Pro-Life Nurse Suing Family Planning Center That Wouldn't Hire Her

page: 4
20
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Osiris1953

"That very well may be the case. It's her own mini-crusade. Whatever the case may be I'll stick with my sentiment that she is an obnoxious human being."

I think that she rides into battle with many more zealots.
Also, I think that calling her "obnoxious" is probably being generous on your part.




posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 02:16 PM
link   
Should pork processing plants be required to hire Muslims?

This is no different than a Muslim applying for a job at a pork processing plant, then suing when getting denied employment.

Refuse to do the job, they will refuse to hire you. Its simple and does not have anything to do with religion. Why should any company, in a free country, be required to hire anybody who will no do the job they are being hired for?

This is nothing more than a premeditated attempt to use the screwed up justice system in the US as a tool to cause financial harm to what this woman considers her enemy. She is wasting the courts time, and the companies money in this frivolous lawsuit.

I hope the case gets thrown out of court, and Ms. Hellwege is held responsible for ALL costs for the lawyers and court fees for both sides. Waste the court and the defendant's time, you pay for it.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
Thanks for the info. Why am I not surprised? You know, it wouldn't surprise me either if they sent her there.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 02:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: NavyDoc


If a gay man does not want to serve heterosexuals in a position that requires he do so, he should not be hired and he shouldn't be able to sue. If a heterosexual man applies for a job in a gay bar, he should not be able to sue if he refuses to serve homosexuals.


I agree 100% and I would similarly ridicule anyone alleging discrimination in those circumstances. I think the critical distinction can be made in that those represent people saying they won't do a job because of (whatever) as opposed to a prospective employer saying that (whatever) makes you incapable of doing the job.

People falsely allege all sorts of things and we don't just stop concerning ourselves about legitimate instances. I think you may just take issue with the legitimacy of discrimination as a wrong. Apply your reasoning to basically anything else, for example:

People falsely claim that they've been stolen from (all the time), does that mean that theft should be ignored?



If someone is stolen from that is a concrete and objective violation of one's right to property. The problem with discrimination is often very subjective. "How dare you belittle my sense of discrimination!" Very often one hears "you fired/didn't hire me because I'm (insert race, gender, religion, or whatever here) and even though they might not have been hired because their breath stank at the interview or they wore the wrong clothes or didn't score high enough on the test, were have raised discrimination claims (of certain protected classes anyway) on such a pedestal that unqualified people do get hired and untrustworthy unsafe people do get retained for fear of a lawsuit. UPS had to rehire a thief about 20 years ago because he claimed kleptomania as a disability under the ADA. American was forced to rehire pilots who were fired after flying passenger planes drunk as alcoholism was a "disability" under the ADA.

This is how ridiculous this system has become.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: NavyDoc
If you and your employees cannot come up with a mutually agreeable benefits package you should part ways and neither side should be coerced to do something they do not want to do.


Just FYI, Hobby Lobby DID cover Plan B and Ella, but dropped them when they decided to bring a lawsuit. So, women lost some of their coverage. In other words, the package they agreed on changed.

And as regards being coerced to do something they do not want to do, do you think the women WANT to be forced to find another job?





Would you want to work for someone who you think treats you unfairly?

Now, let's stick to the thread topic. There are a million of HL threads out there already.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   
a reply to: kaylaluv

"Well, a little money won't hurt anything,as long as you're fightin' for God and everything.

Damages to Plaintiff in the amount of $400,000;

www.adfmedia.org..."

Your point is well taken, but I think that this is a nuisance law suit with no chance of success, whatsoever.
I think that we are seeing the first wave of zealous battle cries spurred on by the Hobby Lobby ruling.
"God told me to sue!"



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 02:35 PM
link   
Employer: "So, you want a job in this call center eh?"
Me: "Yes, i want to sell you my soul for a half decent wage working on your customer service department.."
Employer: "You'll be expected to take around 40 calls a day, how does that sound?"
Me: "Im sorry i dont answer telephones"
Employer "...Well you cant work here then..."
Me: *LAWSUIT*

Ahaha! I love it! Cant wait to try this sh!t at my next interview!



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Diderot
a reply to: kaylaluv

"Well, a little money won't hurt anything,as long as you're fightin' for God and everything.

Damages to Plaintiff in the amount of $400,000;

www.adfmedia.org..."

Your point is well taken, but I think that this is a nuisance law suit with no chance of success, whatsoever.
I think that we are seeing the first wave of zealous battle cries spurred on by the Hobby Lobby ruling.
"God told me to sue!"



I humbly disagree. This sort of crap has been going on for a long time.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: SearchLightsInc
Ahaha! I love it! Cant wait to try this sh!t at my next interview!


Just make sure to say "It is against my religion" and it should work.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: HandyDandy

No i cant put in for a collection for Taminic because she's leaving to have her 6th child out of wedlock, its against my religion!



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

"I humbly disagree. This sort of crap has been going on for a long time."

I was going to Google "crap that has been going on for a long time", but I didn't want to sift through at least
850,000 pages of entries.



posted on Jul, 24 2014 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Diderot
a reply to: NavyDoc

"I humbly disagree. This sort of crap has been going on for a long time."

I was going to Google "crap that has been going on for a long time", but I didn't want to sift through at least
850,000 pages of entries.




Lol. Well played sir, well played. What I was trying to convey was that bull# lawsuits are not new and not
Limited to those evil Christians.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 08:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
What I was trying to convey was that bull# lawsuits are not new and not Limited to those evil Christians.


I don't think anyone is suggesting that. But the Hobby Lobby ruling has emboldened the religious right to use the legal system to try to force others to comply or defer to their religious views. Instead of practicing their religion in THEIR OWN lives (not taking birth control themselves), they are bringing lawsuits to force others to behave according to their beliefs or be punished.

And yes, Hobby Lobby is very pertinent to this thread, as it is the catalyst being used to bring up these frivolous lawsuits. We will see many more.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 09:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: NavyDoc
What I was trying to convey was that bull# lawsuits are not new and not Limited to those evil Christians.


I don't think anyone is suggesting that. But the Hobby Lobby ruling has emboldened the religious right to use the legal system to try to force others to comply or defer to their religious views. Instead of practicing their religion in THEIR OWN lives (not taking birth control themselves), they are bringing lawsuits to force others to behave according to their beliefs or be punished.

And yes, Hobby Lobby is very pertinent to this thread, as it is the catalyst being used to bring up these frivolous lawsuits. We will see many more.


And this is no different than atheist or PC frivolous lawsuits to harass and punish people they don't like. I'm not agreeing with this nurse because obviously this is a harassment lawsuit, but what I am trying to point out is that this is not just a Christian phenomenon--both sides of the religious issue use it and that this is the consequence of encouraging a litigious society where discrimination is found under every rock.

I've a good friend who is a lawyer in the UK and she spent a few years in the States and she was amazed at how often Americans sue for stupid stuff.

If we do not make our civil tort system more reasonable and lay off the "discrimination" witch hunts, then we should expect nonsense like this.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 09:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
And this is no different than atheist or PC frivolous lawsuits to harass and punish people they don't like.


Except that the Supreme Court of this country has ruled in FAVOR of letting religious people (and corporations) force their religious views on others. And there are three previous lawsuits brought by this same group that were successful. Nurses refusing to do their job because of their beliefs.

I'm not arguing that frivolous lawsuits don't happen. They do. But RELIGIOUS frivolous lawsuits are now being successful, simply because religion is involved.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 09:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: NavyDoc
And this is no different than atheist or PC frivolous lawsuits to harass and punish people they don't like.


Except that the Supreme Court of this country has ruled in FAVOR of letting religious people (and corporations) force their religious views on others. And there are three previous lawsuits brought by this same group that were successful. Nurses refusing to do their job because of their beliefs.

I'm not arguing that frivolous lawsuits don't happen. They do. But RELIGIOUS frivolous lawsuits are now being successful, simply because religion is involved.


Well, we are going to have to disagree on this one because to me, obviously, the SCOTUS decision was a rule in favor of the government not forcing things on religious people. The HL decision did not force religion on anyone--it just said an employer couldn't be forced to pay for something they objected to on religious grounds. I'm a fan of government not forcing people to do things, even if I think their cause is silly. Some people love to have the government to force people they don't like to do stuff they don't want to. However, IMHO, that is a bit short sighted because when you support this, you also give the government the power and precedent to force you to do something that you don't want to. I'd rather not give the state that sort of power just because I hate Christians. (I don't really, I don't care what they believe, it's just for an example.)

The SCOTUS decision had to do with federal law, it has nothing to do with Civil Lawsuits. The anti-discrimination lawsuit has been around for a long time and has been used by pro and anti religious people alike. What I see here are people getting upset because they dislike Christians, rather than being upset because the lawsuit is crap. The real answer is to reform our tort system to do away with crap like this, then it will go away. The problem is that you cannot stop frivolous lawsuits from people you hate, you have to stop them from everybody--even those people you like too.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 09:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc
... the SCOTUS decision was a rule in favor of the government not forcing things on religious people.


Fine. Why is it that religious people have an exemption? Why do they get special rights? Why must the rest of us follow the law and religious people don't have to? I don't want to pay for wars, but I'm SOL. I can be a conscientious objector so I, myself don't have to go to war, but as a citizen, I have to obey the law, regardless what it is. Why do religious people get an out? They are becoming a special class of citizen. THAT is my complaint, not frivolous lawsuits.



The problem is that you cannot stop frivolous lawsuits from people you hate, you have to stop them from everybody--even those people you like too.


I don't have a problem with the lawsuits. In fact, I think anyone should be able to bring a lawsuit for whatever reason. That's freedom. That's the downside of freedom.

I actually think this nurse's lawsuit has a good chance of being successful. Frivolity be damned! She's religious and should be treated specially. I think that's what's going to happen.



posted on Jul, 25 2014 @ 10:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: NavyDoc
... the SCOTUS decision was a rule in favor of the government not forcing things on religious people.


Fine. Why is it that religious people have an exemption? Why do they get special rights? Why must the rest of us follow the law and religious people don't have to? I don't want to pay for wars, but I'm SOL. I can be a conscientious objector so I, myself don't have to go to war, but as a citizen, I have to obey the law, regardless what it is. Why do religious people get an out? They are becoming a special class of citizen. THAT is my complaint, not frivolous lawsuits.



The problem is that you cannot stop frivolous lawsuits from people you hate, you have to stop them from everybody--even those people you like too.


I don't have a problem with the lawsuits. In fact, I think anyone should be able to bring a lawsuit for whatever reason. That's freedom. That's the downside of freedom.

I actually think this nurse's lawsuit has a good chance of being successful. Frivolity be damned! She's religious and should be treated specially. I think that's what's going to happen.

Well, the First Amendment says that Congress shall not make a law that restricts the free exercise of religion, so that is something that we are stuck with unless we amend or do away with the First Amendment. If you feel that is special privileges for religious people, so be it, but that is the law of the land at the moment. The problem is not that some religious people object to certain things, but that the government gets too involved in too many things way beyond the scope of its enumerated powers. If it would not be this large, all compassing entity, you wouldn't have such conflicts. If one wants government to micromanage our lives, cradle to grave, then you are going to see these issues pop up more and more frequently. Perhaps the real answer is to rein in government and have politicians mind their own damned business. If there are laws that religious people must get out of, perhaps the real problem is in the law, yes?


An employer should be able to hire or fire whomever they want without being sued. This lady would not have a case in a saner society and this case would have been laughed out of court a generation ago.


There you have it. If you want to live in a world were everyone can sue for anything, you're gonna have cases like this.





new topics
 
20
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join