close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

JPL Wins religious discrimination suit

Discussion in 'Religious Issues' started by void *, Jan 20, 2013.

  1. steveksux

    steveksux Massive Member

    19,651
    1,949
    Jul 12, 2007
    He has no problem relying on examples that contradict his thesis, what makes you think he'd give up after a mere non sequitur?

    Randy
     
  2. void *

    void * Dereference Me!

    Honestly, I shouldn't bother even attempting to talk to him, given the monstrosity that were the various thousands of 'atheism is a religion' threads. (I'm exaggerating ... a little).
     

    Last edited: Jan 22, 2013

  3. Glock36shooter

    Glock36shooter

    3,157
    0
    May 30, 2010
    That's his thing. Every time you talk to the guy that's what it comes down to. He'll ignore posts you make, claim he never saw them, when you point them out he'll create this alter argument he's accusing you of making that is completely alien to the point you were actually making (Still not addressing the point he claims to have never seen), when you call him on it, he insults your intelligence or tells you you aren't as smart as you think you are. All the while never actually addressing the topic at hand. He'll internet diagnose you with psychological disorders even though he's only a PA. He'll make false claims, say he never made them, and when you quote it and stick it right in his face he'll still say he never said it... or that you don't understand what he was actually saying. He's just an intellectually dishonest guy. Took me about a month of dealing with his nonsense to learn to just stop engaging him. He's a troll.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2013
  4. void *

    void * Dereference Me!

    I don't know if you know that I know that. FWIW, he started that thread in RI because I was arguing the same with him in a *different* thread in a different section of the board entirely. I know. What I don't know is why I let myself respond to any of his posts at all.

    If I remember right he misrepresented my position in his first post of that thread. If I am remembering correctly my posts were basically trying to get the idea across that I don't believe because I don't think there is sufficient evidence to believe, and given that there are many unprovable things, believing in something unprovable because you have faith is quite different than not believing in something unprovable because you *don't* have faith. He represented that as my being "As devout as any other religious fellow ... " So ... I know about CD.

    What this thread *should* be about is the JPL vs. Coppedge ruling and what people think about it and why. It's become yet another pile of junk, and I have to admit - I took part in that, by taking CD's bait, and I am ashamed.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2013
  5. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas

    We've meandered through the maze, where you imagined traps and enlightening moments.

    Hey, no group is without contradictions, in fact, if you look long enough, over time, people will honestly hold contradictory opinions on certain things. It's quite natural.

    Lets nail down your initial point.

    So, the DI supported contradictory descriptions of ID? OK.

    Laying someone off for their religious beliefs, even if they had previously argued it was a scientific belief, can still be religious discrimination. Obviously, in the is case the court has decided (probably with many more details than in the story) that it wasn't.

    The point that you are missing, is that a poster asked why it should be a problem if he was laid off because of his belief in ID.

    On it's face, that is a pretty good description of what religious discrimination is. On a different day, argued by a different lawyer, in front of a different judge, it may have turned out far different than it did.

    But it did turn out how it turned out. I still would not think it a good idea to base a hiring or firing decision on whether a person believes in ID or not. If you do, you might not want to articulate that. You're much more likely to get away with it if no one else knows that was the ultimate reason.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2013
  6. void *

    void * Dereference Me!

    If it's not a religious belief, if it is in fact "simply another claim about how life began", as you have claimed, precisely how is it religious discrimination on its face?

    Well, they did not in fact fire him because he believed in ID. He got into a little bit of trouble because he was pushing conversation about ID (as well as some of his political views) on others, during work hours, to the point those others were complaining about harassment and he had to be asked to stop (but was explicitly told that they were only asking him to stop during work hours). They let him go during the layoff because the HR process that JPL goes through to decide who they should let go determined that he was less qualified than other sysadmins, and that had nothing at all to do with his belief in ID - other than he came back after the fact and claimed that it did.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2013
  7. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    Well, saying it's "simply another claim" isn't so simple either. People have been arguing over that for as long as I've been around, and probably a lot longer than that.

    In this case it was found not to be, but it can be.

    Beliefs can be both scientific fact, and religious in nature. They are not always exclusive. If he believed that his god created the universe, and his god did, then it's a fact as well as a religious belief.


    And the prima facie statement was made about a question.

    Just a tip, if you are being sued for firing an employee because he believed in ID (true or not), I would not read that aloud to the judge.

    It's surrounded by value judgements, but the question asked implies a direct cause and effect relationship to the employees belief, and the action taken.

    Prima facie is a legal term, used very similar to "at first glance" it would seem there is a case here. It's not meant to imply a firm and resolute decision about a particular set of events. By using the term, you are admitting that there are pieces missing and that you are not done collecting evidence or ready to decide anything.

    Bren can explain it to you, he's an attorney.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2013
  8. void *

    void * Dereference Me!

    Actually, as far as I can tell, this case found nothing of the kind. What this case found is that JPL used a layoff ranking policy that determines who to lay off based on "need, skills, abilities, performance, conduct, reliability, education/training, and experience", that the evidence showed that this is what JPL actually did, and that Coppedge failed to prove otherwise. (He claimed otherwise a lot, but when it came down to proving it, he didn't).

    Basically, if you read the findings of fact, it boils down to they decided to keep the SA's who knew Linux, MySQL, and how to manage Web servers - because that's what they were going to need. Coppedge acknowledged *in the lawsuit* that he had minimal Linux skills and other people on the team were better at managing the web servers - and the software and equipment that Coppedge *did* know better than other team members was already being phased out.

    Whether or not ID is religious or not was not the issue, despite many people wanting and claiming it to be. As far as I can tell, the court never had to decide that because the evidence shows that was not the reason he was laid off.

    Something being a belief does not make it religious. The point here is, if it is *actually true* that ID is not a religious concept - then how is firing someone for believing in ID religious discrimination?

    This is not to say that there can't be circumstances that could possibly make it religious discrimination - such as the employee or employer perceiving it to be a religious belief. But that's not what you alleged - you alleged that it would be religious discrimination on its face, which implies independence of such factors.

    If someone happens to believe that crop circles are created by aliens, but crop circles being created by aliens is not in fact their religion, and neither the employee nor the employer claim that is a religious belief, are you alleging that the employer letting that employee go because they believe that crop circles are created by aliens is religious discrimination, merely because it is a belief?
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2013
  9. hooligan74

    hooligan74

    7,361
    701
    Aug 15, 2012
    Charlotte, NC
    Jesus, CavDoc, you just can't help yourself, can you?

    Right after you, yet AGAIN, chastise someone for what you consider to be ad hominem attack, you follow up with this gem:


    You're being intentionally ironic, right? :whistling:
     
  10. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    Nope, I just don't turn the other cheek. It's not a requirement for me. :supergrin: Steve and I have a very special relationship. It goes back a long way.

    I see that a lot. People get upset when you poke them in the eyes after they try to poke you in the eyes.

    I am more than willing to be polite to polite people. You for instance.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2013
  11. hooligan74

    hooligan74

    7,361
    701
    Aug 15, 2012
    Charlotte, NC
    OK. I appreciate the explanation. Just letting you know what it looks like from an outsider.
     
  12. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    On any given day in court, several odd things can be proven. It has a lot to do with how the arguments are framed and considered. Most Judges do try to be as objective as possible, but there is no claim that everything is 100% accurate.

    It could be argued that a belief can be both scientific and religious at the same time. In a lot of court cases, especially involving labor relations, there are contradictory testimonies given, and judges make decisions based on who they find more credible.

    There are guidelines and parameters in law that try to make things as reasonable and even sometimes fair as possible, but in the end, one should never underestimate the power of a sympathetic judge.
     
  13. void *

    void * Dereference Me!

    This does not address why you seem to think that, if ID is *not* a religious concept, that firing someone because they believe in ID would be religious discrimination on its face.

    A court could certainly rule that a nonreligious concept was treated as a religious one and that was a path to religious discrimination. That is not what I was asking about, though.

    Stating that something would be considered religious discrimination 'on its face' basically means that it would be assumed to be religious discrimination in the absence of evidence merely because it happened. Do you agree or disagree?
     
  14. Syclone538

    Syclone538

    2,086
    0
    Jan 8, 2006
    No.
















    :rofl:
     
  15. Cavalry Doc

    Cavalry Doc MAJ (USA Ret.)

    34,969
    9
    Feb 22, 2005
    Republic of Texas
    Wrong. I said it can be a religious or scientific belief, depending on how you look at it. In court, it can easily be either or, or even both.
     
  16. Gunhaver

    Gunhaver the wrong hands

    2,736
    0
    Jan 24, 2012
    That's why I included him in my smilie dance party.
     
  17. void *

    void * Dereference Me!

    That is not the context of the question you are objecting to.

    The question you originally objected to was this:

    The point being made there is, *if* something isn't religious, how can firing someone for it be considered religious discrimination?

    To further help you understand - I do think that firing someone simply because they believe in ID would be considered religious discrimination. I think that because courts have ruled that it can't be taught in schools because it is actually a religious idea, and is in fact *not* science.

    That's not the point of the totality of Glock36shooter's post, though, as I see it. I don't think he was actually trying to claim that it absolutely is not a religious idea. I think he was pointing out that *if* it weren't, there would be no basis a religious discrimination suit for firing someone merely because they believe in ID - which leads to the point that the people backing ID want ID to be legally "not religion" where it suits them and legally "religion" where it suits them. But they can't really have it both ways.

    You cut off the qualifying statement in your initial reply to Glock36shooter's post - which is the important bit - and then started telling him to do case law searches, etc. Which indicates you either missed the point completely, or didn't, and intentionally made it appear as if you missed the point completely.
     
  18. Glock36shooter

    Glock36shooter

    3,157
    0
    May 30, 2010
    This is correct. And I think everyone knows that. Cav-PA knows that as well. But he's intellectually dishonest. The only way he knows how to discuss things with people is to manufacture a fictional second point and accuse people of making it.

    This is what he does. You still aren't going to get a straight answer out of him. You've pinned him to the wall nicely yet he'll still claim this is about some other point and you don't understand what you're talking about. He's having an entirely different conversation and he's doing it on purpose.
     
  19. Glock36shooter

    Glock36shooter

    3,157
    0
    May 30, 2010
    [​IMG]
     
  20. Geko45

    Geko45 Smartass Pilot CLM

    17,330
    1,284
    Nov 1, 2002
    KCXO
    The latter would be an accurate description of his modis operandi. Doc will use any available avenue to avoid giving a direct answer to any question. It has nothing to do with the topic. It's pure gamesmanship to him. Not only does he bring nothing to the debate, he derails any meangingful discussion with his strawman tangents. His tactic is to confuse a thread to the point that people become frustrated and leave. Sort of like an internet scorched earth policy.