Starbucks sacks woman who refused to wear pride shirt

[2aguy]

Christian barista files lawsuit against Starbucks, claiming she was forced to wear a rainbow t-shirt

A Christian barista has filed a lawsuit against Starbucks, claiming she was fired after refusing to wear a rainbow Pride t-shirt.

www.pinknews.co.uk

She is suing the coffee chain for her hurt snowflake feelings. How long is this nonsense going to drag on for before the forces of darkness learn to respect their fellow man.

If the forces of darkness would stop persecuting people who don't sign on to the gay agenda, it would end pretty quickly......

 

[Canon Shooter]

But, the whole "everyone needs Jesus" shit is where she threw her neck on the block.

How could she tefuse to wear the shirt withput saying why?

they pushed her to use Liberish profanity by uttering “Jesus” and then fired her for saying it

How did they "push" her to do anything?

 

[Canon Shooter]

Only Starbucks says that she was harassing employees by saying the word “Jesus”

And their opinion is really the only one that matters.

Starbuck's anti-discrimination policy is pretty clear (whether you agree with it or not is another matter):

https://globalassets.starbucks.com/assets/261b1daeb66b493d9e6758cdd720cb5c.pdf

If the girl was walking around telling people they need to find Jesus (and that appears to be the case), then she ran afoul of established norms at Starbuck's and, as such, was subject to however Starbuck's decided to handle it.

Again, she should've just shut the fuck up...

 

[Canon Shooter]

However, it is interesting not how Starbucks promotes homosexuality, but how they crack down even on lowly members of their staff that refuse to toe the line and genuflect to their ideology of pederasty.

She said they didn't want to wear the shirt. They said she didn't have to wear the shirt.

Doesn't sound like she was toeing the line to me...

 

[Canon Shooter]

She’s about to get a nice paycheck as she has every right to refuse wearing the shirt and Starbucks should’ve accommodated her views.

They did exactly that...

 

[Canon Shooter]

That employee was "proselytizing" and raised an ethical concern.

The company proselytized to her first by telling her to wear the shirt

and she explained why to the KGB agent who called

Company policy is not the same as private individual policy. She is no religious authority.

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.

It is not about religious beliefs but about equality and equal protection of the laws.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

As an employer you are not allowed to discriminate against race, skin color, sexual preference or religion. Starbucks was forcing to do something she was not hired or required at the time she was hired. They are discriminating against her and singling her out. The question is what was her part and at this point the story is unclear.

They said she didn't have to wear the fucking shirt.

What else should they have done?

 

[Canon Shooter]

View attachment 422210

Some of the nastiest, most vile people I've ever encountered have been Christians...

 

[Mac-7]

How did they "push" her to do anything?

By attacking her religious beliefs

if you know god hating liberals you know they love to mock Christians

 

[Mac-7]

If the girl was walking around telling people they need to find Jesus (and that appears to be the case),

She said nothing about Jesus till Starbucks tried to make her wear the shirt

so the company was harassing her

 

[Mac-7]

They said she didn't have to wear the fucking shirt.

Do you really think the godless butt-fucking liberals who worked on her shift were cool with her not wearing the shirt when they were all proud advocates for sexual confusion?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Only Starbucks says that she was harassing employees by saying the word “Jesus”

And their opinion is really the only one that matters.

Starbuck's anti-discrimination policy is pretty clear (whether you agree with it or not is another matter):

https://globalassets.starbucks.com/assets/261b1daeb66b493d9e6758cdd720cb5c.pdf

If the girl was walking around telling people they need to find Jesus (and that appears to be the case), then she ran afoul of established norms at Starbuck's and, as such, was subject to however Starbuck's decided to handle it.

Again, she should've just shut the fuck up...

Anti discrimination? Bwaaaahhhaaaaaa.....Maybe the store did the right thing, but the employee was sure an idiot...

Starbucks employee fired for writing ‘Defund the police’ on drink order

A Starbucks employee in Houston has been fired after writing the message “Defund the police” on a customer’s order, according to a report. Photos of the three drinks — which had l…

nypost.com

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

View attachment 422210

Some of the nastiest, most vile people I've ever encountered have been Christians...

Even Christians can only take so much from the followers of Lucifer.

 

[danielpalos]

That employee was "proselytizing" and raised an ethical concern.

The company proselytized to her first by telling her to wear the shirt

and she explained why to the KGB agent who called

Company policy is not the same as private individual policy. She is no religious authority.

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.

It is not about religious beliefs but about equality and equal protection of the laws.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

As an employer you are not allowed to discriminate against race, skin color, sexual preference or religion. Starbucks was forcing to do something she was not hired or required at the time she was hired. They are discriminating against her and singling her out. The question is what was her part and at this point the story is unclear.

I agree to disagree. The subjective value of morals must be personal for an individual. Management policy was not illegal. Equality through equal protection of the laws is guaranteed in our several Constitutions.

She was proselytizing and management needed a good excuse. For comparison and contrast, that employee could have worked at some other store that day or out of site of customers for the duration.

If she was proselytizing, I would agree, however that is Starbucks side. If they asked her to wear a shirt, and that was the reason for the firing, then the employer has no right and it has no relation to equal protection. The right of religious freedom is paramount in this case.

Did you read the article?

 

[danielpalos]

Christian barista files lawsuit against Starbucks, claiming she was forced to wear a rainbow t-shirt

A Christian barista has filed a lawsuit against Starbucks, claiming she was fired after refusing to wear a rainbow Pride t-shirt.

www.pinknews.co.uk

She is suing the coffee chain for her hurt snowflake feelings. How long is this nonsense going to drag on for before the forces of darkness learn to respect their fellow man.

If the forces of darkness would stop persecuting people who don't sign on to the gay agenda, it would end pretty quickly......

Only the Right Wing has a problem with the Law.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

 

[danielpalos]

How did they "push" her to do anything?

By attacking her religious beliefs

if you know god hating liberals you know they love to mock Christians

Only when they complain about taxes because they are not moral enough to bear true witness to Ten simple Commandments.

Ten simple Commandments from God not the Expense of Government on Earth!

 

[Papageorgio]

That employee was "proselytizing" and raised an ethical concern.

The company proselytized to her first by telling her to wear the shirt

and she explained why to the KGB agent who called

Company policy is not the same as private individual policy. She is no religious authority.

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.

It is not about religious beliefs but about equality and equal protection of the laws.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

As an employer you are not allowed to discriminate against race, skin color, sexual preference or religion. Starbucks was forcing to do something she was not hired or required at the time she was hired. They are discriminating against her and singling her out. The question is what was her part and at this point the story is unclear.

I agree to disagree. The subjective value of morals must be personal for an individual. Management policy was not illegal. Equality through equal protection of the laws is guaranteed in our several Constitutions.

She was proselytizing and management needed a good excuse. For comparison and contrast, that employee could have worked at some other store that day or out of site of customers for the duration.

If she was proselytizing, I would agree, however that is Starbucks side. If they asked her to wear a shirt, and that was the reason for the firing, then the employer has no right and it has no relation to equal protection. The right of religious freedom is paramount in this case.

Did you read the article?

Yes, did you?

 

[danielpalos]

That employee was "proselytizing" and raised an ethical concern.

The company proselytized to her first by telling her to wear the shirt

and she explained why to the KGB agent who called

Company policy is not the same as private individual policy. She is no religious authority.

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.

It is not about religious beliefs but about equality and equal protection of the laws.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

As an employer you are not allowed to discriminate against race, skin color, sexual preference or religion. Starbucks was forcing to do something she was not hired or required at the time she was hired. They are discriminating against her and singling her out. The question is what was her part and at this point the story is unclear.

I agree to disagree. The subjective value of morals must be personal for an individual. Management policy was not illegal. Equality through equal protection of the laws is guaranteed in our several Constitutions.

She was proselytizing and management needed a good excuse. For comparison and contrast, that employee could have worked at some other store that day or out of site of customers for the duration.

If she was proselytizing, I would agree, however that is Starbucks side. If they asked her to wear a shirt, and that was the reason for the firing, then the employer has no right and it has no relation to equal protection. The right of religious freedom is paramount in this case.

Did you read the article?

Yes, did you?

Of course, why do you believe I reached the conclusion I did?

 

[Papageorgio]

That employee was "proselytizing" and raised an ethical concern.

The company proselytized to her first by telling her to wear the shirt

and she explained why to the KGB agent who called

Company policy is not the same as private individual policy. She is no religious authority.

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.

It is not about religious beliefs but about equality and equal protection of the laws.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

As an employer you are not allowed to discriminate against race, skin color, sexual preference or religion. Starbucks was forcing to do something she was not hired or required at the time she was hired. They are discriminating against her and singling her out. The question is what was her part and at this point the story is unclear.

I agree to disagree. The subjective value of morals must be personal for an individual. Management policy was not illegal. Equality through equal protection of the laws is guaranteed in our several Constitutions.

She was proselytizing and management needed a good excuse. For comparison and contrast, that employee could have worked at some other store that day or out of site of customers for the duration.

If she was proselytizing, I would agree, however that is Starbucks side. If they asked her to wear a shirt, and that was the reason for the firing, then the employer has no right and it has no relation to equal protection. The right of religious freedom is paramount in this case.

Did you read the article?

Yes, did you?

Of course, why do you believe I reached the conclusion I did?

We shall see, it will go to court, like I said if it is what she claims, she will win on grounds of religious discrimination and if Starbucks wins it will be on grounds that she was proselytizing.

When I owned my business, religion and politics were two subjects that were off limits for me and my employees while on my clock. I did not want to get sued over such silliness. That is why my company would never have such stupid t-shirts.

 

[BS Filter]

Christian barista files lawsuit against Starbucks, claiming she was forced to wear a rainbow t-shirt

A Christian barista has filed a lawsuit against Starbucks, claiming she was fired after refusing to wear a rainbow Pride t-shirt.

www.pinknews.co.uk

She is suing the coffee chain for her hurt snowflake feelings. How long is this nonsense going to drag on for before the forces of darkness learn to respect their fellow man.

If the forces of darkness would stop persecuting people who don't sign on to the gay agenda, it would end pretty quickly......

Only the Right Wing has a problem with the Law.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Yes, citizens, not illegal immigrants.

 

[BS Filter]

I love Starbucks coffee, but I hate their business.