Reply To: Justice in Balto.?

frumnotyeshivish -“Health – Your “synopsis” of the law – “They must accommodate religious beliefs unless they can prove doing so will cause them minimal hardship” – is wrong.

The law is that may not discriminate based on religion. They discriminated based on you not working on Saturday (a day that they needed employees to work on). Likely, the case was dismissed. Correctly.

The only thing you could possibly contend is that they really aren’t hiring you because you’re an orthodox jew, and the fact that they blamed it on Saturday is a lie as proven by the fact that they could have somehow accommodated you as an exception.

Such a contention is obviously silly and wrong. It’s a pain to make exceptions, and likely would get the other employees rightfully upset. No one wants to work on Saturday.”

Sorry, you talk like s/o who learnt some law or is a lawyer, but you’re totally Incompetent. I’m not going into it with you, but this much I’ll say the law is multi-faceted. Yes, you can have discrimination based on your religion and “I don’t hire such type of people from your religion”, but part of the law is you must accommodate religious beliefs unless there is a minimal hardship to do so. To make it easier on yourself -instead of looking at the law directly -just look at the US Supreme case of Harrison vs. TWA and you’ll see that what I posted is correct.

“As far as credibility calls, the finder of fact (in this case the judge – by choice of the defendant) is obligated, repeat obligated, to make judgment calls like I buy this or I don’t buy that, or I’m not sure etc., based on the evidence presented. The Judge’s job is to apply the facts to the existing legal standards.

Implicit in this obligation is to read expressions, context, and demeanor of all the witnesses and testimony, and to consider all the evidence.

The facts seemingly not in dispute (that the defendant was the initiator of the altercation, justified or not) shift some of the burden of proof on the on the defendant here.

Was there a legit case of self-defense? Legally, the one who concededly assaults another must prove this. Did they sufficiently? I doubt it. The Judge decided not.

After all this, you came along and made your own decision about the Judge’s motive. The burden of proof of this extreme statement is on you, just like the burden of proving justification is on the instigator. You have not come close.”

After all your long-winded paragraph with fancy terms you basically say the Judge didn’t believe the guy on the fact that it was self-defense.

I’ll talk in plain English that even e/o here will understand. This defense of the Judge would be fair enough, if not for one small fact. The fact is – that how does the Judge know there was an assault? Oh, that’s right the Shomrim guy testified there was. There is no other evidence or testimony saying there was one. This would be a miscarriage of justice because why should the Judge believe him on the assault part and not on the self-defense part? Splitting his words like that can only mean Prejudice.

I’m begining to wonder if the reason you keep posting your Naarishkeit is to see how many people you can fool. I hope most people can see through your posts.

The funniest thing is you once had an argument with me whether YU or Touro gives a better education -if you are represenative of YU – Touro wins hands down. Obviously YU teaches how to have command of the English language, but they have fallen short of what Law and Justice is truly about and that is – The Truth!

Does this last statement sound alien/foreign to you?