Home Depot Employee Fired for Wearing "God.." Button

Tons of stories are carried on these shows yet nobody is familiar with them. With today's 24 hour news you can get on several networks and all the late night talk shows if you have a squirrel that can water ski. My point is that it's still an irrelevant story to almost everyone. Not that this is scientific but I have asked 4 friends about this story and not one of them heard about it and all of them are what I would consider more news conscious than average. 3 out of 4 are Christians and didn't give a rat's ass about the story even after I sent them a link to it.

 

if there is a HD boycott I will make it a point to shop there on that day...

 

That's a nice sample size there.

 

Jesus loves the little children, Obama kills them by financing abortion. Tell your children the truth.

 

I'm pretty sure I mentioned that it was scientific. I'll wait for Home Depot to go out of business before the end of the year due to the outrage you claim will grip the nation and lead to a nation-wide boycott of the stores.

 

It's on here too. Doesn't mean HD is really being blamed. Look here - you probably have 20-30 people reading this thread. How many are saying HD is at fault? Of those, how many are going to not shop at HD because of it?

At the end of the day, the best thing HD can do is nothing, let it pass, and in a week it will be forgotten, just like Balloon Boy and all the other stories the media latches on to for sensational reasons. It's not going to hurt HD in any noticable way.

 

I read somewhere that their periods attract bears. Bears can smell the menstruation.

 

You are basing your whole argument on that so clearly it's scientific to you.

I never said HD would go out of business. Re-read what I wrote please.

 

That is an odd thing to say. So women are mass murderers every month?

God doesn't like that...

 

No I didn't. You're reaching.

I did read what you wrote. I was using hyperbole. You seem to be under the impression that Home Depot will cave and give in to this kid based on supposed, widespread outrage that will come from the public. The only reason HD would care about public opinion is if it impacts their sales. That isn't going to happen.

 

To all those who discussed my post in my absence, I am sorry it has taken awhile for me to get back to this thread, life intervenes.

To some of you who could not see the connection between the First Amendment (free exercise of religion clause) and the HD case, I say two things. First, you apparently missed my phrase "larger issue." Second, do you believe that the First Amendment is NOT about freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press and they aren't of the same magnitude. It is and they are. Historically, the Founders were intensely concerned about all three. (thank you Rhester for making the connection). Congress is the highest law-making body in the land and they are prohibited from making laws restricting the "free exercise of religion." What does that mean? Freedom of religion!

For approximately 150 years after the Nation was founded, the federal courts and U.S. Supreme court tended to be supportive of religious freedoms, but during the 60's a cultural revolution occurred the consequences of which continue to gain momentum even to the present day. As a result, in the last fifty years or so the federal courts have tended to be generous in regard to free speech and free press issues, but more restrictive in religious matters. If burning the Flag offends some, tough, it is free speech, but if "anyone" is "offended" in anyway by anything "religious," shut it down! The implicit prejudice against all things religious became so obvious that in 1993 the Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and Bill Clinton, a proponent, signed it. Predictably, it has since been found "unconstitutional."

During the last year, several cities have attempted to prohibit religious gatherings in neighborhoods citing traffic problems as the issue. Ironically, but not surprisingly, "parties" are no problem. Also, cities have attempted to prohibit nativity scenes in the yards of individuals, yes, private property. The current status of these cases is unknown, but, clearly, the anti-religious sentiment is obvious. Recently, a H.S. used motivational Bible verses in the banners supporting their football team. One person was offended. The school canceled the long standing tradition. p*rnography, no problem, free speech! But God help us (no pun intended) if someone wears a pin that contains the same phrase that is on the Nations money or in the Pledge. This is horrible beyond description and must be stopped at all costs.

Clearly, I am a proponent of religious freedom, all religions, even the ones that I find obnoxious. Jehovah Witnesses are a case in point. I don't believe what they believe, and I wish they wouldn't come to my door. I don't want to talk with them or receive their literature. I do want them to have the right to try and convert me. I do want them to exercise their religious freedom. I want people to have the freedom of religious expression, to wear their symbols as jewelry, to put "fish" on their cars, Menorahs in their windows. If you want a "religion free" environment, live in France. I am the grandson of immigrants. We missed the Civil War and the early 1900's. Religious freedom was very important to my family, it was one of the motivations for coming to America. Now, I am sad.

 

It means freedom of religion in a government context. Home Depot is not the government, and thus, the First Amendment does not apply to them. That said, they cannot discriminate by religion - based on the 1964 Civil Rights Act, created and passed by Democrats. Not only is it humorous that you try to turn this case into a First Amendment issue, but it's even more humorous that you rail on liberals because of this case, given that the only religious protection Button Boy would have here would be through an act of Congress created by and fought for by liberals.

 

Is the First Amendment not about FREEDOMS? Is the Bill of Rights not about establishing FREEDOMS that the Founders wanted protected even from the intervention of the government? Wasn't it their intention that these FREEDOMS exist in a national context? Would a hardware store in the late 1800's had such prohibitions? Did the Founders not anticipate a more diverse nation? Is Bill Clinton not a Democrat? Am I a Republican?

 

Dude, you're still not understanding the First Amendment. It does not forbid companies from discriminating by religion. Just as it does not prevent companies from restricting free speech (notice how the NBA and NFL can fine athletes for twittering or whatever else?).

No! They were free to discriminate by race, gender, and religion. Same in the mid 1900's. It wasn't until 1964 that this was prohibited:

http://www.eeoc.gov/types/religion.html

They did - and ensured that the government would not take sides in religions. They did not ensure that businesses wouldn't or couldn't.

I have no idea. But your original rant said:

The truth be told, the secular left hates religion of any kind and in any form and would prefer that religion be eradicated from the planet.

The secular left was part of the coalition that passed the Civil Rights Act that forbids discrimination by religion.

 

Nevermind taking you in a back alley and hitting you repeatedly with a large piece of wood, sans repercussions.

The comparison to the 1800s has really taken this thread to a new level of excellence.

 

I never said that Home Depot's decision was a violation of the employee's first amendment rights, but in the broadest sense it is. HD can make rules about appearance and enforce them, however, their rules may be inconsistent and prejudicial, that is yet to be determined.

As to the Bill of Rights, I am convinced that the Framers intended to insure religious freedom for all citizens, not just prevent congressional laws against the practice of religion. The latter would be the narrowest of interpretations. The "separation of church and state" doctrine which is not in the Constitution has been twisted by the courts and anti-religious factions to drive religious practice from the public square. For those of you who think religious freedoms have expanded, I don't know what to say except we have completely different understandings of our Nation's history and further discussions are likely fruitless.

In all my posts on this thread I have never mentioned Christianity, but several posters keep responding as if I had. Despite the collective protestations to the contrary, the secularist assault on our religious freedoms continues. The next step will be to declare politically incorrect sermons as hate speech. And on it goes.

 

You never said it is a violation but it is. Got it.

How is this yet to be determined? The rule is not aimed at religions paraphernalia in particular.

You would be wrong. Although I bet I could make tons of money selling religious freedom insurance.

I wish they had a name for someone who tried to construct the constitution in a really strict manner like you're saying is happening here.

First, your argument here makes no sense in terms of the argument because this has nothing to do with the separation of church and state.

Second, separation of church and state IS in the Constitution. Prohibiting a governmental establishment of religion is, by definition, a separation of church and state. We can argue over other minor issues but to say that the Constitution does not envision a government devoid of religious endorsement is wrong.

Look, I'm a Catholic and have no idea why it matters if there are any religious signs or buttons or sayings on anything having to do with the government. It has absolutely zero impact on what I believe and how I choose to live.

If I go to the bank right now and my dollar bill does not say "In God We Trust" it's not like I'm going to start to question whether or not I really am wrong regarding all issues of faith.

In the end, we've gotten off base in terms of the issue at hand. The issue is whether or not a private company can require that their employees not wear buttons to work. If your answer is anything other than "of course they can" then you are simply wrong and any further discussion is unlikely to yield results.