism by what is does do, rather than what it doesn't. I like to see atheism as a way of thinking, rather than a set of thoughts.

Of course, just because I like to see it that way, it does not mean other atheists agree, let alone theists!!

"Let alone Atheists!!" feth, I grow tired of this...

Wiki wrote:A deity is a postulated preternatural or supernatural immortal being, who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, and respected by believers.

The fact that you say the two are the same is an opinion. All I wanted to say was that presents were being given 720 years before the birth of Christ... And that just because my daughter isn't Christian, that doesn't mean she doesn't deserve presents.

Well, on average I got 5 presents and shared one with my brother. I'm catholic and we celebrate christmas, we even go to church.

Its like if I payed you $10 an hour and then payed someone who didn't work the same wage. I work for my presents, so why should someone who doesn't work at all get the same amount of presents as I? It just isn't fair.

Start going to a stuffy church with hundreds of other people for an hour once every week and then you can get an unlimited amount of presents.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@tblock, yes gifts were given, but they were given by theists.

I Still don't follow the logic by which Catholics and Atheists get different numbers of presents?

halonachos wrote:And no tblock, she isn't an atheist. At a certain age, children are unaccountable in religion(for catholics) so if your daughter committed murder it really wouldn't be a sin because she doesn't comprehend it. If you don't know what something is you can't deny its existance or approve of its existance, so shes not an atheist, she just doesn't know yet.

I know, some religions agree that the age is around 8-10 years of age. She doesn't understand death, let alone murder.
She doesn't even know that Seaseme Street is fake... how can she understand the concept of a god?

tblock1984 wrote:She doesn't even know that Seaseme Street is fake...

Seaseme Street is FAKE?!?!!???!?!?!!!!!

halonachos wrote:Well, on average I got 5 presents and shared one with my brother. I'm catholic and we celebrate christmas, we even go to church.

Its like if I payed you $10 an hour and then payed someone who didn't work the same wage. I work for my presents, so why should someone who doesn't work at all get the same amount of presents as I? It just isn't fair.

Start going to a stuffy church with hundreds of other people for an hour once every week and then you can get an unlimited amount of presents.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@tblock, yes gifts were given, but they were given by theists.

you. Frazz, can you close this now? I see what you mean:
Comments attacking people's religious views out of hand are not acceptable, neither is attacking religion in general. The reverse is also true, attacking atheism out of hand is not acceptable on this board. We can discuss the merits of a religion/nonreligion and their philosphical points (the rare time a good discussion on that occurrs) but straight trashing is right out.

There are always 2 type of people in Dakka's Off Topic Forum

Type A) They are interested in what you want to discuss , and would discuss it with you .

Type B) They care not for what you want to say nor do they care for what you want to discuss .
They only care what you have said. And will hammer you over and over again ignoring the purpose and intention of the thread provided if your original statement isnt solid and allowes
the possibility for them to re twist the words. They pride themselves in arguing this way as "winning an debate" .

I had such high hopes...

Fifty wrote:
The 'Theism' part of 'Atheism' refers more to a belief in that which is beyond rational explanation. Thus, atheism generally refers not only to belief in there being no God, but also a belief in there being no gods/divine universe.

That's incorrect. Theism is a very specific term which refers to the belief in God/god/s. Atheism is the lack of such a belief, and makes no further comment on one's faith in any other supernatural concepts.

Referring to oneself as an atheist while lacking any belief in the supernatural is simply an incomplete description.

Roze wrote:yeah well i guess this is the same things as us not being allowed to have anything Xmas related at work now. No one is allowed to give or recive Xmas cards or wear clothing with Xmas pics, or saying or play Xmas songs or even have a Xmas calander, just incase someone somewhere is offended by it.
I think it sucks big donkey hole....and i'll leave it at that.

Where do you work? I mean, I know the NHS does not automatically rule out Christmas decor because I've been to hospitals that have up Christmas decor. The one where I did my knee re-hab even had a nativity scene, IIRC. Now, some hospitals may make a policy decision to not spend taxpayer money on decorations, or maybe some restrict decorations for hygiene/cleanliness reasons, but that is nothing to do with PC. I also used to work in the Civil Service and we had Christmas decor up their too.

Even if the NHS did ban Christmas decor in hospitals, I could understand it to a small degree. If you find decorations at Sainsbury's offensive, you could choose to not shop there. You can't really choose whether to need hospital treatment or not. I'd disagree with anyone who took offense at a Christmas tree, and think they were being ridiculous, but I would not consider when they need medical treatment the right time to confront them over their own silliness. I'd rather keep them alive and convince them to change their ways than let them die because they hesitated about going into a "Christian" hospital until it was too late.



i work in a testing lab, its not in a hospital, its a private testing building,

What's funny is that a Christmas Tree is about as unchristian as you can get, it's a recent Germanic Tradition that only exists in the UK because Victoria shacked up with a cousin

Gwar! wrote:What's funny is that a Christmas Tree is about as unchristian as you can get, it's a recent Germanic Tradition that only exists in the UK because Victoria shacked up with a cousin

Actually its an old German tradition Bat..troll...man?

Modquisition on:
As has been noted threads/posts directly attacking religion and threads directly attacking atheists are not appropriate. I will keep this open ONLY if it leans back to a nonconfrontational discussion. Lets move it back to that now please. Thank you.

Recent as in less than 1000 years old Frazzled, that's recent to you yeah?

Frazzled wrote:As has been noted threads/posts directly attacking religion and threads directly attacking atheists are not appropriate. I will keep this open ONLY if it leans back to a nonconfrontational discussion. Lets move it back to that now please. Thank you.

I'm stepping out for now... If I bring up Beltane, I think the end of Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back will happen to me...
I am going to get off the lawn, but watch you guys from a distance. If we can play nice, I will be back.

my interwebs is acting funny delete this post please.

Gwar! wrote:Recent as in less than 1000 years old Frazzled, that's recent to you yeah?

Yea pretty much.

"Son, I knew Moses, and you're no Moses."


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Again, lets move on shall we? Jokes and jibes don't always work over the internet.

Note:
Never send an email to a group of people complaining that a conversation with another party wasn't productive, and then cc that person. Just telling you now... That which does not destroy us makes us stronger!

Simply said, its reduced to:

Guy wears something company doesn't allow. Company warns him. Guy ignores them. Company fires guy.

Its that simple. A company has the right to terminate an employee for disregarding their rules/regulations.

Upon further insight into the story, there's a bit more bureaucratic BS going on. HD apparently waited for a year to tell him. Wait to make it an issue HD, but still, they do reserve the right.

Stupidity on both sides. Either way, he will win nothing. He broke rules, was warned, ignored them, got the boot. Look for another job.

You get a job that had a rule against smoking pot, and you got caught and fired for smoking pot.
Same gak... Breaking a rule is breaking a rule...

That is all...

Well there's another topic going so shutting this down. If anyone wishes otherwise please PM privately.

tblock1984 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:As has been noted threads/posts directly attacking religion and threads directly attacking atheists are not appropriate. I will keep this open ONLY if it leans back to a nonconfrontational discussion. Lets move it back to that now please. Thank you.

I'm stepping out for now... If I bring up Beltane, I think the end of Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back will happen to me...
I am going to get off the lawn, but watch you guys from a distance. If we can play nice, I will be back.

Oh please, you swore at me for nothing that was attacking atheism, but was instead putting a joke on at theism's expense. By saying that church is a labor I am making fun of religion. Get over yourself, I don't care enough about you or atheism to criticize either.

@ fifty.
Have you ever been to church? If you have you know it sucks and is boring. It also gets incredibly hot during the summer in Virgina and our AC is not the best. So sitting for an hour every weekend in a hot, sweaty church surrounded by strangers and paying to do so is work and I get paid for it on christmas with presents.

Well, I doubt this guy is suing on first amendment grounds. There's not states action, so that case would be dismissed early (before discovery even began). Basically one of the things you can do when you answer a law suit is move to dismiss it for a variety of reasons: wrong jurisdiction, expired statute of limitations, etc. The most used of this is Rule 12(b)6 of the Federal Rules (with most states having an analogue): "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." Essentially, it's a way of saying that even if every fact the plaintiff alleges is true, the law still backs up the defendent. Here, since any first amendment challenge requires state action, it would be dismissed early and often.

Now, it appears that the claim is made on religious discrimination laws, essentially arguing that he was fired because he was christian. In the US, you can't fire a person, even in an at will state, for bad cause. Meaning; while you can fire a guy for no reason, you can't fire him because he's black or deaf or jewish or a vietnam veteran. Now, as wierd as it sounds, Christian is a protected class under that law.

Now, to succeed in such a case, there's burden shifting approach taken by the courts. Normally in a civil suit, the Plaintiff bears all the burden of proving his case. The Defense can defend, to be sure, but honestly it can sit back and say "prove it" the entire time. In employment discrimination cases, there are three step, and if the defendent fails to meet their step 2, the plaintiff wins.

Step 1: the plaintiff must show that they are in a protected class, and that they suffered some tangible discrimination (termination, loss of hours, denial of promotion, even lesser duties). Here, that's simply not a problem. The guy was fired.

Step 2: the Defendent must now show that there was some other reason, aside from being in the protected class, for their actions. Here, Home Depot can show that they have a policy on dress code, and followed it.

Step 3: the plaintiff must show that the reason given in Step 2 was merely a pretext. Here, if the Plaintiff can show that HD didn't' follow the policy consistently, allowing people to wear other buttons, he might have a chance.

After all that, all the plaintiff gets is a jury trial. The real problem is that his transgressions (the button) are really only tangentially related to his faith. The timing with him bringing a bible isn't good for home depot, but assuming they're like most big box stores, the dress code is enforced.

more reading on the procedure, if you're interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_v._Green

Yep Polonius, the only proof would be if any other employees were wearing any unsanctioned pins and were allowed to do so.

halonachos wrote:Yep Polonius, the only proof would be if any other employees were wearing any unsanctioned pins and were allowed to do so.

Exactly, then there would be discrimination.

We might not also be seeing the whole picture. HD might have tolerated the button for a while, but perhaps he got snappy with his religious beliefs, preaching "the word" at work, eventually boiling over to the button issue, etc.

The Locks are broken!

(This thread shows as locked to me )