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.

 

Tow Truck Driver Leaves Victim on Side of Road Because "Religion"?

page: 25
37
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2016 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

What does any of that have to do with whether you know what the disability act is? You apparently don't know what it is because that act protects you from being discriminated against because you are disabled. That is not what this Tow Truck driver did. For you to think using that act is even a possibility shows you have a gross ignorance of what the disability act is and how it is used.

If you do indeed know what it is then you are just being intentionally dense, which is the absolute worst.

All the Tow Truck Owner is guilty of is being a huge jerk.




posted on May, 6 2016 @ 06:54 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko




A Poster came in expecting to see that an injured person had been left on the roadside. Why? Because the word VICTIM, when about a person, implies physical injury.


LOL


And......TOW TRUCK, not AMBULANCE implies auto accident.
English! It's not that hard!




edit on 6-5-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 06:55 PM
link   
I just saw this on tv, as a Trump supporter I thought the guy was lame for that. Seriously, how many Bernie supporters could have possibly Berned him ? lol..........stupid guy, if he was nice then maybe she would have thought about considering Trump, lead by example people. He was just trying to make a point. Lame



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 06:57 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

You fail yet again. Tow Trucks are called to fatal accidents all the time guy.

For all the title shows, the tow truck came upon and accident happenstance and decided to leave a victim there.

Any high school graduate who passed English would have grasped this by now.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 07:00 PM
link   
actually, she might possibly able to nail him based on discrimination because of her disability.
he had no clear policy at the time stating that he would deny her service for any other reason, and the reason he gives is kind of unbelievable and based on his religious views. he also says that he thinks there's plenty of non-disabled people on disability, which possibly could be interpreted as contempt.
but, then since he brought his religious views into the picture, maybe she could say she was discriminated because of HER religious views... all she would have to say is that ya, she was supporting a democratic candidate because she just can't bring herself to support a party that is so lacking in compassion towards people. and, well, want proof as to their lack of compassion?? it is right there for all to see!



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

When was the last time you heard about a tow truck driver being called to pick up bloody bodies?



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

It's too late. She gave an interview and said nothing of discrimination against her disability. If she had felt she was discriminated against because if it she would have made that clear.

It seems he (the driver) made it extremely clear to her the only reason he was refusing service is because she was voting for Bernie.

He also told the paper he had no idea she was disabled and she did not deny that, so apparently that did NOT come up.

He also does not NEED a policy stating he can refuse service. It's a federal law. It's implied with all business.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 07:04 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar




actually, she might possibly able to nail him based on discrimination because of her disability.


Yep. Also, he stupidly said, "Just because she's collecting disability doesn't mean she's disabled". (Judge and jury!)

And he hemmed and hawed about he didn't see her disability placard that was clearly displayed. He hiding behind religion to avoid charges of discrimination based on her disability.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: dawnstar
. . . actually, she might possibly able to nail him based on discrimination because of her disability.


Her side says he was notified, prior to him coming out, that it was a disabled person.

If that can be proven, its POSSIBLE there might be a case.

But, again I DON'T KNOW.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 07:06 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko




He also does not NEED a policy stating he can refuse service. It's a federal law.


Citation please.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 07:09 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

no, he said that god told him to leave her there because of her supporting a democratic candidate. he has made statements also, and has made this claim. so he is discriminating against her because they have different moral/religious views...which she doesn't believe that God is offended by her support of the candidate she supports..
If I wouldn't be allowed to deny a service to a christian because religion is protected, then her religious/moral views are also protected to an equal extent.
he's denying her service, and her religious views are protected.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 07:12 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

The courts would not agree with you.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 07:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: dawnstar




actually, she might possibly able to nail him based on discrimination because of her disability.


Yep. Also, he stupidly said, "Just because she's collecting disability doesn't mean she's disabled". (Judge and jury!)



I hope he keeps on talking.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 07:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: dawnstar

The courts would not agree with you.


You a lawyer?

Work in the legal field?



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Surely you can't be serious...

The ability for private owners to refuse the right to anyone as they see fit is why we got the Civil Rights Act and the Disability Act. So you can refuse service to anyone for any reason, as long as it isn't one of those reasons and it is consistent.
edit on 6-5-2016 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 07:17 PM
link   


f there’s an anti-discrimination law, does that mean that a business can never refuse service to a member of a group that is protected from discrimination?

The answer is that you can refuse to serve someone even if they’re in a protected group, but the refusal can’t be arbitrary and you can’t apply it to just one group of people.

To avoid being arbitrary, there must be a reason for refusing service and you must be consistent. There could be a dress code to maintain a sense of decorum, or fire code restrictions on how many people can be in your place of business at one time, or a policy related to the health and safety of your customers and employees. But you can’t just randomly refuse service to someone because you don’t like the way they look or dress.

Second, you must apply your policy to everyone. For example, you can’t turn away a black person who’s not wearing a tie and then let in a tieless white man. You also can’t have a policy that sounds like it applies to everyone but really just excludes one particular group of people. So, for example, a policy against wearing headscarves in a restaurant would probably be discriminatory against Muslims.

www.legalzoom.com...



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Annee

Why do you have to be in a legal field to know all about discrimination laws? I am a director at a large company. I have to be extremely familiar with discrimination laws. Nobody was discriminated against. The law is very clear on what constitutes discrimination under the Disability Act and the Civil Rights Act.

The only way for this to become an issue is if someone follows the tow truck driver to see if he provides service to another vehicle that has a Feel the Bern or Hilary 2016 sticker. If he does, THEN you have a case. Right now, no case, no crime.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

So I am absolutely right. See my post above. No laws were violated.

Edit: That's cute. You googled it an went with the first link. In any case the link absolutely agrees with me.

I think it's best to wade out of a conversation if you have to google as you go.
edit on 6-5-2016 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

how do you know?? bet you thought the supreme court wouldn't agree with the gov't either.. but surprise surprise, they did!!

he's got his god tied in tightly with the politics so much that he uses his religion when he denies her service. no court in this nation can decide that one's interpretation of the bible is more correct that the other, or that even the bible is more correct than the koran. he left her in the dust because her religious views didn't mesh with his.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: dawnstar

What exactly did the supreme court agree on? You're all over the place bro.



new topics




 
37
<< 22  23  24    26  27  28 >>

log in

join