1650 pts ยท November 14, 2013
Which of those things has the least government interference?
That was the best explanation of that i've seen on here.
2/2 i think he was trying to do what was right, and was not "discriminating" against a person or religion. He was legally in the wrong tho.
1/2 That is my suspicion yes. As with most (if not all) religions, he thinks his way is best. i never said what he was doing was right. But
ok, you and i just are incapable of resolving anything. have a nice holiday weekend, i'm done.
ok, dumbass.
holy jesus fuck you think it's ok to indoctrinate your children, but not ok to share differing ideals with an adult?!
how is it oppressive?
obviously it wasn't a big deal, i just don't like you.
4/? which i've conceded to. I was wrong, but you're an asshole. I can't change my mind about that fact.
3/? but Dahl was in the wrong legally, with precedent set in E.E.O.C. v. TOWNLEY ENGINEERING & MFG. CO.
2/? so sorry you can't handle the thought of hearing someone else's religious point of view for an hour a week. it's really not oppressive.
1/? Here's the thing though, he was trying to help someone, which i'll bet is more than you've done. I certainly wouldn't have done it.
i love when little bitches on the internet try to act like they could straighten out a stranger with physical violence. go fuck yourself.
That was an actual useful bit of info in proving your point. Next time use facts not name calling.
Then it doesn't need to be stated, does it? For the future, bring up "E.E.O.C. v. TOWNLEY ENGINEERING & MFG. CO." in these conversations.
Oh shit, the storu ended? Look man, someone else argued this way better than you did, and convinced. Put down your juice cup and have a nap.
You're saying Dahl is a Mormon cultist?
You are adorable.
It's not, read up on Title VII. It does not apply to businesses with fewer than 15 employees. That is a fact.
I was, yeah. @GGator491 pointed out "E.E.O.C. v. TOWNLEY ENGINEERING & MFG. CO." which indicates the flat out illegality. So, moot point.
i didn't argue that firing him was helping him, nor imply that your presumption was about that. good night.
ok, that made me laugh. have an upvote, and a good night.
Then Dahl is fucked. Wonder how many employees will lose jobs when he has to pay out $800k.
Were Townley's functions paid and on the clock? That is Dahl's defense.
Same. we agreed on something!
a required meeting at his place of business. yes, the meeting is religious. was the firing? it's not the same thing.
on re-reading, he was denied because he was rightfully fired. it's going to be a gray area where you have to prove Dahl's motive.
oh, nope. close though. will be interesting to see how this goes in court.
Title VII however doesn't generally apply to businesses with fewer than 15 employees. How big is Dahled Up?
Which of those things has the least government interference?
That was the best explanation of that i've seen on here.
2/2 i think he was trying to do what was right, and was not "discriminating" against a person or religion. He was legally in the wrong tho.
1/2 That is my suspicion yes. As with most (if not all) religions, he thinks his way is best. i never said what he was doing was right. But
ok, you and i just are incapable of resolving anything. have a nice holiday weekend, i'm done.
ok, dumbass.
holy jesus fuck you think it's ok to indoctrinate your children, but not ok to share differing ideals with an adult?!
how is it oppressive?
obviously it wasn't a big deal, i just don't like you.
4/? which i've conceded to. I was wrong, but you're an asshole. I can't change my mind about that fact.
3/? but Dahl was in the wrong legally, with precedent set in E.E.O.C. v. TOWNLEY ENGINEERING & MFG. CO.
2/? so sorry you can't handle the thought of hearing someone else's religious point of view for an hour a week. it's really not oppressive.
1/? Here's the thing though, he was trying to help someone, which i'll bet is more than you've done. I certainly wouldn't have done it.
i love when little bitches on the internet try to act like they could straighten out a stranger with physical violence. go fuck yourself.
That was an actual useful bit of info in proving your point. Next time use facts not name calling.
Then it doesn't need to be stated, does it? For the future, bring up "E.E.O.C. v. TOWNLEY ENGINEERING & MFG. CO." in these conversations.
Oh shit, the storu ended? Look man, someone else argued this way better than you did, and convinced. Put down your juice cup and have a nap.
You're saying Dahl is a Mormon cultist?
You are adorable.
It's not, read up on Title VII. It does not apply to businesses with fewer than 15 employees. That is a fact.
I was, yeah. @GGator491 pointed out "E.E.O.C. v. TOWNLEY ENGINEERING & MFG. CO." which indicates the flat out illegality. So, moot point.
i didn't argue that firing him was helping him, nor imply that your presumption was about that. good night.
ok, that made me laugh. have an upvote, and a good night.
Then Dahl is fucked. Wonder how many employees will lose jobs when he has to pay out $800k.
Were Townley's functions paid and on the clock? That is Dahl's defense.
Same. we agreed on something!
a required meeting at his place of business. yes, the meeting is religious. was the firing? it's not the same thing.
on re-reading, he was denied because he was rightfully fired. it's going to be a gray area where you have to prove Dahl's motive.
oh, nope. close though. will be interesting to see how this goes in court.
Title VII however doesn't generally apply to businesses with fewer than 15 employees. How big is Dahled Up?