Telling an Employee He Can’t Wear a Tie with Bible Verses on It Isn’t Anti-Christian Persecution

Here’s a simple rule: When you work at a retail store, you’re not supposed to be a walking billboard for your faith.

At a CVS (pharmacy) store in Orange, Virginia over the weekend, a woman went to go pick up her medication and realized that her pharmacist was no longer wearing his usual Bible-verse-patterned tie. She asked him why he wasn’t wearing it and he told her his superiors had told him he couldn’t promote his religion that way during work hours.

A tie with Bible verses (via Zazzle)

She flipped out, called corporate offices, and then left this Facebook note that has racked up more than 129,000 shares since Friday night:

I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say she’s a Christian, too. (Can you spot the giveaway…?)

By now, we’re all used to hearing Christians cry “Persecution!” after discovering that they have to follow the same rules as everybody else.

CVS tried to politely explain their policy in a comment on another thread:

… we want our stores to be a place where all customers feel welcome and where our colleagues can work in comfort. We greatly value the diversity of our communities and have complete respect for the religious beliefs (or lack thereof) of our customers and colleagues. Our company dress code is not intended to exclude all religious attire, but to avoid messages that could lead to confrontations or discomfort, regardless of the subject matter. In Orange, VA, we recently received a customer complaint about a colleague’s attire and we acted to address that complaint, not to support or oppose any particular religious belief.

It makes perfect sense. Unless, like Betty J. Mellton, you think Christians are somehow above the law. (Oh, wait. I’m sorry. I meant BETTY J MELLTON.)

Needless to say, there was no anti-Christian persecution here. It was a combination of an employee who (at best) didn’t know any better, was told about the policy, and adapted to it, and a customer who doesn’t know any better, was told about the policy, and is still complaining about how CVS could possibly “strip a person of there rights.”

I reached out to Mellton for comment. So far, no response.

(via Snopes)

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.

  • Tainda

    You think she misspelled her last name as well?

    I read that FB post gasping with my hand over my mouth.

  • loljoe

    It is the hypocrisy that pisses me off. When a private school fires a teacher for being gay or for having a picture taken while she is holding wine or when a private company prefers not so service the LGBTQ community, they claim private school, private money they can do what they want…but when a private company wishes to be more inclusive, they cry foul.

    • The Other Weirdo

      Being inclusive is the new persecution.

      • Cpt_Justice

        Yeah, intolerance of intolerance is the real intolerance. (Pardon me while I spit!)

    • storm

      “Being inclusive” is liberalese for “persecute all Christians”.

      • RobMcCune

        Because the first step toward stealing your pot of gold, taking your guns and moving you to a FEMA camp is to point out that you’re a hypocrite.

    • UWIR

      Wouldn’t servicing the LGBTQ community in exchange for money be illegal anywhere but Nevada?

  • cipher

    I don’t see what the problem is. It isn’t public property. I assume he wasn’t actively proselytizing (and it took place in Virginia, so I also assume there isn’t a great deal of “diversity” there, anyway). Would they force a female employee to stop wearing a cross?

    If I wanted to wear a tie emblazoned with Hebrew script or Stars of David in a business setting here in Boston (which I certainly don’t want to do), I can assure you no one would say a word.

    Frankly, I find Betty J. Mellton’s atrocious spelling and grammar (not to mention her use of ALL CAPS) to be far more offensive.

    • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

      While you are being paid to represent your employer, they have the right to decide what message you will be presenting to the customers. Unless the policy is discriminatory against one religion or one political point of view, there’s no reasonable objection here. The man should witness on his own time, not the time paid for by CVS.

      • cipher

        I don’t know that this qualifies as witnessing. Again, what about a woman wearing a small but visible cross?

        This may actually qualify as a freedom of expression issue (not that I want to see the ACLU take it on).

        • Bitter Lizard

          It obviously isn’t a freedom of expression issue. Most employers dictate what you’re allowed to wear and what you aren’t, especially when you’re dealing with clients or customers. Many people in customer service positions have to wear uniforms. Not many employers would want an employee to wear anything that could potentially alienate a customer, whether it’s an “IMPEACH OBAMA” t-shirt or a Marilyn Manson bandana.

          • cipher

            Well, that’s a valid point, if there is a dress code in place. At CVS up here, the employees wear red vests. Not sure about ties (most of them in my area seem to be women).

            • Lumen

              This seems to be more of an issue with the dress code being … fuzzy. Based on CVS’s statement the problem is that a customer complained, not that the employee was breaking a dress code. If it was a gay rights symbol or darwin fish jewelry would we be ok with it based on a single customer complaint? Do they only ask the employees to stop wearing the symbols is if there is a complaint? Is it fair to allow the public to do the discriminating and just stand back and say “we’re a business”? I think it would be better for them to adopt an actual policy that explicitly states “No religious, atheist, or political clothing or jewelry” in the dress code. This would assure that they have their non-offensive customer service environment while maintaining neutrality and not allowing the customer base to single out a specific group.

        • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

          The CVS dress code and employee uniform policies probably remove freedom of expression elements; employers are allowed to have those, and they trump mere employee private expression. Contrariwise, there might remain religious accommodation issues on the cross, similar to a Sihk wearing a Dastar. Nohow, that would only apply to a sect’s standard religious practice. There likely are a few sects where always wearing a cross is indeed a religious obligation, but that is not the case for most US sects of Christianity.

          But I am not a lawyer; if you want a professional expert opinion, you can go pay for one.

        • Jim Smith

          Scripture versus Symbols is a huge difference. Turbans, Crosses, Niqabs etc are all common symbols and are acceptable and hard to mix up the message. As it is a part of a religious dress code, most companies gladly include them.

          When wearing scripture based things, that is more inflammatory and can lead to huge misunderstandings as a: most Christians can’t even get the meaning right and b: It has been shown in the case where a US weapons manufacturer was banned from putting scripture on sniper rifles because it would cause even more harm to the person using it.

    • eric

      Corporate dress codes are pretty standard. If the corporation can articulate a reasonable, religiously neutral reason for their dress code (and it sounds like they did), I imagine that the legal burden would then shift to the other side. I.e., some plaintiff is going to have to provide evidnec that the policy is unreasonable or a sham before the court will force the company to change..

      A second problem is this is a customer – one step removed from the policy. Maybe, maybe the employee could argue that his religious freedom is harmed by the policy, and he’d have a snowball’s chance of a court agreeing with him. But its really difficult to see how a customer could reasonably argue that their religious freedom is harmed by the policy. Their speech has not been affected at all, and the dress code doesn’t apply to them.

      • http://abb3w.livejournal.com/ abb3w

        Well, they can argue it politically (“curtailing the rights of one diminishes the rights of all” or such), but as a matter of judicial controversy they have absolutely no standing.

    • bloomingdedalus

      There’s actually multiple companies that have tried to prohibit people from wearing crosses. Jesus has all this anti-capitalism, anti-greed, anti-wealth dogma attached to him, so I could see how major international corporations would dislike him.

      • The Other Weirdo

        He was also anti-life and anti-family. How does that work into your conspiracy theory?

    • Cpt_Justice

      It depends on the verse on the tie. A mere symbol doesn’t say “I am superior to you, you have to believe as I do, I am commanded to proselytize”, etc.; all things that *are* offensive. I’m pretty sure that’s the problem: whatever verse it was was probably nasty.

  • Lorie C

    She was DEELING with the CVS guy.

    • Bitter Lizard

      She was evidently so upset that she forgot to pick up her meds.

      • The Other Weirdo

        Complaints about making jokes about people on medication in 3… 2… 1.

        • Oranje

          As someone very much on my meds, I say BWAHAHAHAHAHA.

          (Crap, did I take my pills this morning? Now I can’t remember. Have to count again…)

          • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

            I hate when that happens. Then you’re like, “do I take them, just in case I didn’t, or do I not take them and deal with potentially being unmedicated instead of risking an overdose?”

  • oz

    Being from Eastern Europe I am still shocked and disgusted by the level of her English.

    • eric

      Yeah, when Hemant asked “can you spot the giveaway,” my snarky side wants to answer: “the giveaway that they’re Christian is the use of ‘deeling,’ ‘protaining,’ ‘affending,’ and ‘there’ instead of ‘their.’”

      • Chris

        NOT TO MENTION ALL CAPS ALL THE TIME :)

        • allein

          Plus, exactly 3 punctuation marks, two of which are unnecessary quotes for emphasis on the word “attention”; the third is a period after a, shall we say, nonstandard abbreviation of the word “company.”

      • oz

        do not forget the “penus” from the Christian depiction of sodomy.

      • http://www.braintarts.wordpress.com/ MichaelL65

        The hilarious thing is, if you go to her FB page, the peoples all rezpnodin in teh same ways!

        • allein

          Somebody used the word “hilarifying” (hilarious + horrifying) on another post; seems appropriate here.

          • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

            Yeah. That was me. Feel free to use it.

            • allein

              I thought it was you but I wasn’t sure. I like it. :)

              • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

                It’s that feeling where you’re so horrified by something that all you can do is laugh at the ridiculousness of it.

      • E. Roger Ammons

        Just because you know how to spell “snarky” does not prove that there is not a God.

    • http://www.youtube.com/user/GodVlogger?feature=mhee GodVlogger (on YouTube)

      Maybe what blocks us from getting through to so many Christians in the USA is that they can not understand us when we type using lower case letters and occasional punctuation.

      • Jim Smith

        I can’t like this response anymore! I want to click the up arrow hundreds of times.

        • Swan Sweeson

          > anymore

      • Bitter Lizard

        Speak for yourself. I, for one, am fluent in Christianese. ATHIESM IS A RELIGON AND ATHIESTS ARE AROGANT FUNDAMENTILISTS JUST LIKE THE TALABAN YOU CANT PROVE JESUS ISN”T REAL I AM PIRSIKUTED BY FAGGETS GETTING MARRIED THE PENUS GOES IN THE ANIS ITS AN OXYMORON!!!!!!!! See?

        • Tainda

          You forgot to blame Obama.

          You got me again with “penus goes in the anis” I’m so easily amused. Pirsikuted is perfect as well.

        • Marcus Ian Kingsley-Scott

          “TALABAN” tickled me. Hilarious. And Atheism is a religion? Cool….where do I sign up? Which place of worship do I go to? Is there a website or some kind of baptism-shit? I dunno….I just thought that all religions are devisive hate-filled rules of life that dumb people cant work out for themselves. Soz

          • WillBell

            I am not certain but I believed you missed the point of the post you replied to, namely that it was a poe.

            • Bitter Lizard

              I got the impression that he knew it was a joke, but just couldn’t resist going on a rant about the “atheism is a religion” canard. Happens to the best of us.

              • E. Roger Ammons

                What is the subject of your last sentence?

          • Guest

            Your view CANT be right.

      • Cpt_Justice

        DINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDINGDING!

        WE HAVE A WINNAH!!!

    • Terry Firma

      Dutch citizen here. I wholeheartedly agree.

      • islandbrewer

        The Dutch don’t count! You speak better English than native speakers! It’s not fair!

  • sonofkenny

    Wonder what she would have said had there been verses from the Koran in Arabic on that tie…my guess is she would have been complaining to the manager insisting he take it off…

    • 00001000_bit

      Really? I get the sense that she’d have gone straight to calling the Department of Homeland Security.

    • KeithCollyer

      how would she know it wasn’t just a set of pretty patterns?

      • 3lemenope

        I imagine she could ask the person wearing it.

        • Cpt_Justice

          Like the person I heard of with the Hebrew word for “Life”, because she thought it was a “Chinese good luck symbol.”

          • 3lemenope

            Leading to all sorts of awkward “are you a golem?” questions.

            • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

              *snorf*

            • Cpt_Justice

              That’s hysterical

  • Bitter Lizard

    If an employer raises any issues with me wearing my “Adults with Imaginary Friends are Stupid” t-shirt in a customer service setting I’m going to scream persecution just like the mentally disabled woman did.

    • The Other Weirdo

      Complaints about taking minorities’ names in vain in 3… 2… 1…

  • http://parkandbark.wordpress.com/ Houndentenor

    While you are on the clock working at CVS the only thing you should be promoting is CVS. I find it hard to believe that so many Americans don’t understand this simple concept. You can evangelize on your own time.

    • Oranje

      Or wear a Washington Nationals hat and have everyone think you’re promoting Walgreens.

  • indorri

    I think CVS is being unreasonable here. A tie with Bible verses is innocuous enough that I think the person who complained shouldn’t have.

    • Bitter Lizard

      I wouldn’t have complained either, but CVS was perfectly reasonable. They are a business and businesses are allowed to tell their employees not to do things that might discourage customers from giving them money.

      • indorri

        Like not talking about same sex spouses?

        I would consider this reasonable if the verses in question were obscene or threatening. If it was the usual whiffle like John 3:16, I don’t think we should expect a company to require an employee to not wear it.

        • Bitter Lizard

          Legality aside, I don’t think it would be ethical to allow straight people to talk about their partners but not gay people, but it would be acceptable to ask people to refrain from talking about their personal lives generally (not as uncommon as you might think). Likewise, if there were people at CVS wearing Q’uran ties without a problem and it was only Christian ties that weren’t allowed, I think it would be an unprofessional and discriminatory situation, but we have been given no reason to think that’s the case. Unless they’re willing to let all their employees wear giant pentagrams, the most fair policy is to ask that people refrain from wearing religious paraphernalia.

          What it sounds like is you would find it acceptable to display some religious verses and not others. This would be a worse policy than a blanket ban on religious statements (which I admit they should probably have had codified in the first place) because the former would require the employer to make subjective value judgments about “acceptable” versus “unacceptable” religion, which would open a whole new can of worms.

          • Hat Stealer

            In other words, equal treatment under the law. When organizations violate this by favoring some employees over others for their race/gender/religion/orientation/whatever-I’ve-missed, then there’s a problem.

    • Jim Smith

      There is a thing called a corporate dress code. When I worked in my retail job, we either had to wear the company gear, or were sent home to change. You are there to promote the company, their values and their mission statement, not missionary to the masses. Certain things were ok, but written scripture can be inflammatory.

    • http://evil-se7en.com/ Bill

      The problem for CVS would be multiplied if this were allowed, they would have to allow religious expression for all, including witchcraft, Satanism, Islam, Hinduism, etc. Do you see the problem now and why it is not unreasonable to draw a line?

  • Negathle

    I’ve driven through Orange, VA for over three years, and I can guarantee you (as if you would be surprised) that this is fairly typical of the county. We refer to it as the “god country” between Charlottesville and NoVa. Extremely conservative people and annoying speed limits populate the town.

    • Jim Smith

      Or is that Extremely conservative speed limits and annoying people?

    • Dutchess

      I would hate “DEELING” with these people too.

  • DougI

    If fundies have to be treated like everyone else they’ll whine about being persecuted. When you think of fundies like 4 year old spoiled brats then you get a sense of their mentality. They’ll whine about being persecuted if they are refused a third Twinkie.

    • cipher

      I’m not sure anything wrong was done by the CVS employee, but I agree wholeheartedly with this. They’re operating at the developmental level of children – and not particularly bright or mentally healthy children at that.

      • Quintin van Zuijlen

        I ‘m not entirely sure whether I’m okay with the policy either, but at least it’s been implemented fairly and consistently as far as I can tell.

  • Neal Davies

    Anti-Christian persecution????

    May I refer you to the recent comments (i.e. two weeks ago) of Rowan Williams, the outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury (effectively the head of the Anglican / Episcopalian Church?

    “When you’ve had any contact with real persecuted minorities you learn to use the word very chastely,” he said. “Persecution is not being made to feel mildly uncomfortable. ‘For goodness sake, grow up,’ I want to say.”

    Wise words from the learned gentleman, methinks.

    Source: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/15/rowan-williams-persecuted-christians-grow-up

  • Gideon

    I clicked on the image to see the collection of ties available. They don’t offer Matthew 10:34, unfortunately.

    • cipher

      I wouldn’t mind wearing one with Matthew 6:6 –

      But when you pray, go away by yourself, shut the door behind you, and pray to your Father in private.

      I don’t think that one would go over too well, though.

      • bloomingdedalus

        Wearing a tie about your faith isn’t praying.

        • cipher

          That wasn’t my point, actually.

        • The Other Weirdo

          In a way, it still ties in–hee hee–with those verses. In the context of M6:6, there is talk about not being like the hypocrites who proclaim their faith loudly and publicly to gain status, which is what wearing a tie with biblical passages really is.

        • Dutchess

          but it’s proselytizing.

    • Dutchess

      This woman needs to read 1 Timothy 2:12

    • rupi capra

      You can customize it to say anything you want on your tie, shirt, or whatever. Mathew 6:6 would be great to wear to your local city council meeting.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dennis.cabarle Dennis Cabarle

    I’ll bet you can’t count more than 1 period in her ramble.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dennis.cabarle Dennis Cabarle

    Since they’re down south, perhaps a few of these would look nice on printed ties?
    Leviticus 25:44-46, Exodus 21:2-6, Luke 12:47-48, Exodus 21:20-21, Ephesians 6:5,1 Timothy 6:1-2.

    I love the bible.

  • JWH

    … Was that all one sentence?

    In seriousness, I don’t know which side I would take on this.

    I can certainly see the argument that allowing an employee to wear a religiously themed tie would be a reasonable accommodation of his faith. On the other hand, I can also see where a company might not want to appear to promote a religious faith to customers. When a customer-facing employee wears a religiously themed tie, a customer might think the company is promoting religion.

    Ultimately, though … I have issues with whoever complained to CVS about the guy’s tie in the first place. As far as religious proselytizing goes, a Bible-versed tie is small, virtually nonexistent potatoes. If somebody found a simple piece of neckwear offensive, I think the problem was with the offendee, not the offender.

    • Lagerbaer

      “Was that all one sentence?”

      It is called a Stream of Consciousness and has been used to great effect in many works of great literary merit, including in the ending of James Joyce’s “Ulysses”.

      • JWH

        This lady ain’t exactly James Joyce.

      • Conuly

        James Joyce knew what he was doing.

      • JWH

        James Joyce she ain’t.

      • islandbrewer

        “Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man” was better, in my opinion.

      • Oranje

        This reminded me of one of the earlier, choppier segments from Infinite Jest. All she needed was to talk about someone’s map.

  • Pluto Animus

    After 9/11, my local CVS was selling “God Bless America” pins.
    I bitched up a storm.

    • Livin

      So tolerant of you ;)

  • Livin

    If they have a uniform policy then ok tell him to switch the tie; If not, then they are infringing upon his first amendment rights. I would not tell a worker to put away their Dawkin tie unless I had a uniform policy.

  • Mike De Fleuriot

    //religious beliefs (or lack thereof)//

    Why must “lack thereof” always be in brackets?

    • baal

      Well, you just put them in quotes so it’s not always.

  • Jim Smith

    I am impressed. Not only did she misspell half her basic words, not use “There, they’re and their” correctly, miss out a tonne of punctuation and use caps lock, but I think she just increased her need for blood pressure medication.

    Really annoys me when any religious group cries persecution, yet their belief in their deity causes more persecution than they will ever receive in their lives.

    Oh, and way to go CVS on a great reply!

    • Oranje

      I was most impressed how she managed to spell offended wrong, and then correctly a few words later.

      • Bitter Lizard

        Maybe she was thinking of “affect” and “effect”. Affended, offended, iffended. She was d’uh-ffended!

        • Oranje

          Ugh. It’s the misunderstanding of affect/effect that has led to impact being the go-to word. I’m convinced of it.

  • h2ocean

    Presumably wearing a cross necklace or something would be fine, which would be perhaps comparable to wearing some other religious attire like a turban? I assume most here and CVS wouldn’t dream of telling someone they couldn’t wear their turban in the work place. I wonder whether or not the tie is comparable to that or not, and if not, where the distinction lies. To be clear, I feel like there is a distinction. Just being devil’s advocate.

    • Makoto

      Just my take on that distinction you mention:
      A turban, in many religions, is required garb for their religion. So long as it doesn’t pose a safety issue (I don’t even know.. maybe you couldn’t wear a proper safety helmet for a construction job or something?), I see no issue with them.

      A tie is not required for any flavor of Christianity that I know of, especially not one that lists bible verses. I can’t imagine how someone could claim religious protection for that piece of attire.

    • Ian

      My co-worker is allowed to wear her crucifix necklace. My assistant is allowed to flash a portrait of Jesus every time he open his iPhone. And I’m allowed to wear my “I have a personal relationship with reality” T-shirt, even though it may “offend” some. There is no constitutional guarantee not to be offended. If I get to wear my T-shirt, the pharmacist should be able to wear his tie. I feel sorry for the non-Christian who was so sensitive as to be offended by that and filed the initial complaint.

    • allein

      Not that I would complain about this as a customer, but I think the employer has a right to restrict clothing that contains words that advertise a message they may not want to be sending (be it a religion or anything else). I don’t know of any “required” religious garb that actually has words printed on it as part of the requirement. (And no Christian sect “requires” people to print Bible verses on their clothing.)

  • Highlander

    If this is the level of competence in the written word we have come to expect from fundamentalist Christians what sane person would think they are automatically competent to home school their children. Grammar and spelling are only the basics of written language, yet this woman has no grasp of them. Add to that the stream of consciousness writing style that fails to convey any coherent thought other than how outraged she is. To quote from the movie Billy Madison “At no point in your rambling, incoherent response, were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul”

    • Oranje

      To be fair, she’s just one step away from taking out the spaces and the vowels. She’s religio-retro in a hipster kind of way.

      • Highlander

        Hah! I never thought of it that way.

    • Livin

      So you judge someone based on a quickly written Facebook post? Sad….:(

      • Highlander

        Yes, I do, and I don’t see any problem with that. What is the difference between a Facebook post and a resume or school paper? Nothing! Writing is meant to convey messages and ideas regardless of the forum in which it is presented. If a person’s writing is lazy, uneducated and incoherent I feel perfectly justified in judging them to be lazy, uneducated and incoherent because that is part of the message they are sending with their writing. Explain to me why I shouldn’t.

        • Livin

          One is a show of emotion while one is a professional document. Big difference my friend :)

          • Highlander

            Yet both convey ideas and messages. Why should writing in one forum be excused from accepted convention when writing in another is not? Certainly, your words and style can be less formal and more conversational. To ignore grammar and spelling, to simply hit the caps lock button and mash out words without thought is lazy. Why should we excuse laziness simply because she is, as you say, showing her emotion? Could she not express her emotions even better had she taken the negligible amount of time to turn off caps lock and use the shift key, an occasional coma, and periods at the ends of her sentences? You can write with emotion and make it intelligible to your audience with just a bit of effort. If she were truly invested in her cause why wouldn’t she make that effort? If she can’t be bothered to make that effort then why should her audience make the effort to read her message and respond with action?
            I disagree that this is just a show of emotion, she is attempting to persuade us of her opinion and making a call to action, they are poorly written, so I understand that they would be easy for you to miss.

            • allein

              I agree. Even if I agreed with her, I would never “share” this on Facebook because I wouldn’t want anyone to associate me with such a poorly written post.

        • Oranje

          Because you’re using AP style instead of Chicago with respect to serial commas?

          (I have nothing useful to offer.)

      • Jim Smith

        She judges a company on someone saying no to wearing a tie..

        • Livin

          A specific tie not all ties big difference. One is a dress code issue while the other is a freedom issue.

      • JWH

        There are Facebook posts and there are Facebook posts. If you accidentally write, “This is finny, lol,” I don’t care. It’s one typo. I’m not going to judge. If you write a CAPSLOCK screed bereft of punctuation and err once every three to five words, yes, I’m going to judge you.

      • Conuly

        Yes, I do. Typing that incompetently shows a complete lack of literacy – or, alternatively, a total lack of self-respect.

  • Livin

    Freedom of/from religion works both ways. You cannot expect it to be absent or all over the place in the public space. A tie is well within a balanced approach to the first amendment. It shows personal beliefs but in a non threatening manner. I would be afraid of the Orwellian government that would have a problem with a scripture tie.

    • Bitter Lizard

      It wasn’t the government telling him he couldn’t wear that tie or anything remotely like that. Seriously, I read some of these comments and wonder how many people here have never had jobs before.

  • Raising_Rlyeh

    I love how they ignore the fact that CVS is a private company with a dress code. It is really getting annoying how they think they have a right to express their religious views anywhere at any time. The grammar and all caps annoys me as well.

  • Rob McClain

    Since all Bibles I’ve opened and read appear to have been spell checked by intelligent, educated men, how is it that so many Christian posts read as though they were written by someone who left school in the 4th grade to study Cousin Husbandry?

    I am embarrassed to share my country with people who love their God more than they love their native language.

    • Highlander

      I’d like to blame it on homeschooling, but without evidence of that I’ll just have to go with blaming it on belonging to a religion that excuses, nay encourages, ignorance

      • E. Roger Ammons

        There must be a God, because you did not put a period at the end of your sentence and therefore you are wrong.

  • BeasKnees

    I couldn’t read any more after “deeling”. Ugh. The stupid, it hurts.

  • rwlawoffice

    When the atheist Hemant Mehta tells us its not Christian persecution that settles it. I am sure that he would feel the same way if a person was told to take off his evolution fish tie. Frankly I am concerned with someone who is dedicated to keeping all references to religion out of the public square being the one telling me that telling someone they can’t wear a tie that has references to scripture verses is not persecution.

    • wabney

      *snore* Trolling.

    • Dutchess

      Frankly, I’m concerned about a so called medical professional who believes in magic sky fairies.

    • islandbrewer

      Does a business have a right to set it’s own dress code, or are you in favor of Big Gub’mint coming in and telling poor industrious business owners what they can and can’t do? Maybe violating their employees’ religious conscience?

      If you’re opposed to CVS pharmacies pushing their evil draconian views on their poor helpless employees, you must also be opposed to Hobby Lobby trying to deny its employees (at least the female ones) complete access to basic health care, right?

      • rwlawoffice

        Yes a business can have its own dress code. What does that have to do with the Federal government telling a business that it cannot run its business according to its religious convictions? One is a private business and one is a governmental entity.

        However, the statement from CVS said he was told to remove it because of a customer complaint not because it violated a specific dress code.

        • baal

          The dress code was “no complaints” on your dress/ attire. It’s entirely reasonable to build up a history of one off considered instances and rely on them (very similar to how case law and stare decisis works; I assume you’re ok with those concepts?)

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      When the lawyer who is so incompetent that he has unintentionally argued on this site that a) discrimination against minorities based on race by private corporations is fine, and b) that people who sell firearms are responsible for crimes committed with them desperately claims to be able to deconstruct Constitutional law, that’s… well, I can’t decide if it’s more pathetic or more laughable.

      • rwlawoffice

        You say this all the time. Prove it. Otherwise you are simply a liar.

        • C.L. Honeycutt

          Already did, several times, in detail, with others assisting. You couldn’t offer a counterargument, only pissy “nuh-uh” whines like that. And when you made the same demand back then, I linked the proof, and then you just whined pissily some more.

          Are you truly stupid enough to think that your words don’t now exist forever? Even discounting the staying power of the Internet, I have an addon to easily capture your prevarications. I got it specifically because of liars for Jesus like yourself who frightfully demand that your old words never be brought up. You’re done, for good. Pretending those arguments of yours don’t exist only embarrasses you before your god and the world.

          I even left you alone after very gently explaining the firearms thing, in the hope that you’d actually bother to think and examine your positions. So much for that hope.

          If you hate being exposed as a liar, you should take it up with Jesus. Not that I’m pretending He exists, but the meditative effects of prayer might help you figure out how to suck less at being an honest person who doesn’t take vile positions when he thinks it will hurt people he hates.

          • rwlawoffice

            Sounds a lot like “I have proof” with not offering any proof.

            • C.L. Honeycutt

              Thank you for admitting that you still can’t refute the arguments that you’re replied to before, and thus are proven to already be aware of, but everyone already knew that. You may now resume your regularly scheduled “being too stupid to know that other people remember your misdeeds.” That, by the way, is a sign of classic Narcissism. Might wanna go see a therapist.

              Robert, why do you hate Jesus so much that you lie to camouflage your bad arguments instead of learning from discussion? Didn’t He enjoy speaking with and learning from even prostitutes and thieves? Why doesn’t your religion make you a better person, but only cause you to tell more lies?

    • Glasofruix

      The main difference with evolution is that it’s an established fact, not some wishful thinking….

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      Oh, SHUT UP.

    • JWH

      RW, it’s probably possible to make a case that Tie Man was discriminated against (though I don’t know enough to say if it’s a winning case), but calling this “persecution” strikes me as hyperbolic.

  • Livin

    If CVS was applying a dress code all they would have to say is “take off the tie” or “take off all ties with messages on them”. Once CVS crosses the line and says take off “that religious tie” they have violated the first amendment.

    • Erin W

      For the umpteenth time, the first amendment *does not apply to private corporations*. At best you could argue a Title VII violation, but only if they were to prohibit one religion’s symbols and no others

      • Livin

        The first amendment is violated if someone “impedes the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech” if the company dress code does not specify a specific tie and allows others to wear their own ties, but keeps this person from wearing theirs, unless they amend the dress code it is a first amendment violation.

        • islandbrewer

          “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,…”

          Although later court cases interpreted “Congress” to mean any and all branches of government, it has never extended to private institutions. If your interpretation were correct then In and Out Burger could never make those stupid religious radio ads during xmas.

          • Livin

            Even if we take our freedoms out of the question this could would still be discrimination and the worker should be entitled to a large cash sum.

            • islandbrewer

              How is the employee (not his tie, but the employee) being discriminated against? Point exactly to how he is being held to a different standard of dress than another employee.

          • Bitter Lizard

            You mean the first amendment doesn’t mean I can tell my boss to fuck his mother and he can’t fire me? Well, I’ll be damned.

        • Erin W

          What is the source for the quotation you use there? I’m not familiar with the case law that applies the first amendment to a non-governmental entity. Again, it could be a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but that’s a federal statute, not the Constitution.

        • allein

          If it was a first amendment violation (which it’s not), how would it suddenly become OK just because they actually wrote it into the dress code? If it was truly a violation of his constitutional rights, saying “it’s company policy” wouldn’t change that.

    • Dutchess

      You are an idiot, you do realize you don’t have a first amendment right while working for your employer, correct? What you do while on your employer’s time represents them. If they don’t want you wearing a tie about magic zombie sky wizards then they can tell you to take it off. What you do on your own time is protected by 1st amendment. Just as much as a member of the KKK has a right to spew their hateful racist garbage on their free time, you wouldn’t expect an employer to allow them to wear a tie that mentions their dislike for minorities, right? So why should a theist be allowed to proselytize on the job?

    • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

      What about “take off that tie that a customer complained about”?

    • JWH

      Wrong. The First Amendment restrains government actors, not private actors. If this pharmacist were to bring some sort of legal action, it would be under the rubric of religious discrimination in employment, not the First Amendment.

    • JenL

      Or the completely reasonable “no clothing with text other than approved CVS apparel”. That’s what my company does. Even on “dress down” days, you’re supposed to avoid clothing with text, unless it’s a sports jersey.

      Who violates this on a regular basis? The folks proselytizing with “cute” slogans. Hmmm….

  • Mick

    I haven’t joined up with Facebook. Do they not have a spell checker?

    • Conuly

      Spellcheck is godless.

  • Plain Jane

    This issue – taken to the 10th power – is on centre stage in the Canadian province of Quebec. The legislature has tabled a “Quebec Charter of Values,” one provision of which would prohibit all provincial government employees from wearing religious symbols or headwear of any kind while at work. The stated goal is to promote equality between the sexes and to affirm Quebec’s commitment to secularism. Polls suggest that a majority of the Quebec public supports the proposed Charter, though of course there is debate on the fronts of freedom of expression and freedom of religion. Litigation is expected.

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/08/25/charter-of-quebec-values-with-controversial-ban-on-religious-garb-will-unite-province-pauline-marois-says/
    http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/08/25/charter-of-quebec-values-with-controversial-ban-on-religious-garb-will-unite-province-pauline-marois-says/
    http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/majority-of-quebecers-support-proposed-bill-banning-religious-clothing-poll-1.1427098

  • Debbie Flitman

    To the best of my knowledge CVS is one of the only large chain of pharmacies that actually has a policy whereby all pharmacists must fill all prescriptions for customers. They are not allowed to claim it goes against their religion to dispense birth control, etc.

  • Lizzy

    I wasn’t allowed to wear my Obama button at work (I was a nurse) during the 2008 campaign, even though the only complaint came from a Republican manager, so I just took it off. I didn’t feel PIRSIKUTED or AFFENDED, but I did continue to use the English language correctly.

    • islandbrewer

      Well, obviously the … sorry, half a mo’ … OBVIOUSLY THE FREEDOM OF SPEACH AND RELIGION ONLY PROTAINS TO CHRISTIANS!

      Edit: I get points off for spelling “obviously” correctly.

      • Lizzy

        Thanks you made me CHUKKLE!

  • Brian

    “I WILL NO LONGER BE ABLE TO SEE THE BEAUTIFUL TIES.”

    Lets not get crazy here, but “beautiful?” come on. They look pretty tacky to me.

    • allein

      Someone should post a link to where she can buy some of her own. Then she can see them all she wants.

  • http://evil-se7en.com/ Bill

    I wonder how she would react to a Muslim employee wearing a tie with sayings from the Koran! Never mind, I know exactly how she would react, lol.

  • Conuly

    Oh, god, my poor bleeding eyes! Make it stop!

  • Guest

    Amusing. It offends this woman that a man has dressed in a way she no longer approves of, so she gets to complain about it? She’s a bona fide c*nt.

    • Livin

      Such a scientific thought from the analytic mind of one of today’s atheists.

      • C.L. Honeycutt

        Such a pissy response from a bigot desperately searching for something, anything with which to paint his targets. Throw feces all you like; you’re the one who ends up with shit on your hands.

        • Livin

          Thanks Honeycutt :) (virtual hug)

          • C.L. Honeycutt

            You’re quite welcome. Remember, Jesus loves you despite your prejudiced hate for an entire class of people. Thankfully, you’ll never have to explain it to Him.

        • islandbrewer

          I noticed that Livin prefers to respond to posts that are off topic, as opposed to those addressing their arguments. I’m pretty sure they’ve given up on trying to argue that CVS was doing anything unconstitutional.

          • C.L. Honeycutt

            The really sad thing is that “Guest’s” comment was deplorable. Livin could easily have taken him down for it without resorting to the pissy bigotry.

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      Any chance you could have made your point without the disgusting stab at her gender?

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      Well, that tells me all I need to know about you. Don’t suppose you throw ’round words like n*gg*r or k*ke, too, eh?

      (Yes, “c*nt” is the gendered equivalent of “n*gg*r”, and it has everything to do with the historical balance of power and privilege between men and women.)

  • Livin

    Freedom to express one’s opinion even at work is the hallmark of a free society. From what I have read ties are allowed and not subject to strict regulation by CVS.
    Too bad that it seems many on this board would be at home in the USSR or Maoist China ;) We must protect the freedoms that we gained during the enlightenment.

    • Bitter Lizard

      All normal people understand that freedom of speech means the government can’t punish you for expressing your opinion, not that you can curse out customers and co-workers and say whatever you want at work and your private employer can’t discipline you for it. Is this really that hard for you? Is there really something so wrong with you that you can’t understand this simple distinction that’s been explained to you over and over?

    • baal

      Religious hegemony was not an enlightenment virtue. Also – what’s with all the comments?

  • Timmah

    Caps lock for Jesus.

  • katiehippie

    That just hurts to read. I’m offended.

  • Artor

    Betty J. Meltdown

  • Livin

    It was pointed out that this is more of a discrimination issue.

    Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin;
    the Civil Rights Act of 1991, which, among other things, provides monetary damages in cases of intentional employment discrimination.
    So unless the employee was violating a specific dress code this would be discrimination and the employee entilited to some cash.

    • b s

      “So unless the employee was violating a specific dress code…”

      From CVS:
      Our company dress code is not intended to exclude all religious attire, but to avoid messages that could lead to confrontations or discomfort, regardless of the subject matter.

      • Livin

        CVS was acting not on dress code but a customer complaint. This would fall under discrimination as this employee is being held to a different standard based on religion against the law as stated in title VII.
        “In Orange, VA, we recently received a customer complaint about a colleague’s attire and we acted to address that complaint, not to support or oppose any particular religious belief.”
        It is sad that CVS and most on this board believe that people should be held to different standards based on religious preference.

        • islandbrewer

          It is sad that CVS and most on this board believe that people should be held to different standards based on religious preference.

          There is absolutely no evidence that this is true. Please show us how other employees are not held to the same standards. And to just kill this one more time, it doesn’t fucking need to be part of a codified standard.

        • islandbrewer

          Hrm, so much for your love of debate.

        • eric

          You asked us to show you the dress code that he violated. We did. Now you switch to ‘its about the customer complaint.’
          Just so I can get ahead, how do you plan on changing your argument once it turns out that CVS regularly tells other employees (religious and non) to change their dress based on customer complaints?

        • baal

          Um the code CVS says – “you must be bland to the point noone complains”. Someone complains – it’s a violation of the dress code Q.E.D.

          What you’re trying to argue is that the employee is entitled to reasonable accommodation of his religious behavior AND that the bible verse tie must always fall into that accommodation category.
          For me, it’s a questions of degree but I would discriminate with my dollars against any store that seem to me to be pushing a specific religion or political view. I am usually looking for goods and services sans social messaging.

    • Livin

      Sorry b s but that is not a dress code but a public relations statement. Show me the CVS dress code section on ties and we can talk :)

      • b s

        Show me he was discriminated against, then we can talk.

      • islandbrewer

        It need not be a specifically enumerated dress code. It can simply be a policy or pattern of behavior in which you have to demonstrate discrimination based on a protected class. Please note that the employee is protected, his tie is not.

    • eric

      The employee isn’t suing or complaining; the customer is, so it’s not employment discrimination at all.
      Do you have any argument for why the customer’s complaint holds any legal water? How does a dress code that A follows affect customer B’s free speech or freedom of religion? B isn’t being forced to not-wear the tie.

  • Livin

    Now let’s “do unto others” as the master says :)
    If I were CVS I would have held a meeting. I would have said “based on customer feedback we are changing our dress code to include only solid color ties with no writing or pictures on them”. This way the employees and the customers feelings would be taken into account without discrimination :)

    • islandbrewer

      You’re really fucking invested in CVS’ decision not being part of a codified standard. That doesn’t fucking matter. The question is whether the employee is being held to a different standard than other employees, and whether he’s being discriminated against.

      You fail to demonstrate either one.

      • Livin

        Unless something has been left out of the CVS dress code I have demonstrated it.
        More importantly you sound very angry it is not good for your health. Remember while I will debate and poke fun I love each and every one of you Atheists :)

        • islandbrewer

          Unless something has been left out of the CVS dress code I have demonstrated it.

          Really? Must have missed it. Restate it, then.

          More importantly you sound very angry it is not good for your health.

          Then stop acting like such a fucking worthless prat in order to make us angry, if you’re so fucking concerned. As you won’t, I’m sure you’re just lying.

          Remember while I will debate and poke fun I love each and every one of you Atheists :)

          Then why do things that you claim are bad for our health (oh, btw, citation needed, fuckwit)? The simplest explanation, of course, is that you’re a lying sack of shit.

          And if you love to debate, I’d love for you to start actually debating, instead of making shit up.

  • Reggie

    Kudos to CVS for upholding their employee dress code policy. And personally, if I was a business owner, I’d be embarrassed if I had an employee wear such obvious religious garb. Any rational person is going to wonder about the intelligence of that bible-verse-tie-wearing employee. I know I would be weary of taking advice from a pharmacist who believes in such blatant nonsense!

    • Livin

      I am worried about anyone who judges others in a discriminatory manner.
      A (virtual hug) to my “rational” friend. ;)

      • islandbrewer

        Next time, just say you’ll “pray for them.” That’s the preferred passive-aggressive insult among your ilk.

        • Livin

          LoL good one. God bless :)

          • islandbrewer

            Excellent! That works, too! Do you guys take some class on being insulting? Or is it just a self-selecting process?

            • Oranje

              They enter the wrong door for the argument clinic and wind up in abuse.

          • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ Feminerd

            Oooh, got the other one!

            Not that you seem like a bad person, Livin. You just managed to find the other catch-phrase that we usually auto-translate to “fuck you”. That’s just what it means so very often.

            • Hat Stealer

              Not to mention the little smiley face is essentially the equivalent of giving us the finger.

      • C.L. Honeycutt

        The sad thing is that you could have rebuked him without at the same time being a hypocrite, but were some combination of too incompetent, too raging, or too arrogant to even try. C’est la vie. Jesus loves you despite that.

  • SansDeus

    SWEET! You mean I can get a tie with:

    Ephesians 5:28 – So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

    Followed by

    1 Corinthians 9:27 – No, I beat my body and make it my slave so that after I have preached to others, I myself will not be disqualified for the prize.

    • Livin

      A message about love and self control I would love that tie :)

      I would like “Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends.” John 15:13

      • C.L. Honeycutt

        “There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.” – Ezekiel 23:20.

        Well, I don’t suppose that writing obvious fap material technically disqualifies one from being a prophet of God, though Ezzy disproved his prophetiness elsewhere anyway.

        • islandbrewer

          I think such a quote on a tie should be accompanied by pictures, too.

          It’s ok, it’s in the bible.

          • C.L. Honeycutt

            I will now go do other things for a while in order to prevent myself from checking on whether that particular scene is to be found in the Lego Bible.

            • baal

              I don’t think so. Neither is 16:17 Ezekiel, (biblical dildos). More recent translations obscure it some.

              • C.L. Honeycutt

                Somehow I never noticed the older translations and the actual meaning of that one.

                *rereads the entire passage*

                Man, Ezekiel was all about fantasizing him some dirty, dirty hookers.

      • SansDeus

        Yes, self flagellation is always the answer.

        But to imply that it’s ok to beat your spouse as a manner of self control… I strongly disagree with.

        If you have non-submissive spouse, let me know when your court day is for abuse/restraining order and I’ll bring the popcorn.

        • Livin

          Colossians 3:19 ESV
          Husbands, love your wives, and do not be harsh with them.
          Ephesians 5:25-29 ESV
          Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church,

          Husbands are to love and serve the wife. Christ while head of the church put all others before himself serving them. Likewise the husband is to cherish his wife and child, serving them before himself.

          • SansDeus

            Aww two nice verses.. But hey look. I can quote it too!
            There’s a lot more but I don’t want to overwhelm…

            Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

            (Rule over thee, sounds fun. Doesn’t sound like women are individuals.)

            Gen 16:6-9 But Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid is in thine hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face.
            And the angel of the LORD found her by a fountain of water in the wilderness, by the fountain in the way to Shur.
            And he said, Hagar, Sarai’s maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai.
            And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands.

            (Yes, go back to the abuse Hagar! Sounds fair.)

            Deut: 13:6-9 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;
            Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
            Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
            But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

            (If my wife or basically anyone I know “entices me” to serve other gods, I CAN KILL THEM?! WOOHOO!)

            Deut: 22:13-21 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
            And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:
            Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:
            And the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
            And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.
            And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;
            And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
            But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
            Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

            (If I don’t like my wife I can say she wasn’t a virgin, then we get to kill her. Yay! Party!)

            Ephesians 5:22-24 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

            (More of the same)

            Colossians 3:18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.

            (More of the same yadda yadda..)

            1 Timothy 2:11-15 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing.

            (Hush woman! Obey, cause that’s what I like.)

            Titus 2:4-5 Teach the young women to be … obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

            1 Peter 3:1 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands.

            So in two verses you say I should treat her like I want to be treated, but in the end all of those others say that she should do everything I say (unless I hate her, then I can kill her, basically).. I could keep going if you’d like..

            • Livin

              If you were Jewish during that time period then those apply. But not today. The Bible says to Rightly Divide the word of truth. This means that while the Bible encompasses all human experience not all of it is mean’t for us today.
              Example Atheist Joseph Stalin said “One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic.”
              Now I could apply this to all Atheists but I do not because it just reflects a type of Atheism found in the Soviet Union.
              Same applies to the OT some of the NT for Jewish Christians and the NT for Gentiles.
              If you want I could share the love of Christ with you.

              • SansDeus

                Ah, so you like to pick and choose.

                Although Timothy, Titus and Peter are NT books..

                On a personal note my wife is an autonomous person who stays with me because I treat her well and we work with one another. I don’t order her to do anything, that’s just wrong. I wouldn’t have ever married a “subjective slave” (Unlike my mother who is still with my dad after he tried to kill her, because she buys into that fetid horse shit.)

                Also what you say alludes that what god wanted before in the OT, he doesn’t want now… How is that in any way a word of truth from an unfailable god?

                A superior being should be held to superior standards, to have a god who finds it necessary to punish a lowly creation for all eternity for something like praying to a false god would be tantamount to me torturing my dog for wagging his tail at someone else. Unless you don’t follow the 10 commandments (from the OT).

                Your response only proves you haven’t given the bible any real thought and just buy into it because you like the fuzzy ridiculous stuff and not the horrific ridiculous stuff. Or you’re a troll.

                Like Bill Maher says: If there is even ONE turd in the pool, would you still jump in?

                And no, you can’t apply it to all Atheists; If you do, you’re an idiot. Atheism is only not believing in god, nothing else. It has nothing to do with actions as empathy is a trait observed across many species (all of which are atheist, unless you have a dog/dolphin/gorilla/elephant/bird that somehow prays). There are plenty of sociopaths out there regardless of religion. Though if you incist on pulling monster cards: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler (Just search the page ctrl+f for how many times he mentions his belief god and that god is on his side) but we all know if you compare someone to one of those monsters, you’ve already lost the argument.

                Regarding your offer: No thanks, I have no interest in a threesome, I also detest rape.

                • Livin

                  “There are plenty of sociopaths out there regardless of religion. ”

                  Exactly the point I was trying to make. Also Hitler while born a Christian and used it to control people was a Neo-pagan occultist in practice. Just for FYI

                  “Your response only proves you haven’t given the bible any real thought and just buy into it because you like the fuzzy ridiculous stuff and not the horrific ridiculous stuff”

                  Actually the horrible stuff is what makes it real. Both the dark and light sides the Yin and Yang of existance are in the Bible it dose not try to white wash life.
                  Also I know the history of the Bible from before it was canonized, to the Council of Carthage, thru the enlightenment, to today.

                  “And no, you can’t apply it to all Atheists; If you do, you’re an idiot. Atheism is only not believing in god, nothing else.”

                  Same can be said for Christianity. Some follow Christ as a God,a role model, a friend, or in a meditative way. Not all Christians believe the exact same thing.

                  “A superior being should be held to superior standards”

                  Yup but if I can understand those standards it is obviously not superior.

                • Livin

                  “Unless you don’t follow the 10 commandments (from the OT).”
                  Yes and no at the same time. I follow them but only because I see them in the NT.
                  Also I have a biblical household and my wife is in control of the finances. Money is spent on her and the children before me. She can work or not work as she chooses. I have even offered to send her back to college(she dropped out but hopefully she will continue on pursuing her education) as soon as we save up some cash and get her some scholarships.She also controls the sex life because as her sevant(a biblical husband) I cannot do anything with her until she wants it.

                • baal

                  “e Yin and Yang of existance are in the Bible”
                  oooookaaaaaay.
                  The ‘wisdom’ of the bible is that of the late bronze age of the mid-east. I don’t need or want to follow that. It’s much simpler and more moral to look instead to the consequences of our actions and take personal responsibility for helping folks more than we hurt them (and to try to avoid hurting them as much as is reasonable).

                  The Bible’s NT/OT differences in god’s temperament (genocidal monster / remote father figure) have nothing to do with yin/yang (even metaphorically) and do not resemble healthy living in any framing.

                • SansDeus

                  “Exactly the point I was trying to make. Also Hitler while born a Christian and used it to control people was a Neo-pagan occultist in practice. Just for FYI”

                  I don’t care if he was pagan or not. Besides Christians adopted plenty of pagan rituals. Or do you not celebrate any holidays such as Easter? [ http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/apr/03/easter-pagan-symbolism ]

                  Hitler certainly believed he was Christian:
                  ——-
                  “My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice… And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.

                  -Adolf Hitler, in a speech on 12 April 1922 (Norman H. Baynes, ed. The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, April 1922-August 1939, Vol. 1 of 2, pp. 19-20, Oxford University Press, 1942)
                  ——-

                  These catholic bishops didn’t get the memo: http://emperor.vwh.net/images/bishops.jpg

                  “Yup but if I can understand those standards it is obviously not superior.”

                  That is really awful logic to justify atrocities. You should give yourself more credit and not insult your own intelligence. A superior being would be able to dumb down those reasons in a way that anyone could understand. If it boils down to “because I said so” – It’s a crappy standard. Superior does not mean convoluted!

                  Light and dark? That’s ridiculous as well. Who the heck wants to follow a bi-polar god? Who supposedly is “love” but is a murderous, jealous, misogynistic dick. “I’m going to get mad at you for eating from a tree I gave you (as a test) that I know you’ll fail! From some other angel I made knowing that he’ll start all this crap.”

                  I for one wouldn’t set my children up for failure. That in and of itself is substandard and not something a superior loving being would do.

                  So I say god is neither superior, or loving, or real.

  • Green_Sapphire

    You have the right to ‘feel offended’. But you do not have the right to ‘not get offended’.

  • Dinah

    This is fine as long as there are also no women wearing Hijabs in the employ of CVS. I really don’t care to see those either.

    • allein

      There is a difference between a simple article of clothing that is (arguably) required by the person’s religion and an article of clothing that contains words that are intented to proselytize (however mildly) or otherwise convey a particular message that may not be one the company wishes to convey (whether religious or not). Assuming there’s no religious message written on the hijab, what do you care what a woman wears on her head while she’s working, anyway?

      • Anna

        That’s a good general rule, but where should companies draw the line? I see hijabs fairly frequently and they’re no longer shocking, but what if a woman who wore a niqab or burqa wanted to work at CVS? That would sure make a lot of people uncomfortable.

        • Anna

          Not sure why I got downvoted for that, but it’s a valid question. If certain garb is associated with extreme fundamentalist misogyny, and also interferes with normal human interaction, wouldn’t a company have a reasonable interest in disallowing that garment in the workplace?

      • C.L. Honeycutt

        There is a difference between a simple article of clothing that is (arguably) required by the person’s religion

        And that’s what the dimwits (Hi, rwlawoffice!) demand to misunderstand for the sake of their masturbatory outrage: neither a tie nor a Bible verse is an example of a worn religious symbol. They are not equivalent to a crucifix or a yamaka.

      • Bitter Lizard

        This is where things get a little more complicated. Not allowing a woman to wear a head covering that is supposedly required by her faith could be argued to be infringing on her ability to practice her religion, whereas nobody could argue that the goofy Bible verse ties were a “requirement” of any known form of Christianity. But this does raise more questions. Some jobs just can’t be done in full burka. Most jobs require using technology, which would go against what Amish people believe. Some believers think their religion requires them to kill people. It’s impossible to avoid “religious discrimination” altogether.

        • allein

          True, it’s not that simple. As for burkas or other clothing that would legitimately pose a safety risk or otherwise significantly interfere with the ability to do a job…I don’t know what anti-discrimination laws say about that but I would think a company has the right to restrict such clothing without being convicted of discrimination (there may even be legal restrictions in some cases, such as where religious garb makes it impossible to comply with OSHA regulations). I honestly don’t know the answer to that, though.

          Most Amish will use some technology for business/work purposes if they have to. A lot of Amish work
          in secular construction and similar jobs where they use power tools, and some will use phones and even computers to a limited extent in their businesses. The stricter ones who are really against that aren’t going to be seeking jobs where they’d have to, anyway. Their whole point is generally to separate themselves from the world, not force the world to conform to their ways.

        • Anna

          Even if a job could be done in a full burqa, wouldn’t a company have a reasonable interest in not promoting that type of extreme misogyny?

  • http://shitmytoiletsays.blogspot.com/ Crud O’Matic

    Yet more proof that Christians are psychotic…

  • Greg Christensen

    I am confused by Betty giving credit to God for all the shares that this is getting. If so; what’s that God character up to? More shares means …. more legitimate? I don’t know, I better pray about it. Also, God seems to have shared it with us – (the enemy), Oops!

  • RJ (TO)

    I’m thinking maybe the meds she was picking up that day are not working.

  • Blackbeards Wyfe

    The company has the right to determine how its employees will behave and dress while at work. He is there during work hours to promote work related activities, not a personal agenda.If he doesn’t like the dress code, he is free to seek employment elsewhere.

  • LonesomeDove

    Yeah, she’s a Christian…a paranoid one who can’t spell some simple words…(maybe she needed her ‘meds’)

  • brit

    I actually don’t think he should be stopped from wearing the tie. If there’s a rule against novelty ties then that would include that tie but those are as harmless as saxophones or jokes.

    For context I’m an atheist and anti-theist who feels that the idea that faith is a virtue is the single most damaging thing for humanity.

  • John

    All that I can say is that everyone will find out when they die, but then it is too late.

    • Anna

      Those sorts of scare tactics won’t work on us, and you might want to think about what a morally reprehensible belief system you follow.

    • Derrik Pates

      Oh, hooray, threats of what’s gonna happen to us when we die. My imaginary friend is totally gonna get you (when you die)! O NOEZ.

      Pull the other one.

    • C.L. Honeycutt

      Which is why you shouldn’t waste your one life on your ego-driven presumptions that you have an immortal soul and that you know the secrets of the universe. You’re right, good call!

  • Ella Warnock

    I wonder if I could wear my IDIC pin:

  • Concerned

    Oh, ok, so Christians are the only people who can’t spell, speak correctly, or are uneducated. So stereotypical. You people are the exact reason Christianity is needed. Even if God doesn’t exist, at least Christianity teaches good morals and love for humanity. Shame on you! The comments on here are very disrespectful, rude, and untrue. Oh, Math Teacher? Not to my children or in my neighborhood, with comments like this, you’d be lucky to get out alive. See if you can read this….IDIOTS! MORONS! You are filthy, disgusting people!

    • http://itsmyworldcanthasnotyours.blogspot.com/ wmdkitty

      Ah. There’s that Christian “Love”….

  • TT

    CVS has a policy that should be a clear violation of the EEOC laws and I believe what they did to this young man would constitute a lawsuit unless the company provides a uniform for every employee.

  • Guest

    By the way…You don’t know the law….teacher. The law was written to protect religion from the government, not the other way around, the way you are suggesting it was. You people always get that backwards. But then it fits your cause or non-cause. Smart ass.

  • E. Roger Ammons

    There must be a God, because I know a so-called atheist who cannot spell. This is the typical logic used by most so-called atheists who post on this bored.

    • Bitter Lizard

      *board.

      • E. Roger Ammons

        The spelling was intentional sarcasm.

      • E. Roger Ammons

        The incorrect spelling was intentional sarcasm.

  • E. Roger Ammons

    I do not want to paint with too broad of a brush. So let me clarify. I do not believe that all atheists are so stupid as to believe if you do not use correct English, that is a dead give-a-way that you are a Christian.

  • Robert

    After looking at the site I am on I can see why the writer thinks nothing of freedom of religion but he himself has freedom of expression.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X