pknopp
Diamond Member
- Jul 22, 2019
- 73,868
- 28,866
- 2,210
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.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
thats nonsenseCompany policy is not the same as private individual policy. She is no religious authority.
the lib lie being offered here is that she attempted to convince other employees to not wear the shirt
but that did not happen according to the information provided
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
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.
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.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
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 wish you would be as concerned with the squad, Kamala, and Maxine Waters as you are with Christians. Many subjective moral mandates are being crammed down everyone's throat. If you truly believe that morality must be up to the individual, you should probably speak out against your authoritarian pals.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.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
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.
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.
Yeah I know the guys started it with forcing a baker to bake a cake.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.
She was fired for saying the word « Jesus » after the shirt incident not beforeYou show us the actual quote that led to your rational line of reasoning.
NoShe called them out for doing so.
It's a coffee bar. Alcohol is not served at Starbucks. The Barista does not need to wear a "lezbo pride" shirt or otherwise humiliate herself for the entertainment of inveterate drunks who think they can sober up with a single-shot latte.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.
This is my official response:I wish you would be as concerned with the squad, Kamala, and Maxine Waters as you are with Christians. Many subjective moral mandates are being crammed down everyone's throat. If you truly believe that morality must be up to the individual, you should probably speak out against your authoritarian pals.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.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
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.
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.
That is not the actual quote just your special pleading paraphrase.She was fired for saying the word « Jesus » after the shirt incident not beforeYou show us the actual quote that led to your rational line of reasoning.
She should have adapted the t-shirt with large letters to read-That is not the actual quote just your special pleading paraphrase.She was fired for saying the word « Jesus » after the shirt incident not beforeYou show us the actual quote that led to your rational line of reasoning.
She was trying to proselytize.
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.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
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.
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.
She should have adapted the t-shirt with large letters to read-That is not the actual quote just your special pleading paraphrase.She was fired for saying the word « Jesus » after the shirt incident not beforeYou show us the actual quote that led to your rational line of reasoning.
She was trying to proselytize.
'Multinationals Should Pay The Same Taxes as Independents'.
Starbucks pays a fraction of the taxes in the UK that independents do.
How could she tefuse to wear the shirt withput saying why?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?But, the whole "everyone needs Jesus" shit is where she threw her neck on the block.
Only Starbucks says that she was harassing employees by saying the word “Jesus”She did say why. She told them it went against her religious beliefs. As far as Starbuck's was concerned, that was the end of it. Had she then simply shut the fuck up and gone back to work, she'd probably still have her job.