zoocrew

The employer had rights too. If the employee cannot or will not fulfill the duties hired for, that person should be terminated. If their religion says they cannot do the job, they either need to change jobs or re-evaluate that religion over a hat.

Where does the Bible talk about Santa Claus?

A hat and an apron. And that is against someone's religion? Give me a freaking break. This is nothing to do with religion. It's over a hat.

So it is whatever someone is thinking? Good God! If I think my computer screen is access to hell, can I tell my employer to let me do something else instead of working with a computer? The person took the job knowing it was during the CHRISTMAS SEASON and that sometimes people wear silly hats. A Hat. Not a rosary. A hat. A HAT for crying out loud.

Does anyone honestly believe Braddock understands the bill? I mean, really. The bill is certainly written a bit above the picture book level to which she is accustomed.

Well, it's finally time to take my parents to the airport so they can get on that Tin Can Bird and fly back home. It's only been a week since they've been here for a visit. The kids had a lot of fun with them (I even kept them out of school one day - hush! Don't tell anyone about that). So they are packing their stuff now and I'm taking them to a late breakfast before the airport. Anyone else have anxiety issues when parents come for a visit and then separation anxiety when they go back home?

Belk Department Store did something really awful when one of its employees in North Carolina refused to wear a Santa hat at Christmas because that employee was a Jehovah's Witness. Awful. Just awful. The store violated (supposedly) violated the rights of the employee who refused to wear the Santa hat and apron because her religious beliefs bar her from recognizing holidays. Huh? Rights? What about the rights of the employer to decide what an employee will wear as part of a uniform? It's called The Time of Year and how wearing a Santa hat harms anyone is beyond me. So the employee

This bill looks really familiar. My link

I've already posted the links. If the school doesn't want to make the accommodations, the school is allowed to pay for another placement.

Your statement was that if the taxes were lower, there would be no problems. That is what you said. Well, we have the lowest tax rate since WW 2 and your statement is not true. Our taxes were much higher until the early part of this decade. So there must be a problem with your logic. I didn't say a single word about Social Security couldn't be phased out. Please try to keep up. I said the charities couldn't do the job because it is too big a problem and it didn't work before and that is why we have Social Security and all programs. Really. Try to read and understand the argumen

It's Federal Law and has been for a long time. Your Congressman would be the one to contact about changing it. The policy is from the law. Like the link said - the lawsuit would be a sure loss for the school.

But she isn't homebound or hospitalized. Try again. My Link

It's part of the accommodations for all physical needs. My Link

Yes. Really. If the school won't accommodate, the system has to pay for another placement. Really.

I snorted with that one. Honest. Individuals with Educational Disabilities Act. Education for All Handicapped Children Act

Because that is what the law says. She has the right. You don't. Call your Congressman. But the state doesn't require you go to McDonalds. The state requires the kid get a free and appropriate education in the district where her parents live, or else the school can pay for a private educational placement in another appropriate educational setting.

And you have a time machine to know that is what is going to happen in this case? You have ALL the answers! My God! You can even see the future! No one else can possibly have a point of view that is different than yours because you know EVERYTHING and can see the future and even read the parents' minds, people you've never even met. I am in total awe of your powers.

But you don't have the right to eat peanut butter with her in the room.

Completely ignorant statements. We've got the LOWEST tax rates since WW 2. Did you not know that? If charity worked efficiently, there would have been no need for Social Security. It didn't work and that is why we have it. Same is true of all programs. Your "history" is more quips and sound bits than real information. Try again.

You're sure of that? If the school doesn't get a grip, the little angel could be dead. Thanks for thinking about the life of a kid. Real compassionate of you. The child has every right to be in the school. It's not PC. It's the law. It's the right thing to do. Just as if she has trouble seeing the board, she gets accommodations. Or hearing. Or any other physical problem.

You say that is not the role of government but society disagreed with you on that a long time ago. The courts did too. How far out of the mainstream are you? If charities could handle it, there would be no need. There is no way charity could handle the problems since it is too big and there is no way the money could be raised or efficiently handled.

Praying to yourself is a lonely task. Hopefully more people from up North will keep moving here and Paulding can move out of the 1950s and the McCarthy Era.

I see you have a problem COMPREHENDING the written expression. If you're not willing to pay more taxes, then the jails are not there. If you had read (I don't think you can do that very well) the article, you would have seen the issues are complicated. Try to respond without the knuckles dragging across the keyboard, please. That same "welfare" you say is "wasted" also educates children, re-trains out of work fathers, assists seniors with medications, and gives abused women a place to stay. Human compassion requires humanity. Let us know when the DNA gets to that point for you.

Who said I all the answers? I disagree with you and suddenly you become an elitist? Must be very holy on that throne of yours. Or is it that you just don't like "outsiders" moving into YOUR Paulding County? What elected Democrat is there in Paulding?

We both know that is not true. She was elected because of the R after her name and nothing else. The reason the county tends to vote Republican is that the people here are generally more conservative than from where I am from up North. The general mood here is that the Democrats are evil and the Republicans are God's Answer. Anyone who even brings up an issue is castigated as "liberal," as if that label suddenly ends the debate as the label automatically makes the person wrong. Well, the label is not always Democratic or wrong. We all know how Braddock got elected. She has the R