Reply To: Republicans Vs. Democrats

Home Forums Politics Republicans Vs. Democrats Reply To: Republicans Vs. Democrats

#822646
Health
Participant

SJS, Charlie and Gavra,

” A gay couple is just asking for the right of a contract.” Quote from SJS. All of a sudden the libs come out in a pack to attack.

I wasn’t talking about contracts in general between men, only marriage contracts. She threw regular contracts in as a smokescreen. When I said this is Kefira, I was talking about being pro Gay marriage, even for a Goy. How do you know it’s kefira to believe in Gay marriage? Go to page 2 and you will see that Gay marriage brings destruction to this world. Obviously, no sane person wants to destroy the world they are living in, so therefore she must not believe in the words of Chazal.This is Kefira! Whether you distort my words or not.

As far as federal law does, I told you to read the case before you comment. If you would have read the case, you would have seen that the Supreme Court couldn’t throw out the law, so they said employers don’t have to accommodate religious beliefs if it’s an undue hardship. Acc. to case law, the burden of proof is on the employer to show they tried to accommodate, but couldn’t- due to undue hardship and state what the hardship is. The Supreme Court in the TWA case actually defines how companies can accommodate by giving three ways. Look it up. The companies I tried to work for never tried to accommodate, they just refused to hire. Then they defended themselves in court saying undue hardship. There was no hardship and even if there was, they have to prove that there is -their word is meaningless. All they proved was that they need Sat. workers. Obviously, they need workers because they made a business decision to be open on Sat. The federal court just rubber stamped what they said. I can speculate why the Judge came out with such a judgement, either she doesn’t read what Plaintiff’s write if they are Pro-se or she has no interest in Justice, but just wants to get as many cases as she can off her list/desk. (It takes a lot more energy on their part to precide over a trial than to dismiss it with a summary judgement.) Or she is vehemetly anti-semitic and got the chance to rule against a Jew and seized the moment! Either one of these reasons are a bad reflection on our federal court system. I will try to explain briefly why it wasn’t overturned in appeal. Appeals Courts only overturn rulings if something new comes about or something was missed. My arguments was the same as before, so there was no basis for appeal. As far as the Supreme Court is concerened they only take cases that fall within certain guidelines, even if the case has merit. We in this country expect fair and just treatment from our Court system. This we don’t have. If the Circuit Court and the Supreme Court were honest they would say -such a person isn’t qualified to be a Judge. She should have been removed from the bench and my case retried in front of a honest Judge whom is without predjudice, whatever that predjudice is. But our justice system is too haughty to admit there is something wrong with a lot of Judges. One day they will have to give judgement to the Almighty Judge and I don’t envy them! Any futher questions go to law school or get legal help. They charge between $200 -$400 per hour. I’m nice, I gave you all this legal info for free!