It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Customer Claims Religious Discrimination - Company Refuses to Print Fliers.

page: 10
29
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 09:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Harvin

Ok fine let's quit going off topic.

Ok so why do you think that woman was discriminated against because of her religion?


I never said that she was discriminated because of her religion. I did not even imply it.
edit on 13-9-2015 by Harvin because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 09:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Harvin



I never said that she was discriminated because of her religion. I did not even imply it.


So your posts were for nothing?



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 09:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Harvin



I never said that she was discriminated because of her religion. I did not even imply it.


So your posts were for nothing?


Yes, for nothing if you do not understand their content.

Ironic that you would sit here on a public forum and post so aggressively in suppressing personal expression. Have you even thought for one second that there is a contradiction there?



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Harvin



Ironic that you would sit here on a public forum and post so aggressively in suppressing personal expression.


How am I doing that? Even if I was a mod I wouldn't be suppressing your posts.

Correcting others' misconceptions or disagreeing with others is not aggressively suppressing expression. This is called debate.

Ok now let's go back to the topic.



edit on 9/13/2015 by Deaf Alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 09:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Harvin



Ironic that you would sit here on a public forum and post so aggressively in suppressing personal expression.


How am I doing that? Even if I was a mod I wouldn't be suppressing your posts.

Correcting others' misconceptions or disagreeing with others is not aggressively suppressing expression. This is called debate.

Ok now let's go back to the topic.




This IS on topic.

You are supporting suppression of another persons right to print flyers. Do you have to agree with this person for him or her to print the flyers?

The Office Depot claimed (from what i read) she would have to print them herself as opposed to an employee printing them. Apparently there is no policy against her printing them.

Out of curiosity: How would you word such a policy?



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Harvin



Out of curiosity: How would you word such a policy?


Their word not mine.


Karen Denning, a spokeswoman for Office Depot, told The Tribune that company policy prohibits “the copying of any type of material that advocates any form of racial or religious discrimination or the persecution of certain groups of people. It also prohibits copying any type of copyrighted material.”

“The flier contained material that advocates the persecution of people who support abortion rights,” Ms. Denning said.



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Harvin

Apparently their policy was explained like this according to the lawyers.



Ms. Goldstein forwarded a copy of the flyer to her attention. Ms. Demma called her
back later in the day, and told her that "if it makes employees feel uncomfortable they don't have to
print something." She also stated that they are "working on a policy" for situations like this. No
satisfaction was offered to Ms. Goldstein for the refusal of service
link

Her lawyers claimed she was discriminated against for religious reasons which I think if it had gone to court it wouldn't have stuck, but we will never know now.


If you are not arguing that she was or wasn't discriminated against because of religion then what point are you trying to make that her own lawyers didn't even push?



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 10:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: Harvin
If you are not arguing that she was or wasn't discriminated against because of religion then what point are you trying to make that her own lawyers didn't even push?


Being against abortion is not only a religious view. Probably just as many non religious who do not support abortion. Her lawyers made that statement due to a part of the flier though. Judging by the discrimination that you, the OP and Windword display then I suppose it is entirely understandable.

And before you (and certain members) go crazy - I am agnostic, not an atheist though. I have to look at both sides and render a just decision.
edit on 13-9-2015 by Harvin because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Harvin



Being against abortion is not only a religious view. Probably just as many non religious who do not support abortion. Her lawyers made that statement due to a part of the flier though. Judging by the discrimination that you, the OP and Windword display then I suppose it is entirely understandable.


*scratches head*

You have a funny definition of discrimination.



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 10:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Harvin



Being against abortion is not only a religious view. Probably just as many non religious who do not support abortion. Her lawyers made that statement due to a part of the flier though. Judging by the discrimination that you, the OP and Windword display then I suppose it is entirely understandable.


*scratches head*

You have a funny definition of discrimination.


My definition comes from the first hit in the google search for the word "discrimination" and I am fine with it.



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Harvin

Then you must know that it wasn't discrimination? Policy that is for ALL customers is not discrimination.



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 10:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Harvin

Then you must know that it wasn't discrimination? Policy that is for ALL customers is not discrimination.


It was discrimination and is discrimination if they continue to refuse to print the fliers. I am sure they can find plenty of workers who would print the fliers. They may get terminated, if they feel intimidated due to getting terminated for printing a flier that is completely legal and breaks no laws then that is another matter and would be a shame.

So many are not aware that we owe many of our freedoms to Christians and particularly the Jehovahs Witnesses. You should read about it, you may get a little education though.



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 10:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Harvin



It was discrimination and is discrimination if they continue to refuse to print the fliers.

Well ok I'll leave you alone and let you live in your fantasy world.



So many are not aware that we owe many of our freedoms to Christians and particularly the Jehovahs Witnesses. You should read about it, you may get a little education though.


Um I've been a Christian for most of my life and my father was a pastor so no more education for me thanks.



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 10:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Harvin



It was discrimination and is discrimination if they continue to refuse to print the fliers.

Well ok I'll leave you alone and let you live in your fantasy world.



So many are not aware that we owe many of our freedoms to Christians and particularly the Jehovahs Witnesses. You should read about it, you may get a little education though.


Um I've been a Christian for most of my life and my father was a pastor so no more education for me thanks.


Irrelevant. This is reality and reality does not encompass what you like or do not like.

Already decided 70 years ago:

LINK



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Harvin

Your link has nothing to do with the topic. She was not denied the right to print fliers.



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 11:00 PM
link   
In furtherance of that:


In the United States, numerous cases involving Jehovah's Witnesses are now landmark decisions of First Amendment law. In all, Jehovah's Witnesses brought 23 separate First Amendment actions before the U.S. Supreme Court between 1938 and 1946. Supreme Court Justice Harlan Fiske Stone once quipped, "I think the Jehovah's Witnesses ought to have an endowment in view of the aid which they give in solving the legal problems of civil liberties."[22]


LINK



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 11:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Harvin

Ok? And? Christians and Jehovah Witnesses weren't the only ones who helped push for more freedom. Why are you telling me what I already know?



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Harvin

Your link has nothing to do with the topic. She was not denied the right to print fliers.


I am sorry about your dad and perhaps you are injecting personal experience but we do not base our laws on ones own hardships and personal experiences.

Nothing to do with the topic? She was denied service and made to feel like a second class citizen. This is text book discrimination, this defines discrimination.



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 11:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Harvin



Being against abortion is not only a religious view.


Never claimed it was.



Probably just as many non religious who do not support abortion.


Probably, but what's your point?




Her lawyers made that statement due to a part of the flier though.


I am pretty sure her lawyers claimed it was because it was a prayer. You read the link to her lawyer's letter that I provided right?

Did you miss this part when you read it?



you have unlawfully discriminated against Ms. Goldstein because of her religion and religious expression within the meaning of the Cook County Human Rights Ordinance and the Illinois Human Rights Act.





Judging by the discrimination that you, the OP and Windword display then I suppose it is entirely understandable.


Really?? Care to quote how I have shown any discrimination against her.

Feel free to quote it. If not I will just chalk it up to you making accusations blindly.




And before you (and certain members) go crazy - I am agnostic


I never asked nor do I care what you claim your affiliation may be.



I have to look at both sides and render a just decision.


Thought that was a judge's duty.

The question is per her lawyer's statement is, was she discriminated against because of her religion and religious expression because that is what they claim.



posted on Sep, 13 2015 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Harvin



She was denied service and made to feel like a second class citizen.


*sighs*

They deny service TO ALL. What part of it is so hard for you to understand?

This is like bakery.
If you make cakes for certain people but not others due to their religion that is discrimination.

Refusing to decorate cakes with offensive images and words is not discrimination.




top topics



 
29
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join