stercus tauri

Does it matter how long it has been there? Length of time being wrong doesn't make it right. Would you have objected if it were another religion's flag? I would have. Since I want to treat others the way I want to be treated, I don't think it is right to have religion's flag up there paid for by the people of the community. A memorial should represent everybody and clearly this didn't.

Not rightfully so. He will win the lawsuit since employer rights may not trump free speech rights unless there is a compelling interest for the employer to take action. This one is a no-brainer and the employee has won this one time and time again. How quickly we just give up rights and not think a thing about it. They did that in many totalitarian nations, too.

I believe that firing someone while exercising their free speech rights on their own time is far different. Alcohol consumption "in extreme" can lead to criminal arrests and that is not the same thing, or even affect job performance. Firing someone over ideas and speaking out for them, even a very misguided idea, is just wrong.

OMG! Talk about rights being violated! A transit worker from NJ was at a 9/11 protest in New York in opposition to the Islamic Culture Center near Ground Zero. The guy participated in burning some pages from the Quran and was hauled off by police but not arrested. TheNY Daily News says the guy has now been fired from his job for violating New Jersey Transit's Code of Ethics. Since when does what he does off the clock give grounds for dismissal, if what he does has no impact on his job performance?

I believe the reporters were just doing their job with the story. If this were any charity like United Way, we would want to know and deserve to know how the money was being spent. If it were the CEO's personal funds, not a problem. If it were the CEO's hand dipping in the bank accounts before he grabbed the stripper's ass, that is a problem. I don't see a problem with the reporters asking those questions because those are fair questions. I see it as a fair story, just like we would want to know if any public figure who is supposed to have a "moral" code attached to him/her. I didn't l

So the cafe can refuse to serve a gay couple? If the school accepts applications from the public at large instead of from a select group (members of the local parish) then it is "open to the public." Bob Jones University already fought this issue and lost, but it was over the student and this case is over the parents. It will be interestng to see which competing interest is served.

A better question would be "How did Christianity solve this problem?" The answer is education and economic improvement since that is when Christianity moved out of the Dark Ages and into the Enlightenment Period. More economic development and an educated people meant superstition no longer prevailed. So it looks like maybe we should consider investing in some other things besides bombs if we're going to win the War on Terror. Of course, it still took the Church a long time to realize that killing off entire civilizations (Mayans, Inca, etc.) and burning all their books to wipe out their cultur

If you a Mac instead of Windows, there is no problem no matter what the virus attack throws at you.

I don't want to be rude but I really don't think it is possible to have a discussion with you.

So a cafe can deny service to black people and everybody would be OK with that because it is privately owned?

The law is on their side, although the ninth made a decision in 1999 that really muddied the waters on this one. I don't get how anyone could respect another who violates basic rights.

The landlord would probably have lost that court fight too.

Christian beliefs still cannot discriminate, the "ministerial exception" withstanding, of course. Bob Jones lost that "private school" argument already. Just because a school is private doesn't mean arbitrary discrimination is allowed. In this case, I think the school has a valid argument if the student were gay since that would cause a disruption and undermine the school. Since this is about the parents, I think the school will have a tougher time making that argument. Like I said, it will be a good one for the court.

In this case it is the parents and not the student that the school objects. Should be an interesting court fight.

It is unconstitutional. Government must allow everyone the same protection and never punish those who chose not to participate in a religious function, even soldiers. Had they been allowed to roam the base freely or at least not given duty, there would have been no problem since religious events should be on free time and never mandatory.

But we are not talking about a training event. We are talking about a religious event paid for with taxpayer money. That's wrong. It's unconstitutional. It is a violation of the conscience. Religious events should be on free time, not duty time.

But some did get the time off because of a religious event. Some soldiers had to chose between their conscience and extra duty. There is a difference betweena football game and a conscience that says you might burn in hell for attending another faith's worship. This is no different than a student being told to do extra math work for a few hours or go to a prayer meeting led by the football coach and you might not get to play football if you don't go to the prayer meeting. That sort of stuff is illegal and so is this in the military. Soldiers do not give up their right to not have a religion fo

So it is either do work or don't do work, but you have to endure being preached at. Sorry, but that is wrong and a violation of basic civil rights. Just because you're in the military doesn't mean the government has to stop protecting the individual liberties. Apparently you don't care that the government violated 80 soldiers' basic rights that the Constitution gives everyone, including those in the armed forces. If the commander were Muslim and required all the soldiers to attend a Muslim rally and bow toward Mecca, would you feel the same way?

There is a difference when the choice is do maintenance duty or be preached at. That is a violation of the soldier's basic rights as an American.

I believe I have a pretty good grasp on them but I won't get in a pissing match over education credentials.

That needs to change. Alloowable needs to change. It is wrong. And if the taxpayer is paying for the concerts, that is wrong too. Let's hope they file more lawsuits to stop this unlawful and just wrong activity. But no one gives up their civil rights to freedom of religion, even in the military, just like you don't give up your right to vote.

Do you really understand what civil rights are all about, how they work, and the responsibility that is given by the Constitution to the government? I think you're right. So very sad.

Here's another articleif you would like to read it.

A friend of mine just sent me this link and I am not happy about this at all. About 80 soldiers in VA were punished with extra duty for not attending a Christian concert where the performers were openly evangelizing the soldiers to their brand of faith. All this was at taxpayers expense. This is just wrong! Link to the article.

Well said. Bravo.