He said he wouldn’t join his company’s Bible study. After being let go, he’s suing.

[boedicca]

This bit is rather suspicious:

Coleman's attorney, Corinne Schram, said she knows of no other reason that Coleman was let go. Coleman was able to find another job painting after he was let go from Dahled Up Construction, but he has stepped away from that job since gaining custody of his sons.

If he was able to find a job so easily, then he wasn't harmed by the termination. This looks like shakedown to be able to stay home with his kids instead of working.

 

[beagle9]

Nope not freedom from religion, but rather a mutual respect towards both things exsisting within the sectors be it public and/or private once again. We as individuals need freedom of choice, and not enslavement in anything we choose to participate in or not to participate in. Religion can co-exist in anything we have going, but it's when it demands participation against a person's will is when it violates the individuals rights.

The same goes for anything not religious as well. All can exist together in the private and public speres, just as long as these things don't force themselves on an individual against his or her will.

So you think that Muslims should have sharia law in the US?

Do you think Muslims should not practice a law that suits their people as long as it's not in violation of our laws, and it is not forced on others who want nothing to do with such a law or religion ?

Sharia violates a ton of our laws, but freedom of religion doesn’t set limits.

Anything that violates our laws should not be allowed or acceptable. Period.

So no freedom of religion then.

You equate all religion with law breaking or something that violates our laws ???

Good grief.

 

[pinqy]

This bit is rather suspicious:

Coleman's attorney, Corinne Schram, said she knows of no other reason that Coleman was let go. Coleman was able to find another job painting after he was let go from Dahled Up Construction, but he has stepped away from that job since gaining custody of his sons.

If he was able to find a job so easily, then he wasn't harmed by the termination. This looks like shakedown to be able to stay home with his kids instead of working.

If the termination was based on illegal discrimination, as is claimed, then it’s still illegal even if he did find another job quickly.

 

[boedicca]

This bit is rather suspicious:

Coleman's attorney, Corinne Schram, said she knows of no other reason that Coleman was let go. Coleman was able to find another job painting after he was let go from Dahled Up Construction, but he has stepped away from that job since gaining custody of his sons.

If he was able to find a job so easily, then he wasn't harmed by the termination. This looks like shakedown to be able to stay home with his kids instead of working.

If the termination was based on illegal discrimination, as is claimed, then it’s still illegal even if he did find another job quickly.

I'm talking about torts, not criminal law. It's hard to find harm when the person finds employment right away.

Hence, I'll stand by my assessment that this is a shakedown. He could work, if he wanted to, but he'd rather shakedown this business and put a bunch of other people out of work. He's an ass.

 

[beagle9]

Schools for example don't have to be religion free, but only that they provide an out to those who wish not to participate in a religious function or event taking place. It can easily be done, but the left wants complete removal because it wants to force a limited option to the students in which it wants to control or brainwash.

I agree that schools don’t have to be reliant free in that students should be free to express their religious beliefs as long as it is not proselytizing or disruptive.
But the school itself?
“The Establishment Clause, unlike the Free Exercise Clause, does not depend upon any showing of direct governmental compulsion and is violated by the enactment of laws which establish an official religion whether those laws operate directly to coerce nonobserving individuals or not.”
Engel v Vitale 370 U.S. 421 (1962)

In other words, schools, and the government in general, cannot sponsor or endorse any religious activities, voluntary or not. Neither can the school be hostile to religion.

It should relate to the majority, and it also should be allowed in the school when the school operators and staff come to a consensus on such a thing, and where as the majority of most agree with or wishes the school to add some form of prayer or religious content to the appropriate settings within the school.

With this said, it should also be considerate of those who might not agree, and this even if they only number by one, and so in such a case it should provide a very appropriate non-bullying or intimidation free area in order that the student, staff member or other can freely choose to depart to if that is nessesary in their mind to do so during an event.

Do you realize you are advocating government support for the majority religion, setting up a de facto establishment of religion. Those of minority religions would not have equal expression or freedom of religion.

Civil rights should not be up to majority vote.

Civil rights should be controlled by a minority vote ?? I advocate fairness be placed back into every facet of society, and that means freedom reinstated with the consideration of others of course, but in a way as to not damage our overall freedoms that we have built this great nation upon, but we must do these things right.

 

[pinqy]

Schools for example don't have to be religion free, but only that they provide an out to those who wish not to participate in a religious function or event taking place. It can easily be done, but the left wants complete removal because it wants to force a limited option to the students in which it wants to control or brainwash.

I agree that schools don’t have to be reliant free in that students should be free to express their religious beliefs as long as it is not proselytizing or disruptive.
But the school itself?
“The Establishment Clause, unlike the Free Exercise Clause, does not depend upon any showing of direct governmental compulsion and is violated by the enactment of laws which establish an official religion whether those laws operate directly to coerce nonobserving individuals or not.”
Engel v Vitale 370 U.S. 421 (1962)

In other words, schools, and the government in general, cannot sponsor or endorse any religious activities, voluntary or not. Neither can the school be hostile to religion.

It should relate to the majority, and it also should be allowed in the school when the school operators and staff come to a consensus on such a thing, and where as the majority of most agree with or wishes the school to add some form of prayer or religious content to the appropriate settings within the school.

With this said, it should also be considerate of those who might not agree, and this even if they only number by one, and so in such a case it should provide a very appropriate non-bullying or intimidation free area in order that the student, staff member or other can freely choose to depart to if that is nessesary in their mind to do so during an event.

Do you realize you are advocating government support for the majority religion, setting up a de facto establishment of religion. Those of minority religions would not have equal expression or freedom of religion.

Civil rights should not be up to majority vote.

Civil rights should be controlled by a minority vote ??

No. Where did you get that idea?
No group should get preferential treatment when it comes to civil rights: the government should be neutral and not favor any religious or ethnic group. Losing an advantage...losing preferential treatment...is not discrimination and is not preference to the minority.

 

[beagle9]

Schools for example don't have to be religion free, but only that they provide an out to those who wish not to participate in a religious function or event taking place. It can easily be done, but the left wants complete removal because it wants to force a limited option to the students in which it wants to control or brainwash.

I agree that schools don’t have to be reliant free in that students should be free to express their religious beliefs as long as it is not proselytizing or disruptive.
But the school itself?
“The Establishment Clause, unlike the Free Exercise Clause, does not depend upon any showing of direct governmental compulsion and is violated by the enactment of laws which establish an official religion whether those laws operate directly to coerce nonobserving individuals or not.”
Engel v Vitale 370 U.S. 421 (1962)

In other words, schools, and the government in general, cannot sponsor or endorse any religious activities, voluntary or not. Neither can the school be hostile to religion.

It should relate to the majority, and it also should be allowed in the school when the school operators and staff come to a consensus on such a thing, and where as the majority of most agree with or wishes the school to add some form of prayer or religious content to the appropriate settings within the school.

With this said, it should also be considerate of those who might not agree, and this even if they only number by one, and so in such a case it should provide a very appropriate non-bullying or intimidation free area in order that the student, staff member or other can freely choose to depart to if that is nessesary in their mind to do so during an event.

Do you realize you are advocating government support for the majority religion, setting up a de facto establishment of religion. Those of minority religions would not have equal expression or freedom of religion.

Civil rights should not be up to majority vote.

Civil rights should be controlled by a minority vote ??

No. Where did you get that idea?
No group should get preferential treatment when it comes to civil rights: the government should be neutral and not favor any religious or ethnic group. Losing an advantage...losing preferential treatment...is not discrimination and is not preference to the minority.

Might be crossing issues here... We can have our freedom of religion without offending others, but the leftist agenda is out to destroy Christianity in this nation, and to say that it isn't is being dishonest after all that we've seen now. No one can deny what has gone on now, and especially after the push back has finally started, and the reaction to it all.

 

[BreezeWood]

I agree that schools don’t have to be reliant free in that students should be free to express their religious beliefs as long as it is not proselytizing or disruptive.
But the school itself?
“The Establishment Clause, unlike the Free Exercise Clause, does not depend upon any showing of direct governmental compulsion and is violated by the enactment of laws which establish an official religion whether those laws operate directly to coerce nonobserving individuals or not.”
Engel v Vitale 370 U.S. 421 (1962)

In other words, schools, and the government in general, cannot sponsor or endorse any religious activities, voluntary or not. Neither can the school be hostile to religion.

It should relate to the majority, and it also should be allowed in the school when the school operators and staff come to a consensus on such a thing, and where as the majority of most agree with or wishes the school to add some form of prayer or religious content to the appropriate settings within the school.

With this said, it should also be considerate of those who might not agree, and this even if they only number by one, and so in such a case it should provide a very appropriate non-bullying or intimidation free area in order that the student, staff member or other can freely choose to depart to if that is nessesary in their mind to do so during an event.

Do you realize you are advocating government support for the majority religion, setting up a de facto establishment of religion. Those of minority religions would not have equal expression or freedom of religion.

Civil rights should not be up to majority vote.

Civil rights should be controlled by a minority vote ??

No. Where did you get that idea?
No group should get preferential treatment when it comes to civil rights: the government should be neutral and not favor any religious or ethnic group. Losing an advantage...losing preferential treatment...is not discrimination and is not preference to the minority.

Might be crossing issues here... We can have our freedom of religion without offending others, but the leftist agenda is out to destroy Christianity in this nation, and to say that it isn't is being dishonest after all that we've seen now. No one can deny what has gone on now, and especially after the push back has finally started, and the reaction to it all.

.

but the leftist agenda is out to destroy Christianity in this nation, and to say that it isn't is being dishonest

We can have our freedom of religion without offending others ...

what has christianity ever accomplished since the 4th century other than what they are accusing the left agenda of as not what has been the christian agenda from its beginning to persecute and victimize the innocent in society and is itself a fully manufactured and false religion that hasn't a single feather of goodness throughout it history to claim for itself.

 

[Taz]

So you think that Muslims should have sharia law in the US?

Do you think Muslims should not practice a law that suits their people as long as it's not in violation of our laws, and it is not forced on others who want nothing to do with such a law or religion ?

Sharia violates a ton of our laws, but freedom of religion doesn’t set limits.

Anything that violates our laws should not be allowed or acceptable. Period.

So no freedom of religion then.

You equate all religion with law breaking or something that violates our laws ???

Good grief.

No, I'm saying that if you have freedom OF religion then sharia law should be allowed in the US, regardless of our laws.

 

[BS Filter]

I don't believe all of the story. However, if the owner only wants to hire believers he should have that right.

 

[BreezeWood]

I don't believe all of the story. However, if the owner only wants to hire believers he should have that right.

he should have that right ...

does that mean to you that presently the employer does not have that right ... due to civil rights legislation over the last few decades.

 

[BS Filter]

I don't believe all of the story. However, if the owner only wants to hire believers he should have that right.

he should have that right ...

does that mean to you that presently the employer does not have that right ... due to civil rights legislation over the last few decades.

I think if he only wants to hire believers then he should. If someone doesn't like it then go work somewhere else. It's his business.

 

[BreezeWood]

I don't believe all of the story. However, if the owner only wants to hire believers he should have that right.

he should have that right ...

does that mean to you that presently the employer does not have that right ... due to civil rights legislation over the last few decades.

I think if he only wants to hire believers then he should. If someone doesn't like it then go work somewhere else. It's his business.

.

I think if he only wants to hire believers then he should. If someone doesn't like it then go work somewhere else. It's his business.

If someone doesn't like it then go work somewhere else ...

well, in this case the worker did not like it and is suing the believer shouldn't he have the right to work for a living at his choice of location and not someone else's ...

you did not answer the previous question as to how the case pertains to present law.

 

[beagle9]

Do you think Muslims should not practice a law that suits their people as long as it's not in violation of our laws, and it is not forced on others who want nothing to do with such a law or religion ?

Sharia violates a ton of our laws, but freedom of religion doesn’t set limits.

Anything that violates our laws should not be allowed or acceptable. Period.

So no freedom of religion then.

You equate all religion with law breaking or something that violates our laws ???

Good grief.

No, I'm saying that if you have freedom OF religion then sharia law should be allowed in the US, regardless of our laws.

Nope, not if violates the laws of decency that are derived from our religion in which had given us our knowledge and understanding in which helped us to formulate our laws in that we abide by to this very day.

 

[SweetSue92]

He said he wouldn’t join his company’s Bible study. After being let go, he’s suing.

A 34-year-old painter is suing Dahled Up Construction, a company based south of Portland, Ore., for allegedly firing him after he refused to join a Christian Bible group for employees. Ryan Coleman is seeking $800,000 from the company after its owner allegedly said participation in the Bible group was required if he wanted to keep his job.

Coleman told The Washington Post that when he explained to the company's owner, Joel Dahl, that he had different beliefs, Dahl said: "If you want to keep your job, everybody needs to attend. If not, I'm going to be forced to replace you."

He said he wouldn’t join his company’s Bible study. After being let go, he’s suing.

---------------------------------------

I hope he wins.

If he can prove that, he has a case.

He does but I laughed at $750,000 for "mental anguish". I don't think so, pal.

 

[Taz]

Sharia violates a ton of our laws, but freedom of religion doesn’t set limits.

Anything that violates our laws should not be allowed or acceptable. Period.

So no freedom of religion then.

You equate all religion with law breaking or something that violates our laws ???

Good grief.

No, I'm saying that if you have freedom OF religion then sharia law should be allowed in the US, regardless of our laws.

Nope, not if violates the laws of decency that are derived from our religion in which had given us our knowledge and understanding in which helped us to formulate our laws in that we abide by to this very day.

So to you, "freedom of religion" is meaningless. Got it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

He said he wouldn’t join his company’s Bible study. After being let go, he’s suing.

A 34-year-old painter is suing Dahled Up Construction, a company based south of Portland, Ore., for allegedly firing him after he refused to join a Christian Bible group for employees. Ryan Coleman is seeking $800,000 from the company after its owner allegedly said participation in the Bible group was required if he wanted to keep his job.

Coleman told The Washington Post that when he explained to the company's owner, Joel Dahl, that he had different beliefs, Dahl said: "If you want to keep your job, everybody needs to attend. If not, I'm going to be forced to replace you."

He said he wouldn’t join his company’s Bible study. After being let go, he’s suing.

---------------------------------------

I hope he wins.

Sound like BS. He was probably jerking off on the job

 

[Penelope]

He said he wouldn’t join his company’s Bible study. After being let go, he’s suing.

A 34-year-old painter is suing Dahled Up Construction, a company based south of Portland, Ore., for allegedly firing him after he refused to join a Christian Bible group for employees. Ryan Coleman is seeking $800,000 from the company after its owner allegedly said participation in the Bible group was required if he wanted to keep his job.

Coleman told The Washington Post that when he explained to the company's owner, Joel Dahl, that he had different beliefs, Dahl said: "If you want to keep your job, everybody needs to attend. If not, I'm going to be forced to replace you."

He said he wouldn’t join his company’s Bible study. After being let go, he’s suing.

---------------------------------------

I hope he wins.

Sound like BS. He was probably jerking off on the job

wouldn't attend bible study. No it doesn't sound like BS, there are some real kooks out there.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

He said he wouldn’t join his company’s Bible study. After being let go, he’s suing.

A 34-year-old painter is suing Dahled Up Construction, a company based south of Portland, Ore., for allegedly firing him after he refused to join a Christian Bible group for employees. Ryan Coleman is seeking $800,000 from the company after its owner allegedly said participation in the Bible group was required if he wanted to keep his job.

Coleman told The Washington Post that when he explained to the company's owner, Joel Dahl, that he had different beliefs, Dahl said: "If you want to keep your job, everybody needs to attend. If not, I'm going to be forced to replace you."

He said he wouldn’t join his company’s Bible study. After being let go, he’s suing.

---------------------------------------

I hope he wins.

Sound like BS. He was probably jerking off on the job

wouldn't attend bible study. No it doesn't sound like BS, there are some real kooks out there.

It's absolute, total fiction! The company should countersue for Libel and slander

 

[BS Filter]

I don't believe all of the story. However, if the owner only wants to hire believers he should have that right.

he should have that right ...

does that mean to you that presently the employer does not have that right ... due to civil rights legislation over the last few decades.

I think if he only wants to hire believers then he should. If someone doesn't like it then go work somewhere else. It's his business.

.

I think if he only wants to hire believers then he should. If someone doesn't like it then go work somewhere else. It's his business.

If someone doesn't like it then go work somewhere else ...

well, in this case the worker did not like it and is suing the believer shouldn't he have the right to work for a living at his choice of location and not someone else's ...

you did not answer the previous question as to how the case pertains to present law.

No, the employee is either hired or not. The choice to hire anyone is up to the employer. Duh!!