Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I believe the guy should seek employment from someone else. No one made him take the job. No one is entitled to keep a job and anyone can be let go for any reason that isn't abusive in nature. I imagine having to attend most seminars would be far more painful than investing some time in a Bible Study.Not only should he win, but his former employer should be fined.
I would NEVER hire conservatives or evangelicals.
The fact that there are two possibilities does not mean they are both equally likely or believable.He might be telling the truth, he might not. Isn't that true?Right. And that is evidence. There may be more to it, maybe not. But you are refusing to even consider he might be telling the truth. That seems odd. We currently have no reason to think he’s lying. Why do you think he is, without any evidence?According to who? The disgruntled employee. You only have one side of the story.Ummm, there was a Bible study.I simply don't believe that he was fired because he wouldn't attend a bible study. You don't have any more evidence than I do..
Filter: I don't believe he was fired because he wouldn't participate in the bible study ...
I will say I would not participate in any bible study particularly when order to do so or lose my job however I have enough cushion to find another job were it necessary. we are talking about people that would not be able to pay their rent - and that I suppose is where you accuse me of being a leftist propaganda parrot because otherwise you prove again by your own refusal to discuss the specifics of the case to be simply irrational by claiming you do not believe the reason for the case without the liest bit of proof as your answer.
* it is the workers freedom of religion we are speaking about, filter - try and answer the subject matter and not your whims of derision.
He attended.
He stopped attending.
He was fired shortly after he stopped.
No other reason for his firing has been offered.
So that is evidence he was fired for non-attendance.
Is it conclusive evidence? No. Is it possible there was a legitimate reason? Yes.
But for now, the only evidence we have suggests that he was fired for refusing to attend the Bible study.
Civil rights are not up for a 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.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.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.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.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.
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.
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.
Civil rights should not be up to majority vote.
Sharia law isn't religion...it's law....it crosses the line into our law system which is separate (see: Separation of Church and State) You want to live your private life under any kind of sharia law of any kind of religion, fine...but it can't go against secular law.No, I'm saying that if you have freedom OF religion then sharia law should be allowed in the US, regardless of our laws.You equate all religion with law breaking or something that violates our laws ???So no freedom of religion then.Anything that violates our laws should not be allowed or acceptable. Period.Sharia violates a ton of our laws, but freedom of religion doesn’t set limits.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 ?
Good grief.
So...if I'm a veteran, and with the Reserves and apply for a job at your place, you can refuse to hire me based on my reserve obligations?You can't force a business owner to hire someone he doesn't want to. How absurd.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 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.
Not if the employer is covered by the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which this employer is if it has a minimum of 15 employees. The employee's religious beliefs have nothing to do with his ability to paint.
BTW: it is totally ridiculous to think that a person who was discharged for any reason, legal or illegal, would sit around and not find another job.
"Coleman has a past felony conviction and served a prison sentence for child neglect and for selling methamphetamine."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.
No, not based on your reserve obligations. However, I'm not going to hire you, and that's my right.So...if I'm a veteran, and with the Reserves and apply for a job at your place, you can refuse to hire me based on my reserve obligations?You can't force a business owner to hire someone he doesn't want to. How absurd.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 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.
Not if the employer is covered by the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which this employer is if it has a minimum of 15 employees. The employee's religious beliefs have nothing to do with his ability to paint.
BTW: it is totally ridiculous to think that a person who was discharged for any reason, legal or illegal, would sit around and not find another job.
Actually, it isn't.....you would be breaking the law.No, not based on your reserve obligations. However, I'm not going to hire you, and that's my right.So...if I'm a veteran, and with the Reserves and apply for a job at your place, you can refuse to hire me based on my reserve obligations?You can't force a business owner to hire someone he doesn't want to. How absurd.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.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.
Not if the employer is covered by the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which this employer is if it has a minimum of 15 employees. The employee's religious beliefs have nothing to do with his ability to paint.
BTW: it is totally ridiculous to think that a person who was discharged for any reason, legal or illegal, would sit around and not find another job.
The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, known as USERRA, prohibits employers from discriminating against service members "on the basis of that membership, application for membership, performance of service, application for service, or obligation." Employers cannot refuse to hire, re-employ, retain or promote, or deny any benefits of employment because of a person's military duty.
He was fired. People that are fired often twist the facts. There's plenty of evidence on that. That's why there is going to be a trial.The fact that there are two possibilities does not mean they are both equally likely or believable.He might be telling the truth, he might not. Isn't that true?Right. And that is evidence. There may be more to it, maybe not. But you are refusing to even consider he might be telling the truth. That seems odd. We currently have no reason to think he’s lying. Why do you think he is, without any evidence?According to who? The disgruntled employee. You only have one side of the story.Ummm, there was a Bible study.I simply don't believe that he was fired because he wouldn't attend a bible study. You don't have any more evidence than I do.
He attended.
He stopped attending.
He was fired shortly after he stopped.
No other reason for his firing has been offered.
So that is evidence he was fired for non-attendance.
Is it conclusive evidence? No. Is it possible there was a legitimate reason? Yes.
But for now, the only evidence we have suggests that he was fired for refusing to attend the Bible study.
We know for a fact that the company has required Bible study sessions.
“Required” implies consequences for non-attendance.
The known facts support his story. Nothing known contradicts it. Is it possible he’s lying? Sure. But there’s no reason to think he is.
Therefore, it makes sense to conditionally accept his claims, until/unless strong contradictory evidence comes to light.
What evidence do you have that he’s lying?
So you think that Muslims should have sharia law in the US?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.We need freedom FROM religion.
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.
Yes, some people lie about why they were fired. The question is why you think this particular person is lying. Unless your claim is that ALL people lie.He was fired. People that are fired often twist the facts. There's plenty of evidence on that. That's why there is going to be a trial.The fact that there are two possibilities does not mean they are both equally likely or believable.He might be telling the truth, he might not. Isn't that true?Right. And that is evidence. There may be more to it, maybe not. But you are refusing to even consider he might be telling the truth. That seems odd. We currently have no reason to think he’s lying. Why do you think he is, without any evidence?According to who? The disgruntled employee. You only have one side of the story.Ummm, there was a Bible study.
He attended.
He stopped attending.
He was fired shortly after he stopped.
No other reason for his firing has been offered.
So that is evidence he was fired for non-attendance.
Is it conclusive evidence? No. Is it possible there was a legitimate reason? Yes.
But for now, the only evidence we have suggests that he was fired for refusing to attend the Bible study.
We know for a fact that the company has required Bible study sessions.
“Required” implies consequences for non-attendance.
The known facts support his story. Nothing known contradicts it. Is it possible he’s lying? Sure. But there’s no reason to think he is.
Therefore, it makes sense to conditionally accept his claims, until/unless strong contradictory evidence comes to light.
What evidence do you have that he’s lying?
Read my post again. I don't have to hire you or give you a reason why I didn't hire you. If you believe I didn't hire you because you're a veteran, then take me to court and prove it.Actually, it isn't.....you would be breaking the law.No, not based on your reserve obligations. However, I'm not going to hire you, and that's my right.So...if I'm a veteran, and with the Reserves and apply for a job at your place, you can refuse to hire me based on my reserve obligations?You can't force a business owner to hire someone he doesn't want to. How absurd.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.
Not if the employer is covered by the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which this employer is if it has a minimum of 15 employees. The employee's religious beliefs have nothing to do with his ability to paint.
BTW: it is totally ridiculous to think that a person who was discharged for any reason, legal or illegal, would sit around and not find another job.
The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, known as USERRA, prohibits employers from discriminating against service members "on the basis of that membership, application for membership, performance of service, application for service, or obligation." Employers cannot refuse to hire, re-employ, retain or promote, or deny any benefits of employment because of a person's military duty.
It's a gut feeling based on intelligence and experience. Isn't that why they're having a trial, to find out if what he claims is true or a lie?Yes, some people lie about why they were fired. The question is why you think this particular person is lying. Unless your claim is that ALL people lie.He was fired. People that are fired often twist the facts. There's plenty of evidence on that. That's why there is going to be a trial.The fact that there are two possibilities does not mean they are both equally likely or believable.He might be telling the truth, he might not. Isn't that true?Right. And that is evidence. There may be more to it, maybe not. But you are refusing to even consider he might be telling the truth. That seems odd. We currently have no reason to think he’s lying. Why do you think he is, without any evidence?According to who? The disgruntled employee. You only have one side of the story.
We know for a fact that the company has required Bible study sessions.
“Required” implies consequences for non-attendance.
The known facts support his story. Nothing known contradicts it. Is it possible he’s lying? Sure. But there’s no reason to think he is.
Therefore, it makes sense to conditionally accept his claims, until/unless strong contradictory evidence comes to light.
What evidence do you have that he’s lying?
."Coleman has a past felony conviction and served a prison sentence for child neglect and for selling methamphetamine."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.
Sounds like a real winner and of course, a Democrat.
"Coleman has a past felony conviction and served a prison sentence for child neglect and for selling methamphetamine. xxxxx"
Sounds like a real winner and of course, a Democrat.
Coleman has a past felony conviction and served a prison sentence for child neglect and for selling methamphetamine. But he's been sober for years and recently won custody of his 10- and 14-year-old sons.
Sounds like a real winner and of course, a Democrat.
That's the real agenda here, isn't it. Attacking Christianity.."Coleman has a past felony conviction and served a prison sentence for child neglect and for selling methamphetamine."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.
Sounds like a real winner and of course, a Democrat.
"Coleman has a past felony conviction and served a prison sentence for child neglect and for selling methamphetamine. xxxxx"
Sounds like a real winner and of course, a Democrat.
Coleman has a past felony conviction and served a prison sentence for child neglect and for selling methamphetamine. But he's been sober for years and recently won custody of his 10- and 14-year-old sons.
xxxxx - did you deliberately leave out the full paragraph, it must have frightened you ... also (recently won custody) is not easily accomplished is done through the courts and is a clear indication of an honest person hopping to hold down a job.
Sounds like a real winner and of course, a Democrat.
no doubt you are a 4th century christian, likewise fearing the true religion of honesty and integrity.
