Muslim sues for "discrimination" for not accommodating her.

[Trumptonium1]

If they wish to accommodate the autistic, that is up to tem. I certainly try to when posting. However they have not harmed this woman, they have taken nothing from her, and they owe her nothing. Therefore her lawsuit is clearly and grossly unjust, and the law is unjust for supporting it.

They denied her a job based on their illegal discriminatory activity. Discrimination based on religi9n is illegal. How is she not harmed?

What proof do you have that she would get the position above all the other candidates were she only to follow the normal procedure of civilised behaviour?

[Mardla]

If she was harmed by not getting the job, so was everyone else who didn't get it.

Oh hey, something else no-one has actually said here.

Then saying she was harmed is special pleading.

[Vassenor]

Oh hey, something else no-one has actually said here.

Then saying she was harmed is special pleading.

So how many other people were thrown out of the interview before it could even begin on the grounds of their religion?

[Ethel mermania]

They denied her a job based on their illegal discriminatory activity. Discrimination based on religi9n is illegal. How is she not harmed?

How is she harmed?

She is not employed by the company . She is not collecting a salary she may be entitled too based on the companies illegal activity taken against her. She is entitled to money damages for the time between her getting tossed from the interview, till the settlement of the lawsuit.

[Ethel mermania]

They denied her a job based on their illegal discriminatory activity. Discrimination based on religi9n is illegal. How is she not harmed?

What proof do you have that she would get the position above all the other candidates were she only to follow the normal procedure of civilised behaviour?

Absolutely none.

Doesn't matter, she was not given a fair oppertunity to compete for the Job.

I would have a lot more sympathy for the company if the denied that accomdation to everyone, but they don't. This is just the same as saying no rightous niggers need apply.

[Mardla]

How is she harmed?

She is not employed by the company . She is not collecting a salary she may be entitled too based on the companies illegal activity taken against her. She is entitled to money damages for the time between her getting tossed from the interview, till the settlement of the lawsuit.

Why is she entitled to a salary, whereas other applicants are not?

[Vassenor]

She is not employed by the company . She is not collecting a salary she may be entitled too based on the companies illegal activity taken against her. She is entitled to money damages for the time between her getting tossed from the interview, till the settlement of the lawsuit.

Why is she entitled to a salary, whereas other applicants are not?

So why is it right to deny her the chance to even compete for the job on the basis of her religion?

[Mardla]

Why is she entitled to a salary, whereas other applicants are not?

So why is it right to deny her the chance to even compete for the job on the basis of her religion?

Because the company does not belong to her.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

"I want your money! If you refuse to give it to me, why, I'll sue!"

Heh.

Trying to get a job and being denied it for religious beliefs =/= ^this

[Galloism]

She is not employed by the company . She is not collecting a salary she may be entitled too based on the companies illegal activity taken against her. She is entitled to money damages for the time between her getting tossed from the interview, till the settlement of the lawsuit.

Why is she entitled to a salary, whereas other applicants are not?

Just to be clear, you would argue that "lost revenue" lawsuits are spurious?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

So why is it right to deny her the chance to even compete for the job on the basis of her religion?

Because the company does not belong to her.

Do you think discrimination against religious groups is ok?

[Mardla]

"I want your money! If you refuse to give it to me, why, I'll sue!"

Heh.

Trying to get a job and being denied it for religious beliefs =/= ^this

Yes it does. Islam is an infestation. You have to say "no" eventually, it's like the mouse and the cookie.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Trying to get a job and being denied it for religious beliefs =/= ^this

Yes it does. Islam is an infestation. You have to say "no" eventually, it's like the mouse and the cookie.

Al-Islam is a religion, not a infestation.
Religion
Infestation

[Mardla]

Because the company does not belong to her.

Do you think discrimination against religious groups is ok?

Certainly

[Kubumba Tribe]

Do you think discrimination against religious groups is ok?

Certainly

And why should religious people be treated worse than irreligious people?

[Mardla]

Certainly

And why should religious people be treated worse than irreligious people?

Up to the owner

[Mardla]

Why is she entitled to a salary, whereas other applicants are not?

Just to be clear, you would argue that "lost revenue" lawsuits are spurious?

Not always

[Galloism]

Just to be clear, you would argue that "lost revenue" lawsuits are spurious?

Not always

What's the criteria? After all:

She is not employed by the company . She is not collecting a salary she may be entitled too based on the companies illegal activity taken against her. She is entitled to money damages for the time between her getting tossed from the interview, till the settlement of the lawsuit.

Why is she entitled to a salary, whereas other applicants are not?

This is also true of corporate revenue.

[Mardla]

Not always

What's the criteria? After all:

Why is she entitled to a salary, whereas other applicants are not?

This is also true of corporate revenue.

Correct, but are lost revenue suits against customers?

[Galloism]

What's the criteria? After all:



This is also true of corporate revenue.

Correct, but are lost revenue suits against customers?

They're against the people who caused the lost revenue.

[Kubumba Tribe]

And why should religious people be treated worse than irreligious people?

Up to the owner

I was talking more on a state level, but this works too.

Why should an owner of a company be allowed to discriminate even though discrimination is against the law? And since you say the owner can/should be allowed to discriminate, then the interviewer is still in the wrong because he isn't the owner.

[Mardla]

Correct, but are lost revenue suits against customers?

They're against the people who caused the lost revenue.

How would you feel about lost revenue lawsuits against customers?

[Galloism]

They're against the people who caused the lost revenue.

How would you feel about lost revenue lawsuits against customers?

Could be appropriate in some circumstances, but we'd have to look at the facts.

[Mardla]

Up to the owner

I was talking more on a state level, but this works too.

Why should an owner of a company be allowed to discriminate even though discrimination is against the law? And since you say the owner can/should be allowed to discriminate, then the interviewer is still in the wrong because he isn't the owner.

He is the owner's commisar

[Kubumba Tribe]

I was talking more on a state level, but this works too.

Why should an owner of a company be allowed to discriminate even though discrimination is against the law? And since you say the owner can/should be allowed to discriminate, then the interviewer is still in the wrong because he isn't the owner.

He is the owner's commisar

>Looks up<
Still don't get it. What does commissar mean?