Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wonkette)   Chick-Fil-A has new Biblical cause: firing women so they can stay home with their children, for Jesus   (wonkette.com) divider line 207
    More: Dumbass, sex discriminations, Jeebus, Bibles, Brenda Honeycutt  
•       •       •

5627 clicks; posted to Politics » on 30 Jul 2012 at 1:45 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



207 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-30 02:13:20 PM  

Aarontology: How many people who are blasting Chick-Fil-A for their anti-gay stance have written to their Senator or Congressperson about repealing the Defense of Marriage Act, or written letters to their state legislator about changing your state's laws to recognize the rights of homosexuals?

Because if you haven't and you're participating in this boycott, you need to shut your slacktivist ass right the fark up.


In all fairness, it's much easier to post on the interwebs about your RIGHTEOUS ANGAR!!! and NOT go to a restaurant than it is to write to a congresscritter and whatnot.
 
2012-07-30 02:14:57 PM  

BritneysSpeculum: netizencain: Wait, so one employee, in one store was let go because she was knocked up. And this is news?

No, the complaint identifies 4 women in the same store who were fired so that they could stay home and raise their children. The Walmart case started with a complaint about one store.


The EEOC also investigated the plaintiff's claim and dismissed it. This is a shakedown.
 
2012-07-30 02:16:02 PM  

netizencain: "in at least one other case, this happened after the woman became a mother."

Wait, so one employee, in one store was let go because she was knocked up. And this is news?


I, too, believe that smoke in no way shows the possibility of fire.
 
2012-07-30 02:16:46 PM  
Mayor: We don't want Chick-Fil-A in out town.
Pundit: That's unconstitutional unless they are being discrimatory to employees or customers.
Chick-Fil-A: Challenge accepted.
 
2012-07-30 02:17:01 PM  

Scerpes: The EEOC also investigated the plaintiff's claim and dismissed it. This is a shakedown


Pbbbbtttt, everybody knows the EEOC is a ZOMG CONVZERVATIVE organization. We need the government to get involved!
 
2012-07-30 02:22:06 PM  

Scerpes: BritneysSpeculum: netizencain: Wait, so one employee, in one store was let go because she was knocked up. And this is news?

No, the complaint identifies 4 women in the same store who were fired so that they could stay home and raise their children. The Walmart case started with a complaint about one store.

The EEOC also investigated the plaintiff's claim and dismissed it.


Citation needed.
 
2012-07-30 02:22:17 PM  
This mess is starting to look like religious persecution by Liberals.
 
2012-07-30 02:22:49 PM  
It's like The Great Persecution all over again.
 
2012-07-30 02:23:19 PM  
Meh, the owner of our local franchise always helps out the animal shelter and has never done anything homophobic or mysognistic.

The people I hate in this battle are the ones who post on FB about how they treated their staff to Chik-Fil-A in order to promote free speech and family values.
 
2012-07-30 02:24:40 PM  
kingoomieiii


Citrate1007: A single store does not speak for a corporation.

Chick-Fil-A Inc. can be bigots all by themselves thank you very much.

I don't even give a shiat. They deserve all the bad press the internet can find.


Why?
 
2012-07-30 02:25:34 PM  

lordofwar7777: Scerpes: BritneysSpeculum: netizencain: Wait, so one employee, in one store was let go because she was knocked up. And this is news?

No, the complaint identifies 4 women in the same store who were fired so that they could stay home and raise their children. The Walmart case started with a complaint about one store.

The EEOC also investigated the plaintiff's claim and dismissed it.

Citation needed.


Citation provided:

The dismissal is mentioned in the complaint at paragraph 42. Moreover, it's attached to the complaint as exhibit B.
 
2012-07-30 02:25:36 PM  

smitty04: This mess is starting to look like religious persecution by Liberals.


Oh get off your f*cking cross already.
 
2012-07-30 02:26:17 PM  

smitty04: This mess is starting to look like religious persecution by Liberals.


Yeah, stupid libs making Chick-Fil-A illegally fire that woman.
 
2012-07-30 02:27:00 PM  

kronicfeld: I haven't, because I wanted to give you the gift of the feelings of superiority and condescension. I'm so charitable.


It's a wonderful feeling, let me tell you. Beats slacktivist outrage any day of the week.

Edward Rooney Dean of Students: In all fairness, it's much easier to post on the interwebs about your RIGHTEOUS ANGAR!!! and NOT go to a restaurant than it is to write to a congresscritter and whatnot.


You mean I have to actually DO something? I mean, I wasn't going there anyway, but this allowed me to literally be proud of doing less than nothing.
 
2012-07-30 02:27:03 PM  

ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: smitty04: This mess is starting to look like religious persecution by Liberals.

Yeah, stupid libs making Chick-Fil-A illegally fire that woman.


If only that was true.
 
2012-07-30 02:28:57 PM  

Scerpes: lordofwar7777: Scerpes: BritneysSpeculum: netizencain: Wait, so one employee, in one store was let go because she was knocked up. And this is news?

No, the complaint identifies 4 women in the same store who were fired so that they could stay home and raise their children. The Walmart case started with a complaint about one store.

The EEOC also investigated the plaintiff's claim and dismissed it.

Citation needed.

Citation provided:

The dismissal is mentioned in the complaint at paragraph 42. Moreover, it's attached to the complaint as exhibit B.


Did you read the actual text of the "Dismissal and Notice of Rights"?
 
2012-07-30 02:29:00 PM  
You just had to expand outside your comfortable, little Southern base, didn't you, Chik-fil-A? Nope, you weren't content to get by with those perfectly satisfied on a mediocre chicken sandwich served with a smarmy grin and fake charm. In your heads, it surely seemed logical. "Hey, Americans of all stripes like fried-up crispy things served with grease, whatever our CEO and his family does can't be a concern! After all, Mr. Cathy does Gawd's wurk! He's using his God-given fortunes to enrich the Lord!" You thought you could mess around with that hussey named Respectability without putting on the condom of Forethought. Now you done got knocked up with a baby named Homophobia. It's an ugly little brat too. It's taking smelly baby poops on all of your dreams. But hey, you danced to the tune, now you gotta pay the band. So I'm sorry Chik-fil-A, we're gonna have to let you go, so you can spend more time raising that ugly little demon baby of yours. No hard feelings okay, you're doing the Lord's work after all.
 
2012-07-30 02:29:21 PM  
They do have one righteous chicken sandwich....
<img src="http://www.southernsavers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/chicken- sandwich.jpg">
 
2012-07-30 02:29:48 PM  

Scerpes: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: smitty04: This mess is starting to look like religious persecution by Liberals.

Yeah, stupid libs making Chick-Fil-A illegally fire that woman.

If only that was true.


Do you even know how to read?
 
2012-07-30 02:30:20 PM  
Every big company has EEOC complaints like this. Some are valid and some aren't. The claims are easy to file and the EEOC does most of the work.
 
2012-07-30 02:30:20 PM  

Scerpes: BritneysSpeculum: netizencain: Wait, so one employee, in one store was let go because she was knocked up. And this is news?

No, the complaint identifies 4 women in the same store who were fired so that they could stay home and raise their children. The Walmart case started with a complaint about one store.

The EEOC also investigated the plaintiff's claim and dismissed it. This is a shakedown.


I assume that you do not practice employment law. A right to sue letter does not mean that the EEOC has determined that claim is meritless. It only means that the EEOC has elected not to pursue the case and leaves it it to the individual employee to do so. The EEOC did the same thing with the Walmart case.
 
2012-07-30 02:30:46 PM  

verbaltoxin: You thought you could mess around with that hussey named Respectability without putting on the condom of Forethought. Now you done got knocked up with a baby named Homophobia.


Is there a "Two Sentences of the Week" award?
 
2012-07-30 02:33:09 PM  

BritneysSpeculum: Scerpes: BritneysSpeculum: netizencain: Wait, so one employee, in one store was let go because she was knocked up. And this is news?

No, the complaint identifies 4 women in the same store who were fired so that they could stay home and raise their children. The Walmart case started with a complaint about one store.

The EEOC also investigated the plaintiff's claim and dismissed it. This is a shakedown.

I assume that you do not practice employment law. A right to sue letter does not mean that the EEOC has determined that claim is meritless. It only means that the EEOC has elected not to pursue the case and leaves it it to the individual employee to do so. The EEOC did the same thing with the Walmart case.


That's a fun story. You might actually want to read the notice of dismissal that notes that the EEOC was unable to conclude that any statutes were violated. This is a shakedown.
 
2012-07-30 02:33:58 PM  

Scerpes: lordofwar7777: Scerpes: BritneysSpeculum: netizencain: Wait, so one employee, in one store was let go because she was knocked up. And this is news?

No, the complaint identifies 4 women in the same store who were fired so that they could stay home and raise their children. The Walmart case started with a complaint about one store.

The EEOC also investigated the plaintiff's claim and dismissed it.

Citation needed.

Citation provided:

The dismissal is mentioned in the complaint at paragraph 42. Moreover, it's attached to the complaint as exhibit B.


The dismissal and notice of rights specifies only that it was "unable to conclude" that plaintiff's rights were violated, and expressly states that its finding does not show that the defendant is in compliance.

Thus, your conclusion from the dismissal that "this is a shakedown" is not established by your premise.

You are ignorant of what the dismissal means, lack the intelligence to understand plain English, or you dishonestly represented what it means. That exhausts the universe of possibilities here.

So which is it?
 
2012-07-30 02:35:02 PM  

Scerpes: BritneysSpeculum: Scerpes: BritneysSpeculum: netizencain: Wait, so one employee, in one store was let go because she was knocked up. And this is news?

No, the complaint identifies 4 women in the same store who were fired so that they could stay home and raise their children. The Walmart case started with a complaint about one store.

The EEOC also investigated the plaintiff's claim and dismissed it. This is a shakedown.

I assume that you do not practice employment law. A right to sue letter does not mean that the EEOC has determined that claim is meritless. It only means that the EEOC has elected not to pursue the case and leaves it it to the individual employee to do so. The EEOC did the same thing with the Walmart case.

That's a fun story. You might actually want to read the notice of dismissal that notes that the EEOC was unable to conclude that any statutes were violated. This is a shakedown.


The notice explicitly states that the EEOC is not making a conclusion as to whether statutes were violated.

I know, words are hard.
 
2012-07-30 02:36:06 PM  
I'm going to give this round to Chick-Fil-A.

The people in this case apparently said it was about motherhood, and this is the same company that went out of its way to instruct franchisees that they're "mom-friendly" and do permit breastfeeding.

There was a big fracas in Florida a couple of years ago. Chick-Fil-A settled solidly with the moms.

So, it sounds like they're sticking by what they think motherhood ought to be.

Daddy's the bread-winner and mommy raises the children. That's just how it's done in their big book o' jeebus.

It may sound way too Ozzie-and-Harriet, or even medieval ... but it ain't exactly a revelation.

Anyone who is surprised by it is either naive or new to this planet.

/the franchises are even closed on Sundays
//it's what the FBI calls "a clue"
 
2012-07-30 02:36:37 PM  

Scerpes: BritneysSpeculum: Scerpes: BritneysSpeculum: netizencain: Wait, so one employee, in one store was let go because she was knocked up. And this is news?

No, the complaint identifies 4 women in the same store who were fired so that they could stay home and raise their children. The Walmart case started with a complaint about one store.

The EEOC also investigated the plaintiff's claim and dismissed it. This is a shakedown.

I assume that you do not practice employment law. A right to sue letter does not mean that the EEOC has determined that claim is meritless. It only means that the EEOC has elected not to pursue the case and leaves it it to the individual employee to do so. The EEOC did the same thing with the Walmart case.

That's a fun story. You might actually want to read the notice of dismissal that notes that the EEOC was unable to conclude that any statutes were violated. This is a shakedown.


I'm a Christian, an evangelical, and a conservative. That isn't what the EEOC document says, and either you're too stupid to understand that, or you are dishonest. Either way, you are an asshole. Jerks like you are why no one trusts conservatives anymore.
 
2012-07-30 02:38:35 PM  

Baz744: Scerpes: BritneysSpeculum: Scerpes: BritneysSpeculum: netizencain: Wait, so one employee, in one store was let go because she was knocked up. And this is news?

No, the complaint identifies 4 women in the same store who were fired so that they could stay home and raise their children. The Walmart case started with a complaint about one store.

The EEOC also investigated the plaintiff's claim and dismissed it. This is a shakedown.

I assume that you do not practice employment law. A right to sue letter does not mean that the EEOC has determined that claim is meritless. It only means that the EEOC has elected not to pursue the case and leaves it it to the individual employee to do so. The EEOC did the same thing with the Walmart case.

That's a fun story. You might actually want to read the notice of dismissal that notes that the EEOC was unable to conclude that any statutes were violated. This is a shakedown.

I'm a Christian, an evangelical, and a conservative. That isn't what the EEOC document says, and either you're too stupid to understand that, or you are dishonest. Either way, you are an asshole. Jerks like you are why no one trusts conservatives anymore.


"The EEOC is unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes violations of the statutes." Yes...I was so dishonest.
 
2012-07-30 02:38:51 PM  

Baz744: Scerpes: BritneysSpeculum: Scerpes: BritneysSpeculum: netizencain: Wait, so one employee, in one store was let go because she was knocked up. And this is news?

No, the complaint identifies 4 women in the same store who were fired so that they could stay home and raise their children. The Walmart case started with a complaint about one store.

The EEOC also investigated the plaintiff's claim and dismissed it. This is a shakedown.

I assume that you do not practice employment law. A right to sue letter does not mean that the EEOC has determined that claim is meritless. It only means that the EEOC has elected not to pursue the case and leaves it it to the individual employee to do so. The EEOC did the same thing with the Walmart case.

That's a fun story. You might actually want to read the notice of dismissal that notes that the EEOC was unable to conclude that any statutes were violated. This is a shakedown.

I'm a Christian, an evangelical, and a conservative. That isn't what the EEOC document says, and either you're too stupid to understand that, or you are dishonest. Either way, you are an asshole. Jerks like you are why no one trusts conservatives anymore.


You're leaving out the possibility that he simply didn't bother to read it. In which case there's a third possibility, which is that he's simply ignorant.

But your other conclusions are correct.
 
2012-07-30 02:39:56 PM  

wee: Long as they still make good food that's given to you by someone who speaks English natively I don't care.


Why the hell does 'natively' matter?

"Yes, Abdikarim managed to get himself out of the hellhole that is Somalia, and legally emigrated to the United States. He's just happy to hold a job even if it is just to sell chicken sandwiches. What's that? He's only 90% fluent in English? He has an accent?! Fire him and burn his clothes before we are tainted!!!"

/Unless you meant 'Fluently'
//There are degrees of fluency.
///Malgré, je ne suis pas aussi bilengue que je veut mais je peut prendre ton commande pour un sandwich.
 
2012-07-30 02:40:20 PM  

netizencain: Wait, so one employee, in one store was let go because she was knocked up. And this is news?


It's called Piling On. Welcome to the wrong side and the political world conservatives created.

Enjoy
 
2012-07-30 02:40:24 PM  

minoridiot: The EEOC has already dismissed her claim, so the likelyhood of her being successful is slim.


If she was working at Chik-fil-A, I'm gonna go ahead and assume she's not successful.

// attractive, maybe
// DNRTFA - are there pics?
 
2012-07-30 02:41:22 PM  

Captain_Ballbeard: netizencain: Wait, so one employee, in one store was let go because she was knocked up. And this is news?

It's called Piling On. Welcome to the wrong side and the political world conservatives created.

Enjoy


So, you're going to criticize it and join it at the same time? Good on ya.
 
2012-07-30 02:41:30 PM  

Scerpes: Baz744: Scerpes: BritneysSpeculum: Scerpes: BritneysSpeculum: netizencain: Wait, so one employee, in one store was let go because she was knocked up. And this is news?

No, the complaint identifies 4 women in the same store who were fired so that they could stay home and raise their children. The Walmart case started with a complaint about one store.

The EEOC also investigated the plaintiff's claim and dismissed it. This is a shakedown.

I assume that you do not practice employment law. A right to sue letter does not mean that the EEOC has determined that claim is meritless. It only means that the EEOC has elected not to pursue the case and leaves it it to the individual employee to do so. The EEOC did the same thing with the Walmart case.

That's a fun story. You might actually want to read the notice of dismissal that notes that the EEOC was unable to conclude that any statutes were violated. This is a shakedown.

I'm a Christian, an evangelical, and a conservative. That isn't what the EEOC document says, and either you're too stupid to understand that, or you are dishonest. Either way, you are an asshole. Jerks like you are why no one trusts conservatives anymore.

"The EEOC is unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes violations of the statutes." Yes...I was so dishonest.


And what is the very next sentence?
 
2012-07-30 02:41:42 PM  

bugontherug: Baz744: Scerpes: BritneysSpeculum: Scerpes: BritneysSpeculum: netizencain: Wait, so one employee, in one store was let go because she was knocked up. And this is news?

No, the complaint identifies 4 women in the same store who were fired so that they could stay home and raise their children. The Walmart case started with a complaint about one store.

The EEOC also investigated the plaintiff's claim and dismissed it. This is a shakedown.

I assume that you do not practice employment law. A right to sue letter does not mean that the EEOC has determined that claim is meritless. It only means that the EEOC has elected not to pursue the case and leaves it it to the individual employee to do so. The EEOC did the same thing with the Walmart case.

That's a fun story. You might actually want to read the notice of dismissal that notes that the EEOC was unable to conclude that any statutes were violated. This is a shakedown.

I'm a Christian, an evangelical, and a conservative. That isn't what the EEOC document says, and either you're too stupid to understand that, or you are dishonest. Either way, you are an asshole. Jerks like you are why no one trusts conservatives anymore.

You're leaving out the possibility that he simply didn't bother to read it. In which case there's a third possibility, which is that he's simply ignorant.

But your other conclusions are correct.


The correct argument here is over whether or not the government has the right to point a gun at Chick fil A, and dictate who it hires and fires. It does not. The government should only use force to protect property rights. Scerpes is just kicking up dust.
 
2012-07-30 02:43:18 PM  

Baz744: bugontherug: Baz744: Scerpes: BritneysSpeculum: Scerpes: BritneysSpeculum: netizencain: Wait, so one employee, in one store was let go because she was knocked up. And this is news?

No, the complaint identifies 4 women in the same store who were fired so that they could stay home and raise their children. The Walmart case started with a complaint about one store.

The EEOC also investigated the plaintiff's claim and dismissed it. This is a shakedown.

I assume that you do not practice employment law. A right to sue letter does not mean that the EEOC has determined that claim is meritless. It only means that the EEOC has elected not to pursue the case and leaves it it to the individual employee to do so. The EEOC did the same thing with the Walmart case.

That's a fun story. You might actually want to read the notice of dismissal that notes that the EEOC was unable to conclude that any statutes were violated. This is a shakedown.

I'm a Christian, an evangelical, and a conservative. That isn't what the EEOC document says, and either you're too stupid to understand that, or you are dishonest. Either way, you are an asshole. Jerks like you are why no one trusts conservatives anymore.

You're leaving out the possibility that he simply didn't bother to read it. In which case there's a third possibility, which is that he's simply ignorant.

But your other conclusions are correct.

The correct argument here is over whether or not the government has the right to point a gun at Chick fil A, and dictate who it hires and fires. It does not. The government should only use force to protect property rights. Scerpes is just kicking up dust.


Really, I think he's trolling more than anything else. You know what I like to do with trolls?

*plonk*

Problem solved.
 
2012-07-30 02:44:18 PM  

Baz744: The government should only use force to protect property rights.


This may be the single dumbest sentence in this thread.
 
2012-07-30 02:44:27 PM  

bugontherug: Baz744: bugontherug: Baz744: Scerpes: BritneysSpeculum: Scerpes: BritneysSpeculum: netizencain: Wait, so one employee, in one store was let go because she was knocked up. And this is news?

No, the complaint identifies 4 women in the same store who were fired so that they could stay home and raise their children. The Walmart case started with a complaint about one store.

The EEOC also investigated the plaintiff's claim and dismissed it. This is a shakedown.

I assume that you do not practice employment law. A right to sue letter does not mean that the EEOC has determined that claim is meritless. It only means that the EEOC has elected not to pursue the case and leaves it it to the individual employee to do so. The EEOC did the same thing with the Walmart case.

That's a fun story. You might actually want to read the notice of dismissal that notes that the EEOC was unable to conclude that any statutes were violated. This is a shakedown.

I'm a Christian, an evangelical, and a conservative. That isn't what the EEOC document says, and either you're too stupid to understand that, or you are dishonest. Either way, you are an asshole. Jerks like you are why no one trusts conservatives anymore.

You're leaving out the possibility that he simply didn't bother to read it. In which case there's a third possibility, which is that he's simply ignorant.

But your other conclusions are correct.

The correct argument here is over whether or not the government has the right to point a gun at Chick fil A, and dictate who it hires and fires. It does not. The government should only use force to protect property rights. Scerpes is just kicking up dust.

Really, I think he's trolling more than anything else. You know what I like to do with trolls?

*plonk*

Problem solved.


So what, you pinched a loaf?
 
2012-07-30 02:45:59 PM  

Baz744: bugontherug: Baz744: bugontherug: Baz744: Scerpes: BritneysSpeculum: Scerpes: BritneysSpeculum: netizencain: Wait, so one employee, in one store was let go because she was knocked up. And this is news?

No, the complaint identifies 4 women in the same store who were fired so that they could stay home and raise their children. The Walmart case started with a complaint about one store.

The EEOC also investigated the plaintiff's claim and dismissed it. This is a shakedown.

I assume that you do not practice employment law. A right to sue letter does not mean that the EEOC has determined that claim is meritless. It only means that the EEOC has elected not to pursue the case and leaves it it to the individual employee to do so. The EEOC did the same thing with the Walmart case.

That's a fun story. You might actually want to read the notice of dismissal that notes that the EEOC was unable to conclude that any statutes were violated. This is a shakedown.

I'm a Christian, an evangelical, and a conservative. That isn't what the EEOC document says, and either you're too stupid to understand that, or you are dishonest. Either way, you are an asshole. Jerks like you are why no one trusts conservatives anymore.

You're leaving out the possibility that he simply didn't bother to read it. In which case there's a third possibility, which is that he's simply ignorant.

But your other conclusions are correct.

The correct argument here is over whether or not the government has the right to point a gun at Chick fil A, and dictate who it hires and fires. It does not. The government should only use force to protect property rights. Scerpes is just kicking up dust.

Really, I think he's trolling more than anything else. You know what I like to do with trolls?

*plonk*

Problem solved.

So what, you pinched a loaf?


Well, that was supposed to represent pressing the ignore button. But I can understand how you interpreted it differently.
 
2012-07-30 02:47:53 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Baz744: The government should only use force to protect property rights.

This may be the single dumbest sentence in this thread.


Why? I believe government should be confined to its Constitutionally prescribed roles. What's so "dumb" about that?
 
wee
2012-07-30 02:48:18 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: So let's embrace our own abuse and bigotry! U!S!A! U!S!A!


One franchise owner is a douche and we're all supposed to get out the pitchforks and torches. Meh. I've seen plenty of people get fired for questionable reasons by capricious bosses.

kingoomieiii: Human rights abuses in China mean I get to be a farking asshole to people who live in this country! Even farking citizens! HOORAY FOR RACISM


Before I patronize any business, I'm going to ask them to fill out a questionnaire with regards to their hiring practices to ensure they comply with standards of decency. And if any one store in a nationally franchised chain falls out of compliance then I'll by all means shake my tiny fist at them on the internet.

A manager at a fast food place is a dick. Wow, there's a newsflash.

If you don't agree with some aspect of the company, don't do business with them. Personally I care about the quality of the food and their ability to communicate with me insofar as facilitating the arrival of that food into my hands correctly. Anything past that I neither know nor care about.
 
wee
2012-07-30 02:50:47 PM  

Vanis: Unless you meant 'Fluently'


That would have been a better choice of words, yes.
 
2012-07-30 02:51:40 PM  
Can someone please explain to me why certain religious people seem to believe that the bible "defines" marriage as between one man and one woman?

Because the old testament seems completely filled with polygamist marriages, and even Jesus grew up in a home with more than 2 parents.

So am I missing important parts of the bible that say that "the biblical definition of marriage" is different than the marriages actually depicted in the the bible, or are the people claiming this stuff simply idiots who don't know their own book?

// Seriously, this seems to come up a lot nowadays and I'm left wondering where it all started...
 
2012-07-30 02:51:52 PM  

Baz744: Philip Francis Queeg: Baz744: The government should only use force to protect property rights.

This may be the single dumbest sentence in this thread.

Why? I believe government should be confined to its Constitutionally prescribed roles. What's so "dumb" about that?


So, the Government should use force to protect your wife and your mother from being gang raped? They shouldn't use force to protect your Constitutional rights?
 
2012-07-30 02:51:52 PM  
Like it or not, the Chick Fil A can of worms has been opened.

They're going to be flipped a lot of sh*t the next year or so until they change what they're doing.

Yeah I know some of you think bigotry is just "free speech" or something.
 
2012-07-30 02:52:13 PM  

Scerpes: The dismissal is mentioned in the complaint at paragraph 42. Moreover, it's attached to the complaint as exhibit B.


You mean where a box is checked saying?

"The EEOC issues the following determination. Based upon its investigation, the EEOC is unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes violation of the statute. This does not certify that the respondent is in compliance with the statute. No finding is made as to any other issues that might be construed as having been raised by this charge."

This is supposed to mean definitely never happened? IANAL but seems to me that just means that the EEOC has punted it to the court system.
 
2012-07-30 02:54:36 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: Baz744: Philip Francis Queeg: Baz744: The government should only use force to protect property rights.

This may be the single dumbest sentence in this thread.

Why? I believe government should be confined to its Constitutionally prescribed roles. What's so "dumb" about that?

So, the Government shouldn't use force to protect your wife and your mother from being gang raped? They shouldn't use force to protect your Constitutional rights?


FTFM
 
2012-07-30 02:54:49 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: Scerpes: The dismissal is mentioned in the complaint at paragraph 42. Moreover, it's attached to the complaint as exhibit B.

You mean where a box is checked saying?

"The EEOC issues the following determination. Based upon its investigation, the EEOC is unable to conclude that the information obtained establishes violation of the statute. This does not certify that the respondent is in compliance with the statute. No finding is made as to any other issues that might be construed as having been raised by this charge."

This is supposed to mean definitely never happened? IANAL but seems to me that just means that the EEOC has punted it to the court system.


I never said it definitely never happened. Just like the standard when it goes to court won't be that it definitely did or did not happen. The EEOC couldn't prove chick-fi-la violated any statute. It's a lot more than just a punt.
 
2012-07-30 02:55:07 PM  

Nadie_AZ: GAT_00: Nadie_AZ: BritneysSpeculum: netizencain: Wait, so one employee, in one store was let go because she was knocked up. And this is news?

No, the complaint identifies 4 women in the same store who were fired so that they could stay home and raise their children. The Walmart case started with a complaint about one store.

Hm. Chick-Fil-A is a franchised chain. Do you blame the zealot owner or the chain?

Owner for the firing, chain for promoting outdated ideas where such an action was considered acceptable.

Did the chain tell the owner to fire them? I saw another owner of a chain saying that he welcomed all people of all backgrounds to his restaurant. I don't see reprisals from corporate office from that stance.

I don't know enough. Seems like they have a case with the franchise owner, not the chain.


How about I just stay pissed at Chick-Fil-A for the same reasons I've always hated them? For having bigoted leadership. For continuing to use styrofoam cups and non-biodegradeable plasticware for no other reason than "fark the environmentalists", and for generally treating their workforce like subhumans.

I can still like Chick-Fil-A for their "You get a chicken sandwich in less than 5 minutes" policy and for their "we spend a decent chunk of change getting kids out of state-run foster homes" policy.

I can then still feel uncomfortable with their "These foster homes must be Jesus-friendly" policy.

My opinion of Chick-Fil-A is that for a restaurant chain, they've chosen to be pretty polarizing, and that's weird, but it doesn't seem to be a problem for them any more than it's a problem for Ben & Jerry's.

To summarize: Chick-Fil-A does good things for bad reasons and bad things for no reasons at all.
 
2012-07-30 02:57:24 PM  

wee: One franchise owner is a douche is alleged to have violated a constitutionally valid regulation of interstate commerce and we're all supposed to get out the pitchforks and torches inform ourselves as the issue evolves through the litigation process, and should a court of competent jurisdiction find that the law was violated, wax appropriately indignant, and take satisfaction in an award of reasonable damages with the effect of restoring the balance of justice.. Meh. I've seen plenty of people get fired for questionable reasons by capricious bosses, but whether or not in their caprice they also violated the law, they were not, to the best of my knowledge, taken to court over it..


FTFY
 
Displayed 50 of 207 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report