• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Professor won't accommodate deaf student because it "violates her faith"

11th Commandment: Though shalt not speak into a microphone (unless it's a telephone, cellular phone, intercom, etc., etc.)
 
I don't know about Canadian law, but today in the USA, that professor (or the institution) would be in trouble.
 
I read this article through my cynical filter. Having not only a reference to Kim Davis, but application of the reference as a verb (the professor pulled a "Kim Davis"), set off alarms. This smells like a setup. Look out for the next news releases:

Muslim DMV worker refuses to issue drivers license to female applicant.
Jewish waitress refuses to serve shellfish at Red Lobster.
Druidic landscaper walks off job after being ordered to remove a tree.
 
Malintent said:
I read this article through my cynical filter. Having not only a reference to Kim Davis, but application of the reference as a verb (the professor pulled a "Kim Davis"), set off alarms. This smells like a setup. Look out for the next news releases:

Muslim DMV worker refuses to issue drivers license to female applicant.
Jewish waitress refuses to serve shellfish at Red Lobster.
Druidic landscaper walks off job after being ordered to remove a tree.
Click to expand...

Well, the good thing about the application of the law to religious beliefs is that the courts aren't allowed to make a judgement about the validity of the beliefs. You can make up whatever stupid shit you want and the judge isn't allowed to tell you that you're just being stupid.
 
Tom Sawyer said:
Malintent said:
I read this article through my cynical filter. Having not only a reference to Kim Davis, but application of the reference as a verb (the professor pulled a "Kim Davis"), set off alarms. This smells like a setup. Look out for the next news releases:

Muslim DMV worker refuses to issue drivers license to female applicant.
Jewish waitress refuses to serve shellfish at Red Lobster.
Druidic landscaper walks off job after being ordered to remove a tree.
Click to expand...

Well, the good thing about the application of the law to religious beliefs is that the courts aren't allowed to make a judgement about the validity of the beliefs. You can make up whatever stupid shit you want and the judge isn't allowed to tell you that you're just being stupid.
Click to expand...

... except they are. They discriminate against you and call your beliefs not "sincerely held" or not mainstream enough to count. Try it. I have :) Its a lot of fun actually.
 
Here in Pennsylvania our bicycling laws require minors to wear helmets up to a certain age. But if that gets in the way of your religion you can get an exemption. Pretty fucked up.

On an operative level these religious laws are actually for people so utterly stupid and devoid of reason that it makes sense and to simply grant their stupidity standing and move on.
 
Tom Sawyer said:
Malintent said:
I read this article through my cynical filter. Having not only a reference to Kim Davis, but application of the reference as a verb (the professor pulled a "Kim Davis"), set off alarms. This smells like a setup. Look out for the next news releases:

Muslim DMV worker refuses to issue drivers license to female applicant.
Jewish waitress refuses to serve shellfish at Red Lobster.
Druidic landscaper walks off job after being ordered to remove a tree.
Click to expand...

Well, the good thing about the application of the law to religious beliefs is that the courts aren't allowed to make a judgement about the validity of the beliefs. You can make up whatever stupid shit you want and the judge isn't allowed to tell you that you're just being stupid.
Click to expand...

I don't see that as a good thing... At least not if churches are going to continue to be protected from fraud laws relating to false claims.
 
joedad said:
Here in Pennsylvania our bicycling laws require minors to wear helmets up to a certain age. But if that gets in the way of your religion you can get an exemption. Pretty fucked up.

On an operative level these religious laws are actually for people so utterly stupid and devoid of reason that it makes sense and to simply grant their stupidity standing and move on.
Click to expand...

There are religions with something against helmets? That's a weird one.
 
Malintent said:
Tom Sawyer said:
Well, the good thing about the application of the law to religious beliefs is that the courts aren't allowed to make a judgement about the validity of the beliefs. You can make up whatever stupid shit you want and the judge isn't allowed to tell you that you're just being stupid.
Click to expand...

I don't see that as a good thing... At least not if churches are going to continue to be protected from fraud laws relating to false claims.
Click to expand...

Wish I knew what happened to this case.

Porn video store opened in local neighborhood. Nearby church members gathered in the parking lot to pray to Jesus to remove the evil in their midst. Sometime later, the store burns down.

Porn video store owner sues the church, claiming their prayers caused his store to burn down.

Church's defense? They had to say "prayers aren't effective".
 
Malintent said:
I read this article through my cynical filter. Having not only a reference to Kim Davis, but application of the reference as a verb (the professor pulled a "Kim Davis"), set off alarms. This smells like a setup. Look out for the next news releases:

Muslim DMV worker refuses to issue drivers license to female applicant.
Jewish waitress refuses to serve shellfish at Red Lobster.
Druidic landscaper walks off job after being ordered to remove a tree.
Click to expand...

Why does the reference to Kim Davis bother you?
 
Helmets for kids should not be required, as the ultimate harm is greater than the initial protection. If young people don't learn early on that being an idiot leads to pain, then later on, they'll continue to be idiots leading to permanent injury. In simplistic conclusion, it's better to have a few bumps and bruises now from wreckless bicycle behavior than to become a vegetable from motorcycle wrecklessness. An objection would be the citation of serious childhood injuries that could have been avoided, but such citation fails to account for the greater good that comes from the massive lives saved through early idiot prevention--not requiring helmets.

Violates her faith? Something ain't right with that.
 
I'm always a bit conflicted when it comes to these things. Ordinarily, I hate it when people take the religious exemption route, but on the other hand, I am 100% in favor of the Amish. Of course, the Amish do everybody else a favor and stay away from politics and political offices, so I guess that's the difference.
 
Achwienichtig said:
I'm always a bit conflicted when it comes to these things. Ordinarily, I hate it when people take the religious exemption route, but on the other hand, I am 100% in favor of the Amish. Of course, the Amish do everybody else a favor and stay away from politics and political offices, so I guess that's the difference.
Click to expand...
I think of the Amish and then I think of an Onion cover story. "Horses think Amish way of life is bullshit!" or "Horses form up their own Amish farm, have the people do all the hard work."
 
fast said:
Helmets for kids should not be required, as the ultimate harm is greater than the initial protection. If young people don't learn early on that being an idiot leads to pain, then later on, they'll continue to be idiots leading to permanent injury.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this is pretty dumb. So people can only be victims of themselves? Accidents do happen, tires blowout, things break, idiots text.
In simplistic conclusion, it's better to have a few bumps and bruises now from wreckless bicycle behavior than to become a vegetable from motorcycle wrecklessness.
Click to expand...
Last time I checked, the helmet wasn't made to stop bruising to anything but the brain.
An objection would be the citation of serious childhood injuries that could have been avoided, but such citation fails to account for the greater good that comes from the massive lives saved through early idiot prevention--not requiring helmets.
Click to expand...
Yeah, whatever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom