News

**Dire_effects** lop guest User ID: 97812 05-22-2012 04:58 PM

Seems to be just another attack on religion in the work place. Why because today on foxnews (http://www.foxnews.com) the plaintiff said as much.
She went to work with a jew orthodox firm and said they have no right to force their belifs on her outside of the Synagogue.
This is precisely the governments narrative on health care.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/201...s-schools/

(cointelpro)
http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/cointel.htm

These attacks on our sovereignty if allowed to continue because a case can be established because it can be made to seem reasonable will destroy all out rights.

This is the case.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6556649n

**ashesandsackcloth**

**Dire_effects** lop guest User ID: 97812 05-22-2012 05:08 PM

Now for those uber sensitive feminists.

This isn't about her. This is about the precedent this case will set.

Religions will not have the RIGHT anymore to set up a business that is friendly or caters to their beliefs anymore.

I do not think the woman is actually the important piece in this puzzle.

I think they are counting on feminist and white knights to come running to her aid. Establishing this precedent would make way for the health care precedents that they wish establish anyway.

This is illegal behavior before our very eyes.

**Dire_effects** lop guest User ID: 97812 05-22-2012 05:08 PM

ashesandsackcloth Wrote:

Thanks.

**ashesandsackcloth**

No need dude. We all see it coming. No tolerance for zelots of any type but humanist.

**Dire_effects** lop guest User ID: 97812 05-22-2012 05:14 PM

ashesandsackcloth Wrote:

No need dude. We all see it coming. No tolerance for zelots of any type but humanist.

Yeah. I suppose you're right.

It is blatantly obvious. I just hope we can get in front of this one.

It's not about liking a certain religion or pushing it.

It's about allowing for these freedoms to be maintained.

**LOPster Jesus** · (This post was last modified: 05-22-2012 05:17 PM by LOPster Jesus.)

Isn't it always the way. That's how they play this chess game, always five moves ahead. And they make damn sure their current moves don't make any sense until you are 20 moves out from it. What you said here is right on the money.

It is not about this trial at all, but what the trial will pave the way for Jhikpghf

Dire_effects Wrote:

Now for those uber sensitive feminists.

This isn't about her. This is about the precedent this case will set.

Religions will not have the RIGHT anymore to set up a business that is friendly or caters to their beliefs anymore.

I do not think the woman is actually the important piece in this puzzle.

I think they are counting on feminist and white knights to come running to her aid. Establishing this precedent would make way for the health care precedents that they wish establish anyway.

This is illegal behavior before our very eyes.

**LOPster Jesus**

Good call. The old saying still holds true "I may not like what you have to say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it". That is what this country was supposed to be founded on, it should be a right of every human to have their opinions without fear of persecution.
Dire_effects Wrote:

ashesandsackcloth Wrote:
No need dude. We all see it coming. No tolerance for zelots of any type but humanist.

Yeah. I suppose you're right.

It is blatantly obvious. I just hope we can get in front of this one.

It's not about liking a certain religion or pushing it.

It's about allowing for these freedoms to be maintained.

**Dire_effects** lop guest User ID: 97812 05-22-2012 05:19 PM

kettlnaut Wrote:

Good call. The old saying still holds true "I may not like what you have to say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it". That is what this country was supposed to be founded on, it should be a right of every human to have their opinions without fear of persecution.
Dire_effects Wrote:
ashesandsackcloth Wrote:
No need dude. We all see it coming. No tolerance for zelots of any type but humanist.

Yeah. I suppose you're right.

It is blatantly obvious. I just hope we can get in front of this one.

It's not about liking a certain religion or pushing it.

It's about allowing for these freedoms to be maintained.

Thank you for being on the side of liberty.

**akhenaten**

So what do you think about this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DNgGcy45...ature=plcp

Forcing anyone to sign anything by fear of consequence was supposed to be illegal...from what I remember. This kind of crap...and on a corporate level...is becoming more and more prevalent. I *do* believe that discrimination on an employer level is still illegal...so why all of this kind of traffic now? Scary indeed.

**Dire_effects** lop guest User ID: 97812 05-22-2012 05:27 PM

akhenaten Wrote:

So what do you think about this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DNgGcy45...ature=plcp

Forcing anyone to sign anything by fear of consequence was supposed to be illegal...from what I remember. This kind of crap...and on a corporate level...is becoming more and more prevalent. I *do* believe that discrimination on an employer level is still illegal...so why all of this kind of traffic now? Scary indeed.

I think that churches should not be forced to get 501© status to be tax exempt.

I think that if you do not like what a religious organization believes or pushes you are not forced to be there.

From what I can tell no one put a gun to the heads of these people.

And these document was more like a contract upholding what the school believes to be morally acceptable.

Nothing wrong with weeding people out that do not have the same moral code as the institution.

**akhenaten**

kettlnaut Wrote:

Good call. The old saying still holds true "I may not like what you have to say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it". That is what this country was supposed to be founded on, it should be a right of every human to have their opinions without fear of persecution.
Dire_effects Wrote:
ashesandsackcloth Wrote:
No need dude. We all see it coming. No tolerance for zelots of any type but humanist.

Yeah. I suppose you're right.

It is blatantly obvious. I just hope we can get in front of this one.

It's not about liking a certain religion or pushing it.

It's about allowing for these freedoms to be maintained.

Very well put...but this *has* to remain a two-way street. If by maintaining one group's rights, turn, negates the rights of others...then there is a major problem. There cannot be support for one if the many are losing their own rights. Sticky is an understatement.

**LOPster Jesus**

No doubt. Any contract entered or decision made that someone is meant to be held accountable for should be automatically null and void if the person is made to do so under duress of fear for their life. It works to get murderers off, should hold true for paper. Oh yeah but the pen is mightier than the sword in this kingdom so never mind chuckle

akhenaten Wrote:

So what do you think about this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DNgGcy45...ature=plcp

Forcing anyone to sign anything by fear of consequence was supposed to be illegal...from what I remember. This kind of crap...and on a corporate level...is becoming more and more prevalent. I *do* believe that discrimination on an employer level is still illegal...so why all of this kind of traffic now? Scary indeed.

**akhenaten**

Dire_effects Wrote:

akhenaten Wrote:
So what do you think about this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DNgGcy45...ature=plcp

Forcing anyone to sign anything by fear of consequence was supposed to be illegal...from what I remember. This kind of crap...and on a corporate level...is becoming more and more prevalent. I *do* believe that discrimination on an employer level is still illegal...so why all of this kind of traffic now? Scary indeed.

I think that churches should not be forced to get 501© status to be tax exempt.

I think that if you do not like what a religious organization believes or pushes you are not forced to be there.

I'm cool with that....make them pay taxes...they already push agendas (political and religious) from the pulpit..they should be taxed indeed. *But*, if by denying a person employment due to religious beliefs comes to the fore, I have an issue with it. Even if the organization is religious, they have no right to discriminate based on sex, race, creed or religious preference. Again, IMHO, that is why this issue is such a nasty one. Heartflowers

**Dire_effects** lop guest User ID: 97812 05-22-2012 05:36 PM

akhenaten Wrote:

kettlnaut Wrote:
Good call. The old saying still holds true "I may not like what you have to say but I will fight to the death for your right to say it". That is what this country was supposed to be founded on, it should be a right of every human to have their opinions without fear of persecution.
Dire_effects Wrote:
Yeah. I suppose you're right.

It is blatantly obvious. I just hope we can get in front of this one.

It's not about liking a certain religion or pushing it.

It's about allowing for these freedoms to be maintained.

Very well put...but this *has* to remain a two-way street. If by maintaining one group's rights, turn, negates the rights of others...then there is a major problem. There cannot be support for one if the many are losing their own rights. Sticky is an understatement.

I don't see it as a right for a person that does not share the values of a religion specific school to work there.

If this was a public or private non affiliated school I wold say this would be a dubious contract.

I do not see it as these people losing their rights, just the school maintaining their moral/ethical code of conduct.

It sucks maybe because they lost some very good teachers.

However I think that if they wish to teach their moral/ethics code in school as the parents sending these kids to this school must want, then they have a duty to ensure this happens.