Pro-Life Nurse Suing Family Planning Center That Wouldn't Hire Her

originally posted by: HandyDandy

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
AND, it looks like there's some sort of precedent in place already:

Bowman said the Alliance previously filed three similar cases in other states, all with what he considered positive outcomes. Two targets were medical and nursing programs; the third a hospital.
...
His organization also filed complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Health and Human Services.

I say you, as an atheist, go try to get a job there and then sue when they refuse.

Been done before:
www.christianpost.com... fs-121960/

www.examiner.com...

ANd it goes both ways:Burger King sued for firing pentacostal Christian for wearing skirt

For Cuthulu's sake. Wearing a floor length skirt in a restaurant kitchen lest someone see your Jesus ankles is a safety hazard and a safety issue. If Jesus doesn't want you to wear the BK uniform, GO WORK SOMEWHERE ELSE!

If you are an atheist and don't want to hear Jebus talk, don't work for a Bible thumper. It's not that hard people.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
If you are an atheist and don't want to hear Jebus talk, don't work for a Bible thumper. It's not that hard people.

If you are a Christian and don't want to do X, don't work for a company that does X. It's not that hard people.

a reply to: NavyDoc

The correct answer should be, 'Don't want to do the job as I want you to do the job, go look for work somewhere else," regardless of religion, political orientation, sexual orientation, race, creed or whatever.

If she could set aside her beliefs in order to do the job, and they wouldn't consider her for employment based on her religious views, she would have reason to claim discrimination. She admitted that she would not be able to perform the duties of the position for which she was allegedly seeking employment.

I'm struggling to understand what your point is. Please, provide a hypothetical to illustrate. What are these jobs with duties that CAN'T be performed because of race, creed, sexual orientation, etc for which you assert people are unfairly claiming discrimination? This really isn't that nuanced of an issue.

originally posted by: HandyDandy

originally posted by: NavyDoc
If you are an atheist and don't want to hear Jebus talk, don't work for a Bible thumper. It's not that hard people.

If you are a Christian and don't want to do X, don't work for a company that does X. It's not that hard people.

I agree completely. No argument from me, which I why I posted examples from BOTH points of view.

originally posted by: HandyDandy

originally posted by: NavyDoc
If you are an atheist and don't want to hear Jebus talk, don't work for a Bible thumper. It's not that hard people.

If you are a Christian and don't want to do X, don't work for a company that does X. It's not that hard people.

I agree completely. No argument from me, which I why I posted examples from BOTH points of view.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: NavyDoc

The correct answer should be, 'Don't want to do the job as I want you to do the job, go look for work somewhere else," regardless of religion, political orientation, sexual orientation, race, creed or whatever.

If she could set aside her beliefs in order to do the job, and they wouldn't consider her for employment based on her religious views, she would have reason to claim discrimination. She admitted that she would not able to perform the duties of the position for which she was allegedly seeking employment.

I'm struggling to understand what your point is. Please, provide a hypothetical to illustrate. What are these jobs with duties that CAN'T be performed because of race, creed, sexual orientation, etc for which you assert people are unfairly claiming discrimination? This really isn't that nuanced of an issue.

My point is, if an employer and an employee cannot come to a mutually beneficial agreement on the duties and boundries of said employment, they should simply part ways. No lawyers needed.

If a gay man does not want to serve heterosexuals in a position that requires he do so, he should not be hired and he shouldn't be able to sue. If a heterosexual man applies for a job in a gay bar, he should not be able to sue if he refuses to serve homosexuals.

The problem with our litigious society is that everyone wants to be able to sue for everything and anti-discrimination lawsuits have taken on such a ridiculous extreme, we get stupid cases like this that should be a "no #, Sherlock. Of course they don't want to hire you."

The unintended consequences of the anti-discrimination extremism we currently live under is nonsensical lawsuits exactly like this one.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
I agree completely. No argument from me, which I why I posted examples from BOTH points of view.

One thing about your atheist example is that they were already employed but then fired. Not that they didn't get the job in the first place. BIG difference IMO.

On another note:

Are there any lawyers out there who want to take my case?

I just went to the Alliancedefendingfreedon.org website and tried to get a career. The first thing you have to do is confirm your belief in the Christian God. When I said no I got the message "We're sorry, but you do not meet the minimum requirements for this position. Please click the "Close Window" button below and choose another position if applicable. "

Who wants my case?

originally posted by: Diderot
a reply to: Osiris1953

"Ms. Hellwege is extremely ignorant, or extremely greedy... either way she is an obnoxious human being."

Ignorant-yes, but I don't think that "greedy" is accurate in this case. I am assuming that she is a religious zealot who is seeking to be a Trojan Horse in the enemy camp. The Tampa Family Health Centers are the pawns of Satan, and she feels that it is her role to be Joan of Arc fighting iniquity for the glory of God.
By the way, do you know what Joan of Arc's second most famous triumph was? She drove a sword into the heart of a prostitute.

That very well may be the case. It's her own mini-crusade. Whatever the case may be I'll stick with my sentiment that she is an obnoxious human being.

a reply to: NavyDoc

If a gay man does not want to serve heterosexuals in a position that requires he do so, he should not be hired and he shouldn't be able to sue. If a heterosexual man applies for a job in a gay bar, he should not be able to sue if he refuses to serve homosexuals.

I agree 100% and I would similarly ridicule anyone alleging discrimination in those circumstances. I think the critical distinction can be made in that those represent people saying they won't do a job because of (whatever) as opposed to a prospective employer saying that (whatever) makes you incapable of doing the job.

People falsely allege all sorts of things and we don't just stop concerning ourselves about legitimate instances. I think you may just take issue with the legitimacy of discrimination as a wrong. Apply your reasoning to basically anything else, for example:

People falsely claim that they've been stolen from (all the time), does that mean that theft should be ignored?

originally posted by: HandyDandy

originally posted by: NavyDoc
I agree completely. No argument from me, which I why I posted examples from BOTH points of view.

One thing about your atheist example is that they were already employed but then fired. Not that they didn't get the job in the first place. BIG difference IMO.

On another note:

Are there any lawyers out there who want to take my case?

I just went to the Alliancedefendingfreedon.org website and tried to get a career. The first thing you have to do is confirm your belief in the Christian God. When I said no I got the message "We're sorry, but you do not meet the minimum requirements for this position. Please click the "Close Window" button below and choose another position if applicable. "

Who wants my case?

That was just the ones I pulled off the first page of a google search. One think that discrimination lawyers do is look around for a business with a reputation for having certain views, or narrow criteria for employment or employment that may not be safe or suitable for someone with a disability, find someone to seek employment, send them in, and then sue for discrimination when they don't get it. I recall reading a few cases where atheists have sued private schools because they did not want to teach a Bible based curriculum or say the pledge and were not hired/fired for voicing those opinions. I can't give you a link as it was in print media a while back, but regardless, my point is not atheist vs Christian, my point is that we have become a sue happy society and stupid cases like this are a natural result.

Now, I'm an atheist, not an anti-theist and I really don't care what you do or do not believe but doggone it, if I hire you to do a job, I'm hiring you to do a job and if Jesus or Ganesh or Allah or Cuthulu says you can't do what I need you to do, hit the damned road and let me hire someone who will do the job. The lady is in the wrong, however, we as a litigious society has set her up to be in the position to extort (because this is what this actually is) money from a business unjustly.

originally posted by: HandyDandy
I say you, as an atheist, go try to get a job there and then sue when they refuse.

I don't even understand your point... If I was qualified for the job and willing to do the job, I don't see why being an atheist would make any difference.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
However, a lot of people want to have a myriad of "anti-discrimination" laws in place and this is the natural result.

They're not refusing to hire her BECAUSE of her religion. They're refusing to hire her because she refuses to do the job.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
If you are an atheist and don't want to hear Jebus talk, don't work for a Bible thumper. It's not that hard people.

And if you're a corporation owner and don't want to pay for comprehensive women's health care?

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: NavyDoc
If you are an atheist and don't want to hear Jebus talk, don't work for a Bible thumper. It's not that hard people.

And if you're a corporation owner and don't want to pay for comprehensive women's health care?

If you and your employees cannot come up with a mutually agreeable benefits package you should part ways and neither side should be coerced to do something they do not want to do.


Now want to stick to the thread topic or what?

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: HandyDandy
I say you, as an atheist, go try to get a job there and then sue when they refuse.

I don't even understand your point... If I was qualified for the job and willing to do the job, I don't see why being an atheist would make any difference.

Don't get so bent out of shape by me calling you an atheist. I meant why not do to this company what it is doing to others.

Did you see my follow up post?

Are there any lawyers out there who want to take my case? I just went to the Alliancedefendingfreedon.org website and tried to get a career. The first thing you have to do is confirm your belief in the Christian God. When I said no I got the message "We're sorry, but you do not meet the minimum requirements for this position. Please click the "Close Window" button below and choose another position if applicable.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: NavyDoc
If you are an atheist and don't want to hear Jebus talk, don't work for a Bible thumper. It's not that hard people.

And if you're a corporation owner and don't want to pay for comprehensive women's health care?

Claim religious discrimination!

I know I know, it was a rhetorical question.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: NavyDoc
However, a lot of people want to have a myriad of "anti-discrimination" laws in place and this is the natural result.

They're not refusing to hire her BECAUSE of her religion. They're refusing to hire her because she refuses to do the job.

Not mutually exclusive. She won't do her job because of her religion. If she had to stop the line and take twice as many breaks as her colleagues to pray to Mecca five times a day, her religion is keeping her from doing her job appropriately and she should be fired and the employer should be free to find someone who needs the allotted amount of breaks in the day.

originally posted by: HandyDandy
Don't get so bent out of shape by me calling you an atheist.

I'm not. I AM an atheist. I just didn't understand.

I meant why not do to this company what it is doing to others.
Did you see my follow up post?

Yes, now I understand your point. Sorry for the confusion.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
If you and your employees cannot come up with a mutually agreeable benefits package you should part ways and neither side should be coerced to do something they do not want to do.

Just FYI, Hobby Lobby DID cover Plan B and Ella, but dropped them when they decided to bring a lawsuit. So, women lost some of their coverage. In other words, the package they agreed on changed.

And as regards being coerced to do something they do not want to do, do you think the women WANT to be forced to find another job?

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
Sorry for the confusion.

No worries.

You are probably the last person I'd want to get into an argument on here. Take care BH.