• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Two NC workers fired for not joining company's daily Christian devotionals

JasperL said:
I guess you think if you call a prayer meeting a "staff" meeting that it magically changes one thing to another. It doesn't work like that. And, no, I've never been forced to attend a mandatory prayer meeting at work. I've attended thousands of meetings, some of them had a person start with a brief prayer. That is not what we're talking about here, not what was described in the article in the OP.
Click to expand...
[emphasis added by bubba]
those meetings started with a prayer
so, because that prayer was brief, no problem
but this company engages in longer prayers, so that's an EEO problem
don't think so
 
Lovebug said:
I am a devout Christian but believe that no one should be forced into prayer.
Click to expand...
and no one forced the terminated employees to engage in prayer
however, they were forced, and paid, to sit in meetings in which prayerful discussion was held
while stuff was being said with which the now terminated employees did not agree, i suspect we have all be in staff meetings where we were forced to hear crap we did not agree with
 
Again, this case must be seen in light of this particular Court. Freakin' Alito was quoting laws from the 1600s in his Roe opinion.
 
FurriesRock said:
Private company can do what they want right? That's what leftists have been saying for years now every time someone brings up online censorship!
Click to expand...

Sure as long as they do not violate federal like these assholes have done...
 
justabubba said:
the termination was not because of the employee's religious beliefs
the termination was (likely) for insubordination for failing to attend the requisite staff meeting
Click to expand...
How did you come up with this? It's not in the article.
 
reflechissez said:
How did you come up with this? It's not in the article.
Click to expand...
the article indicated the employee confirmed meeting attendance was required
and later stated the employee failed to attend the meeting after learning it was compulsory
 
justabubba said:
and no one forced the terminated employees to engage in prayer
however, they were forced, and paid, to sit in meetings in which prayerful discussion was held
while stuff was being said with which the now terminated employees did not agree, i suspect we have all be in staff meetings where we were forced to hear crap we did not agree with
Click to expand...
From the article
He said he was asked on one occasion to lead the Christian prayer, which he refused
Click to expand...
 
Jay59 said:
The article leaves the issue of informed consent completely open. If the two were informed at hiring that this was a job expectation, then the company could be covered.
Click to expand...
the employee met with management to advise that he was not a practicing Christian
employer responded that was OK
 
Jay59 said:
The article leaves the issue of informed consent completely open. If the two were informed at hiring that this was a job expectation, then the company could be covered.
Click to expand...
Nothing about it on their website, the article states.
 
Lovebug said:
From the article
Click to expand...
and it would appear that he was not compelled to do so after he declined the invitation to be the prayer leader
 
justabubba said:
the article indicated the employee confirmed meeting attendance was required
and later stated the employee failed to attend the meeting after learning it was compulsory
Click to expand...
You left out a lot. Why did you do that?
 
justabubba said:
and it would appear that he was not compelled to do so after he declined the invitation to be the prayer leader
Click to expand...
You are running interference hard. Are prayers required at your place of employment?
 
justabubba said:
and it would appear that he was not compelled to do so after he declined the invitation to be the prayer leader
Click to expand...
He was deducted pay. Of course, as someone said before, we know one side of the story. I'd like to know more.
 
Lovebug said:
We know?
Click to expand...

Of course.

This court has throw law out the door in favor of agenda.
They have made that very clear.

This country will be transformed by this corrupt court.
 
reflechissez said:
You are running interference hard. Are prayers required at your place of employment?
Click to expand...
you tell me:
I swear that the evidence that I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.
Click to expand...
is that reference to G_d a religious act?
 
Lovebug said:
He was deducted pay. Of course, as someone said before, we know one side of the story. I'd like to know more.
Click to expand...
if he was deducted pay for refusing to lead the staff in prayer then that would be an obvious EEO violation
but nowhere have i seen that to have been the basis for lost pay
 
Michael Cole said:
What makes you think business was being discussed during those parts of the meeting? That's what I meant. If business wasn't being discussed during those parts, then I'm not sure what your point was.

It certainly looks like a threat to me, either way.
Click to expand...

Point being, a mandatory meeting in which buisness WAS being discussed, in part.

Which changes that these meetings were all about religion, which it appears they are not. As the employee wanted to not be there for those "parts" that were.
 
justabubba said:
you tell me:

is that reference to G_d a religious act?
Click to expand...
It is and it should be seen as unconstitutional. They will, however, let you swear to tell the truth if you say you're not comfortable with the typical affirmation.

But yes, it is and should be viewed as a violation of the establishment clause.
 
reflechissez said:
Sounds like an oath. Is that what these 2 employees were asked to do?
Click to expand...
they were asked to be present during a discussion about G_d, much as that oath appeals to G_d
how are both circumstances not religiously based?
 
justabubba said:
if he was deducted pay for refusing to lead the staff in prayer then that would be an obvious EEO violation
but nowhere have i seen that to have been the basis for lost pay
Click to expand...
justabubba said:
(recognizing we have VERY little information to fully assess the actual circumstances)
Click to expand...
Yet, here you are making up facts not in evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom