Sure, as long as you must consider my opinions the equivalent to the "gospel Truth" from now on even though I am not on the Right Wing. Do you agree?I have read itYou need to read the article again. I am merely paraphrasing.
quote the evidence if you can
I thought you were going to come back with something strongerSure, as long as you must consider my opinions the equivalent to the "gospel Truth" from now on even though I am not on the Right Wing. Do you agree?I have read itYou need to read the article again. I am merely paraphrasing.
quote the evidence if you can
Hell, at Starbucks, you could get fired for just saying the word Christmas. Nazis gotta Nazi.It does not say thatFellow employees.
Any convenient excuse may do; she was proselytizing.I thought you were going to come back with something strongerSure, as long as you must consider my opinions the equivalent to the "gospel Truth" from now on even though I am not on the Right Wing. Do you agree?I have read itYou need to read the article again. I am merely paraphrasing.
quote the evidence if you can
such as this:
According to the lawsuit, on 22 August last year Fresse was told that she had lost her job because “her comportment was not in compliance with Starbucks’ core values” referencing that she had told her co-workers who did wear the t-shirt that they “need Jesus”.
Yes he did a word that when translated into Liberish is a profanity
- « Jesus »
but only after libs demanded to know why she wont wear the shirt
She was notAny convenient excuse may do; she was proselytizing.
A business cannot force its beliefs on others. A Christian company cannot force its social beliefs on an individual. Nor can a Starbucks force its social beliefs on an individual.Company policy is not the same as private individual policy. She is no religious authority.The company proselytized to her first by telling her to wear the shirtThat employee was "proselytizing" and raised an ethical concern.
and she explained why to the KGB agent who called
You are a moron.Sure, as long as you must consider my opinions the equivalent to the "gospel Truth" from now on even though I am not on the Right Wing. Do you agree?I have read itYou need to read the article again. I am merely paraphrasing.
quote the evidence if you can
You omit the part where she was proselytizing.She was notAny convenient excuse may do; she was proselytizing.
she was defending her refusal to wear a tee shirt glorifying perverts
It is not about religious beliefs but about equality and equal protection of the laws.A business cannot force its beliefs on others. A Christian company cannot force its social beliefs on an individual. Nor can a Starbucks force its social beliefs on an individual.Company policy is not the same as private individual policy. She is no religious authority.The company proselytized to her first by telling her to wear the shirtThat employee was "proselytizing" and raised an ethical concern.
and she explained why to the KGB agent who called
You have no "gospel Truth" with me simply because you are on the right wing; it means you automatically have nothing but right wing fantasy.You are a moron.Sure, as long as you must consider my opinions the equivalent to the "gospel Truth" from now on even though I am not on the Right Wing. Do you agree?I have read itYou need to read the article again. I am merely paraphrasing.
quote the evidence if you can
She did not utter the word Jesus till they tried to force her to wear the shirtYou omit the part where she was proselytizing.
Not what the article states.She did not utter the word Jesus till they tried to force her to wear the shirtYou omit the part where she was proselytizing.
If she was running around waving a Bible and invoking Jesus as you claim she would have been fired BEFORE the shirt incident.Not what the article states.
Not what the article states. Just gossip, hearsay and soothsay is all you have.If she was running around waving a Bible and invoking Jesus as you claim she would have been fired BEFORE the shirt incident.Not what the article states.
her religion was not an issue till she refused to wear the shirt promoting sexual confusion
The article says she was fired for mentioning Jesus AFTER the shirt incidentNot what the article states. Just gossip, hearsay and soothsay is all you have.
Care to cite the actual quote instead of you filtering your paraphrasing through right wing fantasy?The article says she was fired for mentioning Jesus AFTER the shirt incidentNot what the article states. Just gossip, hearsay and soothsay is all you have.
not before
so the godless libs opened the conversation about religion not her
I asked you for an actual quote and you never provided oneCare to cite the actual quote instead of you filtering your paraphrasing through right wing fantasy?
You show us the actual quote that led to your rational line of reasoning.I asked you for an actual quote and you never provided oneCare to cite the actual quote instead of you filtering your paraphrasing through right wing fantasy?
read the article
she was not fired until after the shirt incident
so you figure it out
