1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Welcome to Public Relations 101

Tinsldr2 Wrote: 44 mins ago (6:56 PM)
Thank you for proving MY point doc "Mike and Tinsidr2 apparently agree upon at least one point. The school president admits he covered up the story. I don't really care why why" Like I said, and my main point Mike's fan base does not care about the truth. You just admitted it. Mike leads you to believe, and you do not care by your own admission, that the President did something nefarious. The sexual predation had nothing to do with the school and was not concealed from law enforcement by the school. Why WOULD the president tell people about it? Now if he found out and law enforcement didnt know, then yes he would tell them , or if it involved the school then he should tell, but it didnt. But notice again, I could care less about the President. My point being Mike lied and misled on several points, and bragged about not having a dialogue with the University over those issues. And Mikes supporters do not care. And THAT is amazing.
In response to:

Welcome to Public Relations 101

Tinsldr2 Wrote: 44 mins ago (6:56 PM)
Thank you for proving MY point doc "Mike and Tinsidr2 apparently agree upon at least one point. The school president admits he covered up the story. I don't really care why why" Like I said, and my main point Mike's fan base does not care about the truth. You just admitted it. Mike leads you to believe, and you do not care by your own admission, that the President did something nefarious. The sexual predation had nothing to do with the school and was not concealed from law enforcement by the school. Why WOULD the president tell people about it? Now if he found out and law enforcement didnt know, then yes he would tell them , or if it involved the school then he should tell, but it didnt. But notice again, I could care less about the President. My point being Mike lied and misled on several points, and bragged about not having a dialogue with the University over those issues. And Mikes supporters do not care. And THAT is amazing.
It is illegal if the Gov does it, but age is NOT covered under the title II restrictions that apply to private businesses
If you were truly a friend of John galt as in you understood who he was and agreed with him, you would acknowledge he is in violation of the 1964 law but realize how bad the 1964 law is when it comes to restrictions on a businesses ability to use markets to regulate itself. If the owner wants to be a bigot, that is his right and the market should decide and not the Gov application of force. In this case, the town he is in and type of place he runs would probably benefit from the discount not hurt him, and it is not the role of the Gov to hurt his business.
That is title VII and this is I believe a title II application but the religious definition is largely the same
1. What is “religion” under Title VII? Title VII protects all aspects of religious observance and practice as well as belief and defines religion very broadly for purposes of determining what the law covers. For purposes of Title VII, religion includes not only traditional, organized religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, but also religious beliefs that are new, uncommon, not part of a formal church or sect, only subscribed to by a small number of people, or that seem illogical or unreasonable to others. An employee’s belief or practice can be “religious” under Title VII even if the employee is affiliated with a religious group that does not espouse or recognize that individual’s belief or practice, or if few – or no – other people adhere to it. Title VII’s protections also extend to those who are discriminated against or need accommodation because they profess no religious beliefs. Religious beliefs include theistic beliefs (i.e. those that include a belief in God) as well as non-theistic “moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.” Although courts generally resolve doubts about particular beliefs in favor of finding that they are religious, beliefs are not protected merely because they are strongly held. Rather, religion typically concerns “ultimate ideas” about “life, purpose, and death.” Social, political, or economic philosophies, as well as mere personal preferences, are not “religious” beliefs protected by Title VII. Religious observances or practices include, for example, attending worship services, praying, wearing religious garb or symbols, displaying religious objects, adhering to certain dietary rules, proselytizing or other forms of religious expression, or refraining from certain activities. Whether a practice is religious depends on the employee’s motivation. The same practice might be engaged in by one person for religious reasons and by another person for purely secular reasons (e.g., dietary restrictions, tattoos, etc.).
weardley Wrote: 36 mins ago (3:05 PM) Tin, your statement on the outcome by the court, is it based on decisions that sides 100% with the atheists or is that just your opinion.................... My opinion is based on readings of dozens (possibly hundreds ) of actual court decisions on civil rights cases. The law is plain and the court decisions are plain.
kate Ken6226 Wrote: 2 hours ago (1:16 PM) How is offering a discount for a church bulletin any different from offering discounts for coupons? Tinsldr2 Wrote: 2 hours ago (1:26 PM) Ken in MY opinion it is not any different. But I can tell you, based on court precedence, that they will say the purpose of the church bulletin requirement is to offer the discount to those that show they attended a church This carries the reasonable expectation that the discount would be given to some people based on their religion and others would not be given that equal price because of their lack of faith. Where as anyone can get a coupon. Of course ANYONE could go into a church and get the bulletin presumably but the court is unlikely to rule that is a reasonable expectation kate, by a strict definition of the word Discrimination, it is discrimination although there is nothing unlawful about it in most cases. Anyone can get the coupon so there is nothing unlawful about it. If you handed out coupons to black people only that would be unlawful. Now like I said anyone can go and get a coupon in the church but the courts are going to presume the intent, based on this store owners own comments , is to offer a discount to people that are religious. And THAT will violate the law.
In response to:

"Ice Bucket Challenge": Don't Waste Water

Tinsldr2 Wrote: 4 hours ago (3:13 PM)
." In the name of finding a cure for Lou Gehrig’s Disease (also known as ALS), the "Ice Bucket Challenge" has raised $31.5 million in just over 3 weeks. It has also raised awareness of the disease.
Mike4166 Wrote: 7 mins ago (2:43 PM) So, by your own statements, you're saying that because these don't fall under the guise of race, color, religion or national origin, then it's not discriminatory. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, My statement certainly NEVER said that A womans night out was not 'discriminatory" My statement said it was not a violation of the Federal 1964 civil rights law but it MAY be a violation of the laws of an individual state. I hope you have the minimal intelligence to see the difference.
1 - 10 Next