Skepfeeds-The Best Skeptical blogs of the day

Atheists want God out of Ky. homeland security

Posted in News by Skepdude on December 3, 2008

A group of atheists filed a lawsuit Tuesday seeking to remove part of a state anti-terrorism law that requires Kentucky’s Office of Homeland Security to acknowledge it can’t keep the state safe without God’s help.

American Atheists Inc. sued in state court over a 2002 law that stresses God’s role in Kentucky’s homeland security alongside the military, police agencies and health departments.

Of particular concern is a 2006 clause requiring the Office of Homeland Security to post a plaque that says the safety and security of the state “cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon almighty God” and to stress that fact through training and educational materials.

The plaque, posted at the Kentucky Emergency Operations Center in Frankfort, includes the Bible verse: “Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.”

“It is one of the most egregiously and breathtakingly unconstitutional actions by a state legislature that I’ve ever seen,” said Edwin F. Kagin, national legal director of Parsippany, N.J.-based American Atheists Inc. The group claims the law violates both the state and U.S. constitutions.

But Democratic state Rep. Tom Riner, a Baptist minister from Louisville, said he considers it vitally important to acknowledge God’s role in protecting Kentucky and the nation.

“No government by itself can guarantee perfect security,” Riner said. “There will always be this opposition to the acknowledgment of divine providence, but this is a foundational understanding of what America is.”

READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE AT “THE SEATTLE TIMES”

Advertisements

Non-bullshit lawsuit

Posted in Skepdude by Skepdude on December 3, 2008

At least based on the details of the article.  Woman talks against gay rights in a private blog/webpage and she get’s canned from her HR job by the school she works for becasue “her views contradicted university policies”. Bullshit! Double bullshit! Triple bullshit! Unless the facts are not as presented in the article, the school has no business punishing an employee for expressing an opinion as a private citizen, regardless of the opinion. Oh and I can’t stand her opinion for the record. Here’s where she stands:

“I take great umbrage at the notion that those choosing the homosexual lifestyle are ‘civil rights victims,'” Dixon wrote in an online edition of the Toledo Free Press on April 18. “Here’s why. I cannot wake up tomorrow and not be a black woman.”

She also wrote: “There are consequences for each of our choices, including those who violate God’s divine order.”

Despicable. But even despicable opinions must be protected by free speech. Period! I hope she wins the lawsuit and the school is forced to hire her back and pay some damages. For the complete story check out the article at The Seattle Times.

Bullshit Lawsuits

Posted in Skepdude by Skepdude on December 3, 2008

What is it with people and their religions that they think they are entitled to be exempt from any and every rule if their religion says so? How fucked up must a person be to take a company’s grooming policy and turn it into a discrimination lawsuit? What if his religion forbade him to shower and the company had a “no faul smell” policy? Would that be enough to warrant a discrimination lawsuit? See, this is what is wrong with the American law system. Anyone can sue without anything to loose, as long as they find a lawyer who will take money only in case of a settlement or victory and there are plenty of those around. Make it UK style, where if you sue and you loose you must pay the other party’s legal fees and you will see many of these ridiculous lawsuits just vanish. Now that’s a miracle I believe! See some details below.

A Rastafarian man who refused to shave off his beard or cut his hair to comply with a Jiffy Lube employee grooming policy can take his religious discrimination case to trial, Massachusetts’ highest court ruled Tuesday.

The Supreme Judicial Court reversed a decision by a Superior Court judge who had dismissed Bobby T. Brown’s lawsuit against a Jiffy Lube franchisee before a trial.

Brown worked as a technician at a Hadley Jiffy Lube business owned by F.L. Roberts & Co. Inc.

In 2002, after a new grooming policy was put in place requiring employees who worked with customers to be clean-shaven, Brown told management that his religion does not permit him to shave or cut his hair. Managers then said Brown could work only in lower bays where he did not have contact with customers.

Brown filed a discrimination lawsuit in state court in 2006. A Superior Court judge agreed with the company that it had the right to control its public image and found that it would be an undue hardship on the company to grant Brown an exemption from the grooming policy.

But the Supreme Judicial Court disagreed, saying the company had not proven that no other accommodation was possible for Brown without imposing an undue hardship on the company.

READ THE REST OF THIS ARTICLE AT “THE SEATTLE TIMES”

Tagged with: ,