What's wrong with (private) religious discrimination/prejudice?

[MikeH]

Why bother arguing with someone who thinks the universe expands in a direction?

[KrazyHorse]

My responses to him weren't arguments. They were insults. Yours are measured and well-documented.

[MikeH]

It is one of the unfortunate downsides of my reasoned posts that I am facilitating everyone else calling him a ******.

[MikeH]

Anyway, I have actually been learning otherwise I wouldn't have bothered.

[Q Classic]

Check out what's going on in Africa - Christians are still branding women as witches and killing them. But you're missing the point - it would stand even if this were not happening.

But they're not Wiccans. Wiccans are suburban white girls who want to be edgy and **** by pretending to follow Paganism and dressing all witchy and gothy and listening to bad music like Evanescence while professing love for Celtic music. They do this while actually being exceedingly attractive to people like Ben, but not actually being interested in people like Ben, because they're more interested in kissing other girls to totally give their frat boy boyfriends boners, which is why Ben hates the gays so much and hates anything not Christian, because good Christian girls would totally jump on him if it weren't for the fact that they're supposed to be utterly chaste, which is actually a blessing in disguise because Ben, like Ted Haggard, is still recovering from a meth-fueled bender where he spent lots of quality time with strapping young Arab lads on Fire island.

[Q Classic]

Define, 'Good Catholic'.

A good Catholic is hard to define. But I'd wager to say that the partisans in the Irish Republican Army (the terrorist one) were a lot less odious than you.

[MikeH]

That's totally unfair, Ben isn't a murderous gangster.

[Q Classic]

That's totally unfair, Ben isn't a murderous gangster.

You're right. A murderous gangster is able to stick it to his opponents successfully at least once.

Oh, and they're at least courteous enough to stop bothering you once they've used their piece, even if they were utterly wrong.

[MikeH]

What a surprise, no response from Ben.

[rah]

No he'll eventually come back and point to one single state where if you have 5 or less employees you're not covered by the descrimination laws, and claim that he was right all along and we were just cherry picking states. It's useless. I've never met anyone that can look up at a huge mountain of evidence that proves he's wrong, and ignores it because he found truth in a single pebble at the bottom.

[MikeH]

AKA Faith.

[Ben Kenobi]

My point was that it is easy enough for you to prove it for yourself. Something isn't only true if someone can post a link about it on Apolyton, nor does posting a link here make it true.

I'm not an unreasonable person. If you had posted those links before I would have simply said, thanks, and gone through them. My browser has crashed twice though trying to open em so I'll hold off for now.

You waited a week and have the nerve to criticise me for not responding immediately to your post? That's rich.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why bother arguing with someone who thinks the universe expands in a direction?

Where did I say this? I never said this at all.

[Ben Kenobi]

They do this while actually being exceedingly attractive to people like Ben

Erm no.

but not actually being interested in people like Ben, because they're more interested in kissing other girls to totally give their frat boy boyfriends boners, which is why Ben hates the gays so much and hates anything not Christian, because good Christian girls would totally jump on him if it weren't for the fact that they're supposed to be utterly chaste, which is actually a blessing in disguise because Ben, like Ted Haggard, is still recovering from a meth-fueled bender where he spent lots of quality time with strapping young Arab lads on Fire island.

You could get paid for creative writing like that.

[Ben Kenobi]

No he'll eventually come back and point to one single state where if you have 5 or less employees you're not covered by the descrimination laws, and claim that he was right all along and we were just cherry picking states. It's useless. I've never met anyone that can look up at a huge mountain of evidence that proves he's wrong, and ignores it because he found truth in a single pebble at the bottom.

Unfortunately for MikeH, his links don't actually link to the quotes that he's put up, which makes me ask the question.

1. Why is he doing this?
2. What is he trying to hide?

I don't mind poring through the labour code, but exemptions for small firms are the norm, and when small firms are 90 percent of the total number of enterprises it is hardly a small pebble. But that's ok, whatever I say is wrong. You'd do well to open your eyes rah and return to objectivity. You might learn something.

None of those statements specify to whom the law applies to. Do they apply to all firms, or just a few? Considering the fact that this is the question at hand, your posts do not answer the question.