Only Christians can Work at Theme Park

Originally posted by googlefudge

I don't care how many people agree with you, they could all be wrong.

For years, it was only one person, Finnegan, that agreed with her. Only recently has No1Marauder become someone she could site as having an issue with me, finally bringing that number up to two. I guess since it took her this long to find another poster to agree with her views, she'll be adding ThinkofOne to the very short list.

Furthermore, since she keeps bringing up No1Marauder to attack me:

http://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/debates/got-to-suck-beeing-an-american.164427/page-14

Originally posted by no1marauder to Duchess64
Please leave me out of your personal pissing matches. If I think someone is adopting an unreasonable position, as I believe vivify was in the thread alluded to, I will so state (as I did). I do not and will not adopt your posture of turning every disagreement into a reason to ceaselessly personally attack any poster on this forum who adopts a contrary position to me.

Your continued decision to do so is a major detriment to this forum.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Apparently you ARE misrepresenting No1Marauder.

Any chance at all you are going to apologise for that?


Yeah, didn't think so.

Googlefudge seems determined to drag me into a dispute that I regard as a waste of time. Googlefudge keeps misrepresenting me. In fact, I prefer to pay little attention to what Googlefudge writes. I have noted some of Googlefudge's grammatical errors, ignorance of facts, errors in reasoning, or prejudices but I usually prefer not to comment upon them. I take whatever Googlefudge writes much less seriously than he himself likes to take it. Indeed, I never have claimed to be a supreme authority on what Googlefudge believes. What I have known of Googlefudge has made me disinclined to attempt to explore that. I find Googlefudge very uninteresting. So I prefer to spend my time around people (online or in real life) who seem much more interesting and less disagreeable than Googlefudge. If Googlefudge wants to become Vivify's devoted friend and ally, that's his business. I have no respect for Googlefudge or Vivify, so it makes no difference to me.

Does anyone else find these 160 words extremely peculiar?

Originally posted by DeepThought

Similarly, with this theme park, I really don't see that someone in a technical role, for example a safety officer, should be required to be a practising Christian. If they were applying to be a priest then I could see it - after all one expects priests to believe in what they are saying during the sermon. So, unless they have some reason to believe that someone is applying for a job with the intention of undermining the objectives of the theme park, which might be a problem with some members of other religions or political atheists, except for preachy type roles within the theme park I do not think that there should be an exemption from non-discriminatory hiring practise.

How about if the employer wanted all staff to participate in community and solidarity building activities such as communal (Christian) prayers before and after work? What if that explicit fellowship was considered a crucial part of the spiritual workplace environment that the employer wanted to create?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Now let's say that a perfectly qualified white supremacist misogynist applies for janitor/toilet cleaner.

That's like saying a perfectly qualified non-swimmer can apply for a life-saver position.

edit: totally different to an atheist cleaning the toilets at a Christian Theme Park.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
That's like saying a perfectly qualified non-swimmer can apply for a life-saver position.

edit: totally different to an atheist cleaning the toilets at a Christian Theme Park.

Not to Christians. Since they believe Christians have the Holy Ghost guiding them, to them, it would be exactly like a non-swimmer applying for a life-saver position, since AIG's aim is to "save souls".

Originally posted by FMF
[b]Similarly, with this theme park, I really don't see that someone in a technical role, for example a safety officer, should be required to be a practising Christian. If they were applying to be a priest then I could see it - after all one expects priests to believe in what they are saying during the sermon. So, unless they have some reason to believe that s ...[text shortened]... idered a crucial part of the spiritual workplace environment that the employer wanted to create?

That's not a reasonable requirement from the employer.

Originally posted by FMF
[b]Googlefudge seems determined to drag me into a dispute that I regard as a waste of time. Googlefudge keeps misrepresenting me. In fact, I prefer to pay little attention to what Googlefudge writes. I have noted some of Googlefudge's grammatical errors, ignorance of facts, errors in reasoning, or prejudices but I usually prefer not to comment upon them. I take ...[text shortened]... o it makes no difference to me.

Does anyone else find these 160 words extremely peculiar?[/b]

Apart from the almost complete absence of personal pronouns?

Originally posted by DeepThought
That's not a reasonable requirement from the employer.

Wouldn't it be more of an opportunity for like minded Christian would-be employees rather than a "requirement"?

Originally posted by FMF
Wouldn't it be more of an opportunity for like minded Christian would-be employees rather than a "requirement"?

For one thing it's before and after work - the employer has no rights over what employees do in their own time.

Originally posted by DeepThought
For one thing it's before and after work - the employer has no rights over what employees do in their own time.

Well I meant during work hours at the beginning and end of the shift.

Originally posted by FMF
[b]Googlefudge seems determined to drag me into a dispute that I regard as a waste of time. Googlefudge keeps misrepresenting me. In fact, I prefer to pay little attention to what Googlefudge writes. I have noted some of Googlefudge's grammatical errors, ignorance of facts, errors in reasoning, or prejudices but I usually prefer not to comment upon them. I take ...[text shortened]... o it makes no difference to me.

Does anyone else find these 160 words extremely peculiar?[/b]

Sounds like a lovers tiff between Duchess and Googlefudge to me.