Religions > Atheism > Six Flags Employees Say Their Ethnic Hairstyles Are Challenged as 'Extreme,' and They've Complained to ACLU
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
19 Jun 2006 12:05:22 AM |
| Object: |
Six Flags Employees Say Their Ethnic Hairstyles Are Challenged as 'Extreme,' and They've Complained to ACLU |
It figures the ACLU would somehow get involved with a story like this.
Always an advocate in these groups for 'true equality' for people of color,
I have to oppose the community in this instance. Private business has every
right to set it's own standards. Perhaps these employees would find
themselves more comfortable in an owner-friendly business; such as serving
chicken wings at the local KFC. Six Flags provides a livable wage to these
people. If they want it, let them cut their hair.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061601801.html
At Six Flags, the Don'ts of Dos
Employees Say Their Ethnic Hairstyles Are Challenged as 'Extreme,' and
They've Complained to ACLU
It's right there, under "Extreme Hairstyles," in the 2006 seasonal handbook
for Six Flags America employees: no dreadlocks, tails, partially shaved
heads "or any hairstyle that detracts or takes away from Six Flags theming."
Braids "must be in neat, even rows and without beads or other ornaments,"
the amusement park handbook advises.
That prompted Tim Bivins, 18, who has worked at Six Flags America in Largo
for two years, to cut several inches off his hair this spring and pay $50 to
have it braided into cornrows. Not good enough, he was told. Cut the braids
shorter or go home.
Shannon Boyd, 17, bought a wig to cover the locks she sports under her
Tweety Bird costume. Not appropriate, she was told, because the wig wasn't
her natural hair color.
Jonathan DeLeon, who had been growing his fanny-length hair since he was 7,
was hired in March to portray Sylvester and Daffy Duck. A few weeks later,
however, he was told that he would have to cut his three-foot-plus-long
braids. His mother whacked off more than two feet, but it wasn't enough,
park officials said.
"They told me I had to cut them even shorter or go home," said DeLeon, 17,
of Largo. "They said they wanted an all-American thing. That's what they
said to all the black people. I had already cut it a lot, so I just left."
Femi Manners and her 16-year-old son, Shakir, agreed that he would not
change his hair: short cornrows with a small design braided in. Instead, she
contacted the American Civil Liberties Union, which is investigating
complaints from more than a dozen black employees of Six Flags America.
--
----------
J Young
youngopinions@aol.com
.
|
|
| User: "No One" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Flags Employees Say Their Ethnic Hairstyles Are Challenged as 'Extreme,' and They've Complained to ACLU |
19 Jun 2006 12:28:57 AM |
|
|
<youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
It figures the ACLU would somehow get involved with a story like this.
Always an advocate in these groups for 'true equality' for people of color,
I have to oppose the community in this instance. Private business has every
right to set it's own standards. Perhaps these employees would find
themselves more comfortable in an owner-friendly business; such as serving
chicken wings at the local KFC. Six Flags provides a livable wage to these
people. If they want it, let them cut their hair.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061601801.html
At Six Flags, the Don'ts of Dos
Employees Say Their Ethnic Hairstyles Are Challenged as 'Extreme,' and
They've Complained to ACLU
So Young now claims the ACLU got "involved" purely because some people
called the ACLU and asked for help! Note that Young did not say
what the ACLU position on this was, but if you check the URL, you
you'll find that
"ACLU of Maryland spokeswoman Meredith Curtis said her
organization is interviewing Six Flags workers, but she
declined to discuss details until the inquiry is concluded."
I.e., someone called the ACLU and the organization is simply asking
about what is going before deciding if it should do anything. Sounds
perfectly sensible - don't tell the public to get lost if someone
calls but don't file a lawsuit until you know there is a legitimate
reason for one.
The article also states:
Dianna Johnston, assistant legal council for the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, said questions about hair
fall under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits
discrimination based on race or national origin.
The law is not crystal clear on these grooming issues . . . ,"
she said. "If the employer only singles out a particular
ethnic style and lets people wear other hairstyles, you might
have a claim of race or ethnic discrimination."
But Johnston said the courts have not recognized an employee
being harmed unless a dismissal or other adverse action
occurs.
So, whether the complaint is valid or not would seem to depend on a
number of detais.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Flags Employees Say Their Ethnic Hairstyles Are Challenged as 'Extreme,' and They've Complained to ACLU |
19 Jun 2006 09:02:57 AM |
|
|
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3k67dzpja.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
<youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
It figures the ACLU would somehow get involved with a story like this.
Always an advocate in these groups for 'true equality' for people of
color,
I have to oppose the community in this instance. Private business has
every
right to set it's own standards. Perhaps these employees would find
themselves more comfortable in an owner-friendly business; such as
serving
chicken wings at the local KFC. Six Flags provides a livable wage to
these
people. If they want it, let them cut their hair.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061601801.html
At Six Flags, the Don'ts of Dos
Employees Say Their Ethnic Hairstyles Are Challenged as 'Extreme,' and
They've Complained to ACLU
So Young now claims the ACLU got "involved" purely because some people
called the ACLU and asked for help! Note that Young did not say
what the ACLU position on this was, but if you check the URL, you
you'll find that
"ACLU of Maryland spokeswoman Meredith Curtis said her
organization is interviewing Six Flags workers, but she
declined to discuss details until the inquiry is concluded."
I.e., someone called the ACLU and the organization is simply asking
about what is going before deciding if it should do anything. Sounds
perfectly sensible - don't tell the public to get lost if someone
calls but don't file a lawsuit until you know there is a legitimate
reason for one.
The article also states:
Dianna Johnston, assistant legal council for the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, said questions about hair
fall under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits
discrimination based on race or national origin.
She is lying.
Hairstyles are not a race issue.
The law is not crystal clear on these grooming issues . . . ,"
she said. "If the employer only singles out a particular
ethnic style and lets people wear other hairstyles, you might
have a claim of race or ethnic discrimination."
Wrong. It is very clear. Hairstyles are not a race issue.
But Johnston said the courts have not recognized an employee
being harmed unless a dismissal or other adverse action
occurs.
If they refuse to conform to the dress code, hairstyle code they can be
terminated for cause.
Dress and hairstyles are not race issues.
So, whether the complaint is valid or not would seem to depend on a
number of detais.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Flags Employees Say Their Ethnic Hairstyles Are Challenged as 'Extreme,' and They've Complained to ACLU |
19 Jun 2006 09:39:46 AM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3k67dzpja.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
<youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
It figures the ACLU would somehow get involved with a story like this.
Always an advocate in these groups for 'true equality' for people of
color,
I have to oppose the community in this instance. Private business has
every
right to set it's own standards. Perhaps these employees would find
themselves more comfortable in an owner-friendly business; such as
serving
chicken wings at the local KFC. Six Flags provides a livable wage to
these
people. If they want it, let them cut their hair.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061601801.html
At Six Flags, the Don'ts of Dos
Employees Say Their Ethnic Hairstyles Are Challenged as 'Extreme,' and
They've Complained to ACLU
So Young now claims the ACLU got "involved" purely because some people
called the ACLU and asked for help! Note that Young did not say
what the ACLU position on this was, but if you check the URL, you
you'll find that
"ACLU of Maryland spokeswoman Meredith Curtis said her
organization is interviewing Six Flags workers, but she
declined to discuss details until the inquiry is concluded."
I.e., someone called the ACLU and the organization is simply asking
about what is going before deciding if it should do anything. Sounds
perfectly sensible - don't tell the public to get lost if someone
calls but don't file a lawsuit until you know there is a legitimate
reason for one.
The article also states:
Dianna Johnston, assistant legal council for the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, said questions about hair
fall under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits
discrimination based on race or national origin.
She is lying.
Hairstyles are not a race issue.
The law is not crystal clear on these grooming issues . . . ,"
she said. "If the employer only singles out a particular
ethnic style and lets people wear other hairstyles, you might
have a claim of race or ethnic discrimination."
Wrong. It is very clear. Hairstyles are not a race issue.
But Johnston said the courts have not recognized an employee
being harmed unless a dismissal or other adverse action
occurs.
If they refuse to conform to the dress code, hairstyle code they can be
terminated for cause.
Just like pharmacists who refuse to do their job of filling legal
prescriptions can be terminated for cause. Let the Wentzky Dance
begin...
Dress and hairstyles are not race issues.
So, whether the complaint is valid or not would seem to depend on a
number of detais.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Flags Employees Say Their Ethnic Hairstyles Are Challenged as 'Extreme,' and They've Complained to ACLU |
19 Jun 2006 10:44:03 AM |
|
|
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150727986.619382.298370@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3k67dzpja.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
<youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
It figures the ACLU would somehow get involved with a story like this.
Always an advocate in these groups for 'true equality' for people of
color,
I have to oppose the community in this instance. Private business has
every
right to set it's own standards. Perhaps these employees would find
themselves more comfortable in an owner-friendly business; such as
serving
chicken wings at the local KFC. Six Flags provides a livable wage to
these
people. If they want it, let them cut their hair.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061601801.html
At Six Flags, the Don'ts of Dos
Employees Say Their Ethnic Hairstyles Are Challenged as 'Extreme,' and
They've Complained to ACLU
So Young now claims the ACLU got "involved" purely because some people
called the ACLU and asked for help! Note that Young did not say
what the ACLU position on this was, but if you check the URL, you
you'll find that
"ACLU of Maryland spokeswoman Meredith Curtis said her
organization is interviewing Six Flags workers, but she
declined to discuss details until the inquiry is concluded."
I.e., someone called the ACLU and the organization is simply asking
about what is going before deciding if it should do anything. Sounds
perfectly sensible - don't tell the public to get lost if someone
calls but don't file a lawsuit until you know there is a legitimate
reason for one.
The article also states:
Dianna Johnston, assistant legal council for the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, said questions about hair
fall under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits
discrimination based on race or national origin.
She is lying.
Hairstyles are not a race issue.
The law is not crystal clear on these grooming issues . . . ,"
she said. "If the employer only singles out a particular
ethnic style and lets people wear other hairstyles, you might
have a claim of race or ethnic discrimination."
Wrong. It is very clear. Hairstyles are not a race issue.
But Johnston said the courts have not recognized an employee
being harmed unless a dismissal or other adverse action
occurs.
If they refuse to conform to the dress code, hairstyle code they can be
terminated for cause.
Just like pharmacists who refuse to do their job of filling legal
prescriptions can be terminated for cause.
So, I see you want an unstable society.
Let the Wentzky Dance
begin...
Nah, what is more the case is you want gay pride parades in every town.
That is the dance you are lobbying for, right?
Dress and hairstyles are not race issues.
So, whether the complaint is valid or not would seem to depend on a
number of detais.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Flags Employees Say Their Ethnic Hairstyles Are Challenged as 'Extreme,' and They've Complained to ACLU |
19 Jun 2006 12:40:50 PM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150727986.619382.298370@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3k67dzpja.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
<youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
It figures the ACLU would somehow get involved with a story like this.
Always an advocate in these groups for 'true equality' for people of
color,
I have to oppose the community in this instance. Private business has
every
right to set it's own standards. Perhaps these employees would find
themselves more comfortable in an owner-friendly business; such as
serving
chicken wings at the local KFC. Six Flags provides a livable wage to
these
people. If they want it, let them cut their hair.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061601801.html
At Six Flags, the Don'ts of Dos
Employees Say Their Ethnic Hairstyles Are Challenged as 'Extreme,' and
They've Complained to ACLU
So Young now claims the ACLU got "involved" purely because some people
called the ACLU and asked for help! Note that Young did not say
what the ACLU position on this was, but if you check the URL, you
you'll find that
"ACLU of Maryland spokeswoman Meredith Curtis said her
organization is interviewing Six Flags workers, but she
declined to discuss details until the inquiry is concluded."
I.e., someone called the ACLU and the organization is simply asking
about what is going before deciding if it should do anything. Sounds
perfectly sensible - don't tell the public to get lost if someone
calls but don't file a lawsuit until you know there is a legitimate
reason for one.
The article also states:
Dianna Johnston, assistant legal council for the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, said questions about hair
fall under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits
discrimination based on race or national origin.
She is lying.
Hairstyles are not a race issue.
The law is not crystal clear on these grooming issues . . . ,"
she said. "If the employer only singles out a particular
ethnic style and lets people wear other hairstyles, you might
have a claim of race or ethnic discrimination."
Wrong. It is very clear. Hairstyles are not a race issue.
But Johnston said the courts have not recognized an employee
being harmed unless a dismissal or other adverse action
occurs.
If they refuse to conform to the dress code, hairstyle code they can be
terminated for cause.
Just like pharmacists who refuse to do their job of filling legal
prescriptions can be terminated for cause.
So, I see you want an unstable society.
I'm not interested in your delusions.
Let the Wentzky Dance
begin...
Nah, what is more the case is you want gay pride parades in every town.
That is the dance you are lobbying for, right?
And, the Wentzky Dance has begun right on cue...
Dress and hairstyles are not race issues.
So, whether the complaint is valid or not would seem to depend on a
number of detais.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Boy Toy" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Flags Employees Say Their Ethnic Hairstyles Are Challenged as 'Extreme,' and They've Complained to ACLU |
19 Jun 2006 01:38:31 PM |
|
|
On 19 Jun 2006 07:39:46 -0700, "Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in
message <1150727986.619382.298370@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>
Johnny wrote:
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3k67dzpja.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
<youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
It figures the ACLU would somehow get involved with a story like this.
Always an advocate in these groups for 'true equality' for people of
color,
I have to oppose the community in this instance. Private business has
every
right to set it's own standards. Perhaps these employees would find
themselves more comfortable in an owner-friendly business; such as
serving
chicken wings at the local KFC. Six Flags provides a livable wage to
these
people. If they want it, let them cut their hair.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061601801.html
At Six Flags, the Don'ts of Dos
Employees Say Their Ethnic Hairstyles Are Challenged as 'Extreme,' and
They've Complained to ACLU
So Young now claims the ACLU got "involved" purely because some people
called the ACLU and asked for help! Note that Young did not say
what the ACLU position on this was, but if you check the URL, you
you'll find that
"ACLU of Maryland spokeswoman Meredith Curtis said her
organization is interviewing Six Flags workers, but she
declined to discuss details until the inquiry is concluded."
I.e., someone called the ACLU and the organization is simply asking
about what is going before deciding if it should do anything. Sounds
perfectly sensible - don't tell the public to get lost if someone
calls but don't file a lawsuit until you know there is a legitimate
reason for one.
The article also states:
Dianna Johnston, assistant legal council for the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, said questions about hair
fall under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits
discrimination based on race or national origin.
She is lying.
Hairstyles are not a race issue.
The law is not crystal clear on these grooming issues . . . ,"
she said. "If the employer only singles out a particular
ethnic style and lets people wear other hairstyles, you might
have a claim of race or ethnic discrimination."
Wrong. It is very clear. Hairstyles are not a race issue.
But Johnston said the courts have not recognized an employee
being harmed unless a dismissal or other adverse action
occurs.
If they refuse to conform to the dress code, hairstyle code they can be
terminated for cause.
Just like pharmacists who refuse to do their job of filling legal
prescriptions can be terminated for cause. Let the Wentzky Dance
begin...
Dress and hairstyles are not race issues.
So, whether the complaint is valid or not would seem to depend on a
number of detais.
I was thinking of the example of a woman working as a secretary in, say,
a law firm (vs. a bar or a strip joint,) who was forced to accept a new
dress code requiring her to wear sleazy low cut blouses, and flimsy
skirts. The code must be appropriate to the environment, and if it is
in major discord with common practice in the industry, then the employer
had better have a good reason.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Don Homuth" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Flags Employees Say Their Ethnic Hairstyles Are Challenged as 'Extreme,' and They've Complained to ACLU |
19 Jun 2006 09:44:18 AM |
|
|
On 19 Jun 2006 07:39:46 -0700, "Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote:
Johnny wrote:
If they refuse to conform to the dress code, hairstyle code they can be
terminated for cause.
Just like pharmacists who refuse to do their job of filling legal
prescriptions can be terminated for cause.
Well, no -- not Just Like.
If a pharmacist refused to go along with the required Appearance Code
from an employer -- say rather than wearing a lab coat preferred to
work in a T-shirt -- they could indeed be fired for that reason.
That's the more appropriate comparison.
The prescriptions discussion is a separate matter entirely. If the
employer requires all prescriptions be filled, and the pharmacist
refuses to do that, they can be fired for the refusal.
If the employer leaves it to the employee's choice, then they cannot
if they so refuse.
Both actions would be quite reasonable under employment law.
Anything beyond that gets into discussions of licensing requirements,
and that's between the state and the pharmacy owner -- and is not a
discussion of employment conditions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Flags Employees Say Their Ethnic Hairstyles Are Challenged as 'Extreme,' and They've Complained to ACLU |
19 Jun 2006 09:58:19 AM |
|
|
Don Homuth wrote:
On 19 Jun 2006 07:39:46 -0700, "Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote:
Johnny wrote:
If they refuse to conform to the dress code, hairstyle code they can be
terminated for cause.
Just like pharmacists who refuse to do their job of filling legal
prescriptions can be terminated for cause.
Well, no -- not Just Like.
I really wasn't making an apples-to-apples comparison. I was merely
pointing out Johnny's hypocrisy when it comes to employment law.
If a pharmacist refused to go along with the required Appearance Code
from an employer -- say rather than wearing a lab coat preferred to
work in a T-shirt -- they could indeed be fired for that reason.
That's the more appropriate comparison.
Indeed, but that wasn't the effect I was going for when throwing
Johnny's hypocrisy back at him.
The prescriptions discussion is a separate matter entirely. If the
employer requires all prescriptions be filled, and the pharmacist
refuses to do that, they can be fired for the refusal.
If the employer leaves it to the employee's choice, then they cannot
if they so refuse.
Most, if not all, pharmacies require that their pharmacists fill all
legal prescriptions. It's not up to the pharmacists to play doctor
other than to point out possible drug interactions/reactions that the
customer may have.
Both actions would be quite reasonable under employment law.
Not according to Johnny, which is why I threw it in his face.
Anything beyond that gets into discussions of licensing requirements,
and that's between the state and the pharmacy owner -- and is not a
discussion of employment conditions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Don Homuth" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Flags Employees Say Their Ethnic Hairstyles Are Challenged as 'Extreme,' and They've Complained to ACLU |
19 Jun 2006 01:21:24 PM |
|
|
On 19 Jun 2006 07:58:19 -0700, "Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote:
Don Homuth wrote:
On 19 Jun 2006 07:39:46 -0700, "Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote:
Johnny wrote:
If they refuse to conform to the dress code, hairstyle code they can be
terminated for cause.
Just like pharmacists who refuse to do their job of filling legal
prescriptions can be terminated for cause.
Well, no -- not Just Like.
I really wasn't making an apples-to-apples comparison. I was merely
pointing out Johnny's hypocrisy when it comes to employment law.
The appropriate context would seem the superior way to accomplish
that, in that case.
Most, if not all, pharmacies require that their pharmacists fill all
legal prescriptions. It's not up to the pharmacists to play doctor
other than to point out possible drug interactions/reactions that the
customer may have.
Some do; some do not. Wal-Mart pharmacies do not.
Both actions would be quite reasonable under employment law.
Not according to Johnny, which is why I threw it in his face.
Then educating the both of you would seem the best way to handle it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Flags Employees Say Their Ethnic Hairstyles Are Challenged as 'Extreme,' and They've Complained to ACLU |
19 Jun 2006 01:29:48 PM |
|
|
"Don Homuth" <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:tmqd92h01l1paugdl96b0b3dcjl4slvoek@4ax.com...
On 19 Jun 2006 07:58:19 -0700, "Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote:
Don Homuth wrote:
On 19 Jun 2006 07:39:46 -0700, "Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote:
Johnny wrote:
If they refuse to conform to the dress code, hairstyle code they can
be
terminated for cause.
Just like pharmacists who refuse to do their job of filling legal
prescriptions can be terminated for cause.
Well, no -- not Just Like.
I really wasn't making an apples-to-apples comparison. I was merely
pointing out Johnny's hypocrisy when it comes to employment law.
The appropriate context would seem the superior way to accomplish
that, in that case.
Most, if not all, pharmacies require that their pharmacists fill all
legal prescriptions. It's not up to the pharmacists to play doctor
other than to point out possible drug interactions/reactions that the
customer may have.
Some do; some do not. Wal-Mart pharmacies do not.
Both actions would be quite reasonable under employment law.
Not according to Johnny, which is why I threw it in his face.
Then educating the both of you would seem the best way to handle it.
Prorep can't get off his tendency to try to stain other people.
He's stuck in the past.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Flags Employees Say Their Ethnic Hairstyles Are Challenged as 'Extreme,' and They've Complained to ACLU |
19 Jun 2006 02:59:20 PM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"Don Homuth" <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:tmqd92h01l1paugdl96b0b3dcjl4slvoek@4ax.com...
On 19 Jun 2006 07:58:19 -0700, "Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote:
Don Homuth wrote:
On 19 Jun 2006 07:39:46 -0700, "Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote:
Johnny wrote:
If they refuse to conform to the dress code, hairstyle code they can
be
terminated for cause.
Just like pharmacists who refuse to do their job of filling legal
prescriptions can be terminated for cause.
Well, no -- not Just Like.
I really wasn't making an apples-to-apples comparison. I was merely
pointing out Johnny's hypocrisy when it comes to employment law.
The appropriate context would seem the superior way to accomplish
that, in that case.
Most, if not all, pharmacies require that their pharmacists fill all
legal prescriptions. It's not up to the pharmacists to play doctor
other than to point out possible drug interactions/reactions that the
customer may have.
Some do; some do not. Wal-Mart pharmacies do not.
Both actions would be quite reasonable under employment law.
Not according to Johnny, which is why I threw it in his face.
Then educating the both of you would seem the best way to handle it.
Prorep can't get off his tendency to try to stain other people.
Johnny can't get off his tendency to lie.
He's stuck in the past.
Says the man who constantly bitches about a 1973 court ruling.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Flags Employees Say Their Ethnic Hairstyles Are Challenged as 'Extreme,' and They've Complained to ACLU |
21 Jun 2006 09:57:54 AM |
|
|
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150747160.305526.121860@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Don Homuth" <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:tmqd92h01l1paugdl96b0b3dcjl4slvoek@4ax.com...
On 19 Jun 2006 07:58:19 -0700, "Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote:
Don Homuth wrote:
On 19 Jun 2006 07:39:46 -0700, "Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote:
Johnny wrote:
If they refuse to conform to the dress code, hairstyle code they
can
be
terminated for cause.
Just like pharmacists who refuse to do their job of filling legal
prescriptions can be terminated for cause.
Well, no -- not Just Like.
I really wasn't making an apples-to-apples comparison. I was merely
pointing out Johnny's hypocrisy when it comes to employment law.
The appropriate context would seem the superior way to accomplish
that, in that case.
Most, if not all, pharmacies require that their pharmacists fill all
legal prescriptions. It's not up to the pharmacists to play doctor
other than to point out possible drug interactions/reactions that the
customer may have.
Some do; some do not. Wal-Mart pharmacies do not.
Both actions would be quite reasonable under employment law.
Not according to Johnny, which is why I threw it in his face.
Then educating the both of you would seem the best way to handle it.
Prorep can't get off his tendency to try to stain other people.
Johnny can't get off his tendency to lie.
He's stuck in the past.
Says the man who constantly bitches about a 1973 court ruling.
I'm not stuck there. It is all Pro-Choicers who are stuck in that crap.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Flags Employees Say Their Ethnic Hairstyles Are Challenged as 'Extreme,' and They've Complained to ACLU |
21 Jun 2006 10:38:05 AM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150747160.305526.121860@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Don Homuth" <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:tmqd92h01l1paugdl96b0b3dcjl4slvoek@4ax.com...
On 19 Jun 2006 07:58:19 -0700, "Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote:
Don Homuth wrote:
On 19 Jun 2006 07:39:46 -0700, "Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote:
Johnny wrote:
If they refuse to conform to the dress code, hairstyle code they
can
be
terminated for cause.
Just like pharmacists who refuse to do their job of filling legal
prescriptions can be terminated for cause.
Well, no -- not Just Like.
I really wasn't making an apples-to-apples comparison. I was merely
pointing out Johnny's hypocrisy when it comes to employment law.
The appropriate context would seem the superior way to accomplish
that, in that case.
Most, if not all, pharmacies require that their pharmacists fill all
legal prescriptions. It's not up to the pharmacists to play doctor
other than to point out possible drug interactions/reactions that the
customer may have.
Some do; some do not. Wal-Mart pharmacies do not.
Both actions would be quite reasonable under employment law.
Not according to Johnny, which is why I threw it in his face.
Then educating the both of you would seem the best way to handle it.
Prorep can't get off his tendency to try to stain other people.
Johnny can't get off his tendency to lie.
He's stuck in the past.
Says the man who constantly bitches about a 1973 court ruling.
I'm not stuck there. It is all Pro-Choicers who are stuck in that crap.
Simple question then: why are you here?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Flags Employees Say Their Ethnic Hairstyles Are Challenged as 'Extreme,' and They've Complained to ACLU |
21 Jun 2006 10:52:29 AM |
|
|
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150904285.747075.125520@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150747160.305526.121860@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Don Homuth" <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:tmqd92h01l1paugdl96b0b3dcjl4slvoek@4ax.com...
On 19 Jun 2006 07:58:19 -0700, "Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote:
Don Homuth wrote:
On 19 Jun 2006 07:39:46 -0700, "Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote:
Johnny wrote:
If they refuse to conform to the dress code, hairstyle code
they
can
be
terminated for cause.
Just like pharmacists who refuse to do their job of filling legal
prescriptions can be terminated for cause.
Well, no -- not Just Like.
I really wasn't making an apples-to-apples comparison. I was merely
pointing out Johnny's hypocrisy when it comes to employment law.
The appropriate context would seem the superior way to accomplish
that, in that case.
Most, if not all, pharmacies require that their pharmacists fill all
legal prescriptions. It's not up to the pharmacists to play doctor
other than to point out possible drug interactions/reactions that
the
customer may have.
Some do; some do not. Wal-Mart pharmacies do not.
Both actions would be quite reasonable under employment law.
Not according to Johnny, which is why I threw it in his face.
Then educating the both of you would seem the best way to handle it.
Prorep can't get off his tendency to try to stain other people.
Johnny can't get off his tendency to lie.
He's stuck in the past.
Says the man who constantly bitches about a 1973 court ruling.
I'm not stuck there. It is all Pro-Choicers who are stuck in that crap.
Simple question then: why are you here?
I was born here, for one.
Why are you here?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Flags Employees Say Their Ethnic Hairstyles Are Challenged as 'Extreme,' and They've Complained to ACLU |
21 Jun 2006 12:23:32 PM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150904285.747075.125520@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150747160.305526.121860@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Don Homuth" <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:tmqd92h01l1paugdl96b0b3dcjl4slvoek@4ax.com...
On 19 Jun 2006 07:58:19 -0700, "Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote:
Don Homuth wrote:
On 19 Jun 2006 07:39:46 -0700, "Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote:
Johnny wrote:
If they refuse to conform to the dress code, hairstyle code
they
can
be
terminated for cause.
Just like pharmacists who refuse to do their job of filling legal
prescriptions can be terminated for cause.
Well, no -- not Just Like.
I really wasn't making an apples-to-apples comparison. I was merely
pointing out Johnny's hypocrisy when it comes to employment law.
The appropriate context would seem the superior way to accomplish
that, in that case.
Most, if not all, pharmacies require that their pharmacists fill all
legal prescriptions. It's not up to the pharmacists to play doctor
other than to point out possible drug interactions/reactions that
the
customer may have.
Some do; some do not. Wal-Mart pharmacies do not.
Both actions would be quite reasonable under employment law.
Not according to Johnny, which is why I threw it in his face.
Then educating the both of you would seem the best way to handle it.
Prorep can't get off his tendency to try to stain other people.
Johnny can't get off his tendency to lie.
He's stuck in the past.
Says the man who constantly bitches about a 1973 court ruling.
I'm not stuck there. It is all Pro-Choicers who are stuck in that crap.
Simple question then: why are you here?
I was born here, for one.
In this NEWSGROUP, you illiterate twit.
Why are you here?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Flags Employees Say Their Ethnic Hairstyles Are Challenged as 'Extreme,' and They've Complained to ACLU |
21 Jun 2006 01:37:09 PM |
|
|
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150910612.735854.136380@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150904285.747075.125520@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150747160.305526.121860@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
Johnny wrote:
"Don Homuth" <dhomuth1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:tmqd92h01l1paugdl96b0b3dcjl4slvoek@4ax.com...
On 19 Jun 2006 07:58:19 -0700, "Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote:
Don Homuth wrote:
On 19 Jun 2006 07:39:46 -0700, "Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Johnny wrote:
If they refuse to conform to the dress code, hairstyle code
they
can
be
terminated for cause.
Just like pharmacists who refuse to do their job of filling
legal
prescriptions can be terminated for cause.
Well, no -- not Just Like.
I really wasn't making an apples-to-apples comparison. I was
merely
pointing out Johnny's hypocrisy when it comes to employment law.
The appropriate context would seem the superior way to accomplish
that, in that case.
Most, if not all, pharmacies require that their pharmacists fill
all
legal prescriptions. It's not up to the pharmacists to play
doctor
other than to point out possible drug interactions/reactions that
the
customer may have.
Some do; some do not. Wal-Mart pharmacies do not.
Both actions would be quite reasonable under employment law.
Not according to Johnny, which is why I threw it in his face.
Then educating the both of you would seem the best way to handle
it.
Prorep can't get off his tendency to try to stain other people.
Johnny can't get off his tendency to lie.
He's stuck in the past.
Says the man who constantly bitches about a 1973 court ruling.
I'm not stuck there. It is all Pro-Choicers who are stuck in that
crap.
Simple question then: why are you here?
I was born here, for one.
In this NEWSGROUP, you illiterate twit.
Illiterate that time?
I didn't detect any ambiguity in your statement. I obviously did not discern
what you were really asking me.
Which newsgroup?
Why are you here?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pr0r3p" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Flags Employees Say Their Ethnic Hairstyles Are Challenged as 'Extreme,' and They've Complained to ACLU |
19 Jun 2006 03:00:28 PM |
|
|
Don Homuth wrote:
On 19 Jun 2006 07:58:19 -0700, "Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote:
Don Homuth wrote:
On 19 Jun 2006 07:39:46 -0700, "Pr0r3p" <pr0r3p@yahoo.com> wrote:
Johnny wrote:
If they refuse to conform to the dress code, hairstyle code they can be
terminated for cause.
Just like pharmacists who refuse to do their job of filling legal
prescriptions can be terminated for cause.
Well, no -- not Just Like.
I really wasn't making an apples-to-apples comparison. I was merely
pointing out Johnny's hypocrisy when it comes to employment law.
The appropriate context would seem the superior way to accomplish
that, in that case.
Point taken.
Most, if not all, pharmacies require that their pharmacists fill all
legal prescriptions. It's not up to the pharmacists to play doctor
other than to point out possible drug interactions/reactions that the
customer may have.
Some do; some do not. Wal-Mart pharmacies do not.
Which is why I said "most"...
Both actions would be quite reasonable under employment law.
Not according to Johnny, which is why I threw it in his face.
Then educating the both of you would seem the best way to handle it.
Good luck with Johnny...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Flags Employees Say Their Ethnic Hairstyles Are Challenged as 'Extreme,' and They've Complained to ACLU |
19 Jun 2006 09:39:17 AM |
|
|
Previously, on alt.atheism, Johnny in episode
<j8ylg.15467$ED2.10074@bignews2.bellsouth.net>...
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3k67dzpja.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
<youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
It figures the ACLU would somehow get involved with a story like this.
Always an advocate in these groups for 'true equality' for people of
color,
I have to oppose the community in this instance. Private business has
every
right to set it's own standards. Perhaps these employees would find
themselves more comfortable in an owner-friendly business; such as
serving
chicken wings at the local KFC. Six Flags provides a livable wage to
these
people. If they want it, let them cut their hair.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061601801.html
At Six Flags, the Don'ts of Dos
Employees Say Their Ethnic Hairstyles Are Challenged as 'Extreme,' and
They've Complained to ACLU
So Young now claims the ACLU got "involved" purely because some people
called the ACLU and asked for help! Note that Young did not say what
the ACLU position on this was, but if you check the URL, you you'll find
that
"ACLU of Maryland spokeswoman Meredith Curtis said her
organization is interviewing Six Flags workers, but she declined
to discuss details until the inquiry is concluded."
I.e., someone called the ACLU and the organization is simply asking
about what is going before deciding if it should do anything. Sounds
perfectly sensible - don't tell the public to get lost if someone calls
but don't file a lawsuit until you know there is a legitimate reason for
one.
The article also states:
Dianna Johnston, assistant legal council for the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, said questions about hair fall
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits
discrimination based on race or national origin.
She is lying.
Hairstyles are not a race issue.
No, the Civil Rights Act is part of her job.
As opposed to you for whom being a Usenet kook appears to be the only work
you can get...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Flags Employees Say Their Ethnic Hairstyles Are Challenged as 'Extreme,' and They've Complained to ACLU |
19 Jun 2006 10:42:37 AM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:u8adnc3jee2IKgvZnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@megapath.net...
Previously, on alt.atheism, Johnny in episode
<j8ylg.15467$ED2.10074@bignews2.bellsouth.net>...
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3k67dzpja.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
<youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
It figures the ACLU would somehow get involved with a story like this.
Always an advocate in these groups for 'true equality' for people of
color,
I have to oppose the community in this instance. Private business has
every
right to set it's own standards. Perhaps these employees would find
themselves more comfortable in an owner-friendly business; such as
serving
chicken wings at the local KFC. Six Flags provides a livable wage to
these
people. If they want it, let them cut their hair.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061601801.html
At Six Flags, the Don'ts of Dos
Employees Say Their Ethnic Hairstyles Are Challenged as 'Extreme,' and
They've Complained to ACLU
So Young now claims the ACLU got "involved" purely because some people
called the ACLU and asked for help! Note that Young did not say what
the ACLU position on this was, but if you check the URL, you you'll find
that
"ACLU of Maryland spokeswoman Meredith Curtis said her
organization is interviewing Six Flags workers, but she declined
to discuss details until the inquiry is concluded."
I.e., someone called the ACLU and the organization is simply asking
about what is going before deciding if it should do anything. Sounds
perfectly sensible - don't tell the public to get lost if someone calls
but don't file a lawsuit until you know there is a legitimate reason for
one.
The article also states:
Dianna Johnston, assistant legal council for the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, said questions about hair fall
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits
discrimination based on race or national origin.
She is lying.
Hairstyles are not a race issue.
No, the Civil Rights Act is part of her job.
Yep. But she is trying to insert words in it that are NOT there.
As opposed to you for whom being a Usenet kook appears to be the only work
you can get...
Too bad she sees words in the law that aren't in it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Flags Employees Say Their Ethnic Hairstyles Are Challenged as 'Extreme,' and They've Complained to ACLU |
19 Jun 2006 12:26:08 PM |
|
|
Previously, on alt.atheism, Johnny in episode
<MBzlg.15483$ED2.1333@bignews2.bellsouth.net>...
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:u8adnc3jee2IKgvZnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@megapath.net...
Previously, on alt.atheism, Johnny in episode
<j8ylg.15467$ED2.10074@bignews2.bellsouth.net>...
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3k67dzpja.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
<youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
It figures the ACLU would somehow get involved with a story like
this. Always an advocate in these groups for 'true equality' for
people of color,
I have to oppose the community in this instance. Private business has
every
right to set it's own standards. Perhaps these employees would find
themselves more comfortable in an owner-friendly business; such as
serving
chicken wings at the local KFC. Six Flags provides a livable wage to
these
people. If they want it, let them cut their hair.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061601801.html
At Six Flags, the Don'ts of Dos
Employees Say Their Ethnic Hairstyles Are Challenged as 'Extreme,'
and They've Complained to ACLU
So Young now claims the ACLU got "involved" purely because some people
called the ACLU and asked for help! Note that Young did not say what
the ACLU position on this was, but if you check the URL, you you'll
find that
"ACLU of Maryland spokeswoman Meredith Curtis said her
organization is interviewing Six Flags workers, but she
declined to discuss details until the inquiry is concluded."
I.e., someone called the ACLU and the organization is simply asking
about what is going before deciding if it should do anything. Sounds
perfectly sensible - don't tell the public to get lost if someone
calls but don't file a lawsuit until you know there is a legitimate
reason for one.
The article also states:
Dianna Johnston, assistant legal council for the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, said questions about hair
fall under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits
discrimination based on race or national origin.
She is lying.
Hairstyles are not a race issue.
No, the Civil Rights Act is part of her job.
Yep. But she is trying to insert words in it that are NOT there.
As opposed to you for whom being a Usenet kook appears to be the only
work you can get...
Too bad she sees words in the law that aren't in it.
Let's see, she actually has a degree and works at the EEOC.
You're a... fruit basket?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Flags Employees Say Their Ethnic Hairstyles Are Challenged as 'Extreme,' and They've Complained to ACLU |
19 Jun 2006 12:52:36 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:Tu6dnX2xx86tQwvZnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@megapath.net...
Previously, on alt.atheism, Johnny in episode
<MBzlg.15483$ED2.1333@bignews2.bellsouth.net>...
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:u8adnc3jee2IKgvZnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@megapath.net...
Previously, on alt.atheism, Johnny in episode
<j8ylg.15467$ED2.10074@bignews2.bellsouth.net>...
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3k67dzpja.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
<youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
It figures the ACLU would somehow get involved with a story like
this. Always an advocate in these groups for 'true equality' for
people of color,
I have to oppose the community in this instance. Private business has
every
right to set it's own standards. Perhaps these employees would find
themselves more comfortable in an owner-friendly business; such as
serving
chicken wings at the local KFC. Six Flags provides a livable wage to
these
people. If they want it, let them cut their hair.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061601801.html
At Six Flags, the Don'ts of Dos
Employees Say Their Ethnic Hairstyles Are Challenged as 'Extreme,'
and They've Complained to ACLU
So Young now claims the ACLU got "involved" purely because some people
called the ACLU and asked for help! Note that Young did not say what
the ACLU position on this was, but if you check the URL, you you'll
find that
"ACLU of Maryland spokeswoman Meredith Curtis said her
organization is interviewing Six Flags workers, but she
declined to discuss details until the inquiry is concluded."
I.e., someone called the ACLU and the organization is simply asking
about what is going before deciding if it should do anything. Sounds
perfectly sensible - don't tell the public to get lost if someone
calls but don't file a lawsuit until you know there is a legitimate
reason for one.
The article also states:
Dianna Johnston, assistant legal council for the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, said questions about hair
fall under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits
discrimination based on race or national origin.
She is lying.
Hairstyles are not a race issue.
No, the Civil Rights Act is part of her job.
Yep. But she is trying to insert words in it that are NOT there.
As opposed to you for whom being a Usenet kook appears to be the only
work you can get...
Too bad she sees words in the law that aren't in it.
Let's see, she actually has a degree and works at the EEOC.
That shows your ability to be deceived by position.
You're a... fruit basket?
Probabaly you.
Why do you see words in law that aren't there?
And, why do you think someone, only because of their job title, can add
words to laws that are not in the law?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Flags Employees Say Their Ethnic Hairstyles Are Challenged as 'Extreme,' and They've Complained to ACLU |
19 Jun 2006 04:04:57 PM |
|
|
Previously, on alt.atheism, Johnny in episode
<EvBlg.15494$ED2.6962@bignews2.bellsouth.net>...
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:Tu6dnX2xx86tQwvZnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@megapath.net...
Previously, on alt.atheism, Johnny in episode
<MBzlg.15483$ED2.1333@bignews2.bellsouth.net>...
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:u8adnc3jee2IKgvZnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@megapath.net...
Previously, on alt.atheism, Johnny in episode
<j8ylg.15467$ED2.10074@bignews2.bellsouth.net>...
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3k67dzpja.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
<youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
It figures the ACLU would somehow get involved with a story like
this. Always an advocate in these groups for 'true equality' for
people of color,
I have to oppose the community in this instance. Private business
has every
right to set it's own standards. Perhaps these employees would find
themselves more comfortable in an owner-friendly business; such as
serving
chicken wings at the local KFC. Six Flags provides a livable wage
to these
people. If they want it, let them cut their hair.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061601801.html
At Six Flags, the Don'ts of Dos
Employees Say Their Ethnic Hairstyles Are Challenged as 'Extreme,'
and They've Complained to ACLU
So Young now claims the ACLU got "involved" purely because some
people called the ACLU and asked for help! Note that Young did not
say what the ACLU position on this was, but if you check the URL,
you you'll find that
"ACLU of Maryland spokeswoman Meredith Curtis said her
organization is interviewing Six Flags workers, but she
declined to discuss details until the inquiry is concluded."
I.e., someone called the ACLU and the organization is simply asking
about what is going before deciding if it should do anything. Sounds
perfectly sensible - don't tell the public to get lost if someone
calls but don't file a lawsuit until you know there is a legitimate
reason for one.
The article also states:
Dianna Johnston, assistant legal council for the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, said questions about hair
fall under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits
discrimination based on race or national origin.
She is lying.
Hairstyles are not a race issue.
No, the Civil Rights Act is part of her job.
Yep. But she is trying to insert words in it that are NOT there.
As opposed to you for whom being a Usenet kook appears to be the only
work you can get...
Too bad she sees words in the law that aren't in it.
Let's see, she actually has a degree and works at the EEOC.
That shows your ability to be deceived by position.
You're a... fruit basket?
Probabaly you.
Why do you see words in law that aren't there? And, why do you think
someone, only because of their job title, can add words to laws that are
not in the law?
Let's see... number of courts who consider your opinion significant:
That about wraps that up...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Flags Employees Say Their Ethnic Hairstyles Are Challenged as 'Extreme,' and They've Complained to ACLU |
21 Jun 2006 09:57:05 AM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:k4udnUAx39fkjArZnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@megapath.net...
Previously, on alt.atheism, Johnny in episode
<EvBlg.15494$ED2.6962@bignews2.bellsouth.net>...
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:Tu6dnX2xx86tQwvZnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@megapath.net...
Previously, on alt.atheism, Johnny in episode
<MBzlg.15483$ED2.1333@bignews2.bellsouth.net>...
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:u8adnc3jee2IKgvZnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@megapath.net...
Previously, on alt.atheism, Johnny in episode
<j8ylg.15467$ED2.10074@bignews2.bellsouth.net>...
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3k67dzpja.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
<youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
It figures the ACLU would somehow get involved with a story like
this. Always an advocate in these groups for 'true equality' for
people of color,
I have to oppose the community in this instance. Private business
has every
right to set it's own standards. Perhaps these employees would find
themselves more comfortable in an owner-friendly business; such as
serving
chicken wings at the local KFC. Six Flags provides a livable wage
to these
people. If they want it, let them cut their hair.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061601801.html
At Six Flags, the Don'ts of Dos
Employees Say Their Ethnic Hairstyles Are Challenged as 'Extreme,'
and They've Complained to ACLU
So Young now claims the ACLU got "involved" purely because some
people called the ACLU and asked for help! Note that Young did not
say what the ACLU position on this was, but if you check the URL,
you you'll find that
"ACLU of Maryland spokeswoman Meredith Curtis said her
organization is interviewing Six Flags workers, but she
declined to discuss details until the inquiry is concluded."
I.e., someone called the ACLU and the organization is simply asking
about what is going before deciding if it should do anything. Sounds
perfectly sensible - don't tell the public to get lost if someone
calls but don't file a lawsuit until you know there is a legitimate
reason for one.
The article also states:
Dianna Johnston, assistant legal council for the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, said questions about hair
fall under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits
discrimination based on race or national origin.
She is lying.
Hairstyles are not a race issue.
No, the Civil Rights Act is part of her job.
Yep. But she is trying to insert words in it that are NOT there.
As opposed to you for whom being a Usenet kook appears to be the only
work you can get...
Too bad she sees words in the law that aren't in it.
Let's see, she actually has a degree and works at the EEOC.
That shows your ability to be deceived by position.
You're a... fruit basket?
Probabaly you.
Why do you see words in law that aren't there? And, why do you think
someone, only because of their job title, can add words to laws that are
not in the law?
Let's see... number of courts who consider your opinion significant:
You are who is siding with opinion that is nowhere to be found in the law in
this case.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Flags Employees Say Their Ethnic Hairstyles Are Challenged as 'Extreme,' and They've Complained to ACLU |
21 Jun 2006 11:59:43 AM |
|
|
Previously, on alt.atheism, Johnny in episode
<57dmg.5543$7K2.4289@bignews2.bellsouth.net>...
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:k4udnUAx39fkjArZnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@megapath.net...
Previously, on alt.atheism, Johnny in episode
<EvBlg.15494$ED2.6962@bignews2.bellsouth.net>...
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:Tu6dnX2xx86tQwvZnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@megapath.net...
Previously, on alt.atheism, Johnny in episode
<MBzlg.15483$ED2.1333@bignews2.bellsouth.net>...
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:u8adnc3jee2IKgvZnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@megapath.net...
Previously, on alt.atheism, Johnny in episode
<j8ylg.15467$ED2.10074@bignews2.bellsouth.net>...
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3k67dzpja.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
<youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
It figures the ACLU would somehow get involved with a story like
this. Always an advocate in these groups for 'true equality' for
people of color,
I have to oppose the community in this instance. Private business
has every
right to set it's own standards. Perhaps these employees would
find themselves more comfortable in an owner-friendly business;
such as serving
chicken wings at the local KFC. Six Flags provides a livable wage
to these
people. If they want it, let them cut their hair.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061601801.html
At Six Flags, the Don'ts of Dos
Employees Say Their Ethnic Hairstyles Are Challenged as
'Extreme,' and They've Complained to ACLU
So Young now claims the ACLU got "involved" purely because some
people called the ACLU and asked for help! Note that Young did
not say what the ACLU position on this was, but if you check the
URL, you you'll find that
"ACLU of Maryland spokeswoman Meredith Curtis said her
organization is interviewing Six Flags workers, but she
declined to discuss details until the inquiry is
concluded."
I.e., someone called the ACLU and the organization is simply
asking about what is going before deciding if it should do
anything. Sounds perfectly sensible - don't tell the public to get
lost if someone calls but don't file a lawsuit until you know
there is a legitimate reason for one.
The article also states:
Dianna Johnston, assistant legal council for the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, said questions about
hair fall under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which
prohibits discrimination based on race or national origin.
She is lying.
Hairstyles are not a race issue.
No, the Civil Rights Act is part of her job.
Yep. But she is trying to insert words in it that are NOT there.
As opposed to you for whom being a Usenet kook appears to be the
only work you can get...
Too bad she sees words in the law that aren't in it.
Let's see, she actually has a degree and works at the EEOC.
That shows your ability to be deceived by position.
You're a... fruit basket?
Probabaly you.
Why do you see words in law that aren't there? And, why do you think
someone, only because of their job title, can add words to laws that
are not in the law?
Let's see... number of courts who consider your opinion significant:
You are who is siding with opinion that is nowhere to be found in the law
in this case.
Number of courts that care what Johnny thinks?
Hm...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Flags Employees Say Their Ethnic Hairstyles Are Challenged as 'Extreme,' and They've Complained to ACLU |
21 Jun 2006 01:34:59 PM |
|
|
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:-aCdnUN3ytNi5wTZnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@megapath.net...
Previously, on alt.atheism, Johnny in episode
<57dmg.5543$7K2.4289@bignews2.bellsouth.net>...
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:k4udnUAx39fkjArZnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@megapath.net...
Previously, on alt.atheism, Johnny in episode
<EvBlg.15494$ED2.6962@bignews2.bellsouth.net>...
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:Tu6dnX2xx86tQwvZnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@megapath.net...
Previously, on alt.atheism, Johnny in episode
<MBzlg.15483$ED2.1333@bignews2.bellsouth.net>...
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:u8adnc3jee2IKgvZnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@megapath.net...
Previously, on alt.atheism, Johnny in episode
<j8ylg.15467$ED2.10074@bignews2.bellsouth.net>...
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3k67dzpja.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
<youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
It figures the ACLU would somehow get involved with a story like
this. Always an advocate in these groups for 'true equality' for
people of color,
I have to oppose the community in this instance. Private business
has every
right to set it's own standards. Perhaps these employees would
find themselves more comfortable in an owner-friendly business;
such as serving
chicken wings at the local KFC. Six Flags provides a livable wage
to these
people. If they want it, let them cut their hair.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061601801.html
At Six Flags, the Don'ts of Dos
Employees Say Their Ethnic Hairstyles Are Challenged as
'Extreme,' and They've Complained to ACLU
So Young now claims the ACLU got "involved" purely because some
people called the ACLU and asked for help! Note that Young did
not say what the ACLU position on this was, but if you check the
URL, you you'll find that
"ACLU of Maryland spokeswoman Meredith Curtis said her
organization is interviewing Six Flags workers, but she
declined to discuss details until the inquiry is
concluded."
I.e., someone called the ACLU and the organization is simply
asking about what is going before deciding if it should do
anything. Sounds perfectly sensible - don't tell the public to get
lost if someone calls but don't file a lawsuit until you know
there is a legitimate reason for one.
The article also states:
Dianna Johnston, assistant legal council for the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, said questions about
hair fall under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which
prohibits discrimination based on race or national origin.
She is lying.
Hairstyles are not a race issue.
No, the Civil Rights Act is part of her job.
Yep. But she is trying to insert words in it that are NOT there.
As opposed to you for whom being a Usenet kook appears to be the
only work you can get...
Too bad she sees words in the law that aren't in it.
Let's see, she actually has a degree and works at the EEOC.
That shows your ability to be deceived by position.
You're a... fruit basket?
Probabaly you.
Why do you see words in law that aren't there? And, why do you think
someone, only because of their job title, can add words to laws that
are not in the law?
Let's see... number of courts who consider your opinion significant:
You are who is siding with opinion that is nowhere to be found in the law
in this case.
Number of courts that care what Johnny thinks?
Hm...
Well, as long as you feel that the Court system is not here to rule by law,
how do you expect to get justice if someone commits an infraction of law
against you?
And, what are the Courts compared to the people?
See?
Why is it we are supposed to agree with Courts that tell us differently than
what the law dictates?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Six Flags Employees Say Their Ethnic Hairstyles Are Challenged as 'Extreme,' and They've Complained to ACLU |
21 Jun 2006 06:30:58 PM |
|
|
Previously, on alt.atheism, Johnny in episode
<njgmg.71210$qd2.64661@bignews6.bellsouth.net>...
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:-aCdnUN3ytNi5wTZnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@megapath.net...
Previously, on alt.atheism, Johnny in episode
<57dmg.5543$7K2.4289@bignews2.bellsouth.net>...
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:k4udnUAx39fkjArZnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@megapath.net...
Previously, on alt.atheism, Johnny in episode
<EvBlg.15494$ED2.6962@bignews2.bellsouth.net>...
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:Tu6dnX2xx86tQwvZnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@megapath.net...
Previously, on alt.atheism, Johnny in episode
<MBzlg.15483$ED2.1333@bignews2.bellsouth.net>...
"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote in message
news:u8adnc3jee2IKgvZnZ2dnUVZ_radnZ2d@megapath.net...
Previously, on alt.atheism, Johnny in episode
<j8ylg.15467$ED2.10074@bignews2.bellsouth.net>...
"No One" <noone@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3k67dzpja.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
<youngopinions@aol.com> writes:
It figures the ACLU would somehow get involved with a story
like this. Always an advocate in these groups for 'true
equality' for people of color,
I have to oppose the community in this instance. Private
business has every
right to set it's own standards. Perhaps these employees would
find themselves more comfortable in an owner-friendly business;
such as serving
chicken wings at the local KFC. Six Flags provides a livable
wage to these
people. If they want it, let them cut their hair.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061601801.html
At Six Flags, the Don'ts of Dos
Employees Say Their Ethnic Hairstyles Are Challenged as
'Extreme,' and They've Complained to ACLU
So Young now claims the ACLU got "involved" purely because some
people called the ACLU and asked for help! Note that Young did
not say what the ACLU position on this was, but if you check the
URL, you you'll find that
"ACLU of Maryland spokeswoman Meredith Curtis said her
organization is interviewing Six Flags workers, but she
declined to discuss details until the inquiry is
concluded."
I.e., someone called the ACLU and the organization is simply
asking about what is going before deciding if it should do
anything. Sounds perfectly sensible - don't tell the public to
get lost if someone calls but don't file a lawsuit until you
know there is a legitimate reason for one.
The article also states:
Dianna Johnston, assistant legal council for the U.S.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, said questions
about hair fall under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act,
which prohibits discrimination based on race or national
origin.
She is lying.
Hairstyles are not a race issue.
No, the Civil Rights Act is part of her job.
Yep. But she is trying to insert words in it that are NOT there.
As opposed to you for whom being a Usenet kook appears to be the
only work you can get...
Too bad she sees words in the law that aren't in it.
Let's see, she actually has a degree and works at the EEOC.
That shows your ability to be deceived by position.
You're a... fruit basket?
Probabaly you.
Why do you see words in law that aren't there? And, why do you think
someone, only because of their job title, can add words to laws that
are not in the law?
Let's see... number of courts who consider your opinion significant:
You are who is siding with opinion that is nowhere to be found in the
law in this case.
Number of courts that care what Johnny thinks?
Hm...
Well, as long as you feel that the Court system is not here to rule by
law, how do you expect to get justice if someone commits an infraction of
law against you?
And, what are the Courts compared to the people? See?
Why is it we are supposed to agree with Courts that tell us differently
than what the law dictates?
No, Johnny, nobody agrees with you. You're nuts.
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blam | | | | | | | | | | | |
