by Kenneson 127 Replies latest jw friends
I concur FULLY with EVERYTHING johnny has stated in this thread.
That's not surprising. You both tend to foam at the mouth with sickening regularity. I shudder to think at how many JWs went running back to "mother" after reading some of the rabid shit you and johnny cip spew forth.
W
When are the jws who still post here going to stand up and tell their fellow members all the lies that they keep learning from all us apostates?? ------sKally
So, now you are turning your rage on jws who post here? so because I haven't told my family I don't believe, I am responsible for the children who are at risk... right now?
itsallgoodnow, sKally is a good example of why Witnesses think apostates are all frothing-at-the-mouth nutbars. He/she has verbally bashed anyone on here (like Gumby) who got reinstated for his family, because sKally feel that Gumby should have committed suicide instead. The fact that sKally supports the disgusting comments that johnny cip made about the Witnesses on this thread (including the sick notion that Hitler had been "too soft on them" shows you their mentality and it's not any different than the way Witnesses view us.
yes. you are probably right, Mary. I don't come here so often anymore, not because of anyone on this forum, just because I don't really need it so often anymore and being on here all the time isn't really good for me. so I can say I don't know them, don't recognize their names, or anything.
as for skally, he/she/whatever seems to feel that anyone who hasn't "come out" and gotten themselves disfellowshipped on purpose isn't worthy of being on this forum. I think that's crap.
The attitudes these two have says to me that the JWs won both the battle and the war in their lives. That's too bad. I don't want to end up like that.
I'm siding with the company here. While I don't think it's right to force someone to violate their religious beliefs, if you look at the article they claim she didn't even tell them it was for religious purposes.
" Razzoo's said it disagreed with the suit and said it did not fire Ms. Balentine. A spokeswoman said Ms. Balentine never told the restaurant about her concerns."
Based on my experience with JW's she more than likely outright refused to sing Happy Birthday and the manager told her to do her job or get out. I'm guessing she go out, and claimed unfair dismissal.
Persecution complex all the way.
Just for everyone's information:
THIS IS THE F***ING UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND YOU CANNOT FIRE SOMEONE BECAUSE OF THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. YOU MAY NOT LIKE IT, BUT THIS IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY YOU CAN SAY, YOU DO NOT LIKE IT.
Warlock
THIS IS THE F***ING UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND YOU CANNOT FIRE SOMEONE BECAUSE OF THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. YOU MAY NOT LIKE IT, BUT THIS IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY YOU CAN SAY, YOU DO NOT LIKE IT.
I agree with Warlock. While I personally don't like a dub being able to sue a fomer employer and shudder to think of all the gloating the WTS is pouring out over this. You can't allow this sort of thing to happen. One person gets fired for not singing Happy Birthday and their boss gets away with it, what happens? Pretty soon more people are being dismissed over religious beliefs with each case getting worse. That's why there are freedom of speech and anti-discrimination laws in place to begin with.
THIS IS THE.....UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND YOU CANNOT FIRE SOMEONE BECAUSE OF THEIR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
True. No one can be terminated because of their religious beliefs.
People can be terminated because of their conduct even when that conduct occurs as a result of their religious beliefs though, but the circumstances where you can do this in the U.S. are extremely limited.
The employer must be able to show that the objectionable duty is a primary and indispensible part of the job, that the job cannot be performed apart from this duty, and that it is not something that can readily be performed by other employees.
In other words, although the employer is willing, even desirous of being flexible, it's just not physically possible. For example, an air traffic controller hired to work a Saturday shift could be terminated if they subsequently refused to work on Saturday for religious reasons.
If this young lady had been hired as a singer and she was the only person in the entire establishment hired for that purpose then the situation would probably be different. But that doesn't appear to be what happened. This appears to be one of those establishments where the singing was a secondary job function performed by two or three of the hospitality staff when they were not busy with their primary responsibility --taking orders and serving food.
LOL! Silly for people to be arguing about this, IMO.
I just wanted to note that I've been to that exact Razoo's a number of times. I wonder if a JW could sue them if they happen to be there when they sing Happy Birthday to some other patron, for, you know, infringing upon their religious sensitivities? Maybe I'll ask the manager next time I'm in there. I'm sure we'll all share a hearty laugh at that.
I wonder if a JW could sue them if they happen to be there when they sing Happy Birthday to some other patron, for, you know, infringing upon their religious sensitivities?
That's not even remotely close to being the same thing--strawman if I've ever read one!
John Doe
Dude, relax. I wasn't exactly comparing the two.
