Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“how on earth do you portray that you’re an expert?!?”
I in no way shape or form claim to be an expert and quick correctio: you said “with absolutely very little knowledge about EMS protocols,” I have NO knowledge about EMS protocols
“FYI, I’m still willing to explain what I was posting back then!”
Don’t worry. you explained it quite well.
“You possibly can’t understand my POV, unless you’re knowledgeable about the law. “
Health
“Keep searching! It’s there!”
Thats what people say about eh Loch ness monster. (It is also what you said regarding the difference in EMS protocol between 1 vehicle and mutlti-vehicle mva’s)
“So why do you keep asking – “Their definition of “undue hardship”!
which is…”
To understand your point of view
“If you start from this point, your correct but I’m talking about my Court case! Before that I was talking about “moral right”!”
Have I mentioned, that you are without doubt my favorite poster?
“Btw, my case is not secret! Just you don’t know what it is! Maybe ask one of your legal buddies to help you!”
I have asked several
“It’s clearly defined in a few court cases! It’s not my job to teach you law!!!”
Lol my friend. I dont need you to teach me anything. Just trying to understand your point of view. (though of course if i learn something in the process, that is great too)
“Where did I imply legal right?”
See next sentence
“And why should I correct something that’s Not wrong!”
Becasue according to you now, it wasnt addresing your question.
Here is a recap:
ME: “The court interprets the law. That is their role.””
you: “Who says?”
Me” The constitution”
you “What does the Constitution say that they can misinterpret the law anyway they feel?!?”
Me :”Article 2. you now say misinterpret earlier you said “I happen not to have a problem with that interpretation, but what I just posted was to make a point” Which is it? At any rate earlier you asked “”Who says” regarding The courts interpreting the law. This is in the constitution. You dont get to decide (though of course you can have an opinion). but interpreting the law is PRECISELY the courts role.”
YOU: “Again they have No right, call it what you want – interpret or misinterpret, to change the basic normal understanding of the law!”
ME: “you couldnt be more wrong. That is PRECISELY the job of the courts in general, and the supreme court in particular. Namely to interpret the law…”
YOU: “Courts have No right to change the basic meaning of the law!
Even if they have the right to interpret the law!.. “
ME: “It is the courts job to determine what “reasonable accommodation” means Kudos on you for fianly admitting that you were wrong on that point, …””
YOU: “I never said that they didn’t have the right! What I said it’s just like in “
None of this makes sense if you didnt mean “legal right” at this point in the conversation you said “moral right” and then later said it was rhetorical
“The rhetorical question was going on “What right”, not what moral right!”
why didnt you say so during one of the first 10 or so responses on that specific question?
“”You really can’t argue that it’s not Antisemitism because you don’t even know what the definition or the interpretation of the civil rights law is!!!””
Of course I can! because in my secret court case the court ruled that whatever I say is correct.
“Their definition of “undue hardship”!”
which is…
“I said that they were morally wrong!”
nope. you first implied legal, and dint correct me when I said their right to judge came ferom the constitution.
you then said what “moral right” did they have we I addressed as well.
no you are saying (and I’m paraphrasing) that question meant what moral right did they have to disagree with you. Which you identified as a rhetorical question.
” I wrote they’re Antisemitic because they didn’t follow their own definition in my court case!”
where did you rite that? and can you elaborate ion “their own definition” and “how they didnt follow it”
Thanks
“You really can’t argue that it’s not Antisemitism because you don’t even know what the definition or the interpretation of the civil rights law is!!!”
I’m not sure what you mean. “Undue hardship” Is obviously a vague term. IT is up to the courts to define. That their definition doesn’t fit yours might make the court more conservative than you but it doesn’t make it more anti-semitic.
you have been saying that the court changed the law and that they had no right to rule on it. You were wrong on both accounts (I say “were” becasue you now concede that you didint mean they have no right and that the court didnt actually change anything)
“We discussed a lot of things.”
Yes but the very first post of yours that led to this fantastic discussion was “”Some people can’t get jobs in certain fields in this wonderful country of yours’, because they are Shomer Shabbos!” and you said this was because “they are … Antisemitic,”
and i have been patiently educating you that it is not antisemitism but their interpretation of the law which is their job to do.
“an appeal’s court decided what more than “de minimus” is”
what right did they have to decide that!!!!!!! (kidding)
Heatlh
I dont want to hijack another thread over this nonsense.
But I enjoyed this gem of yours:http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/are-we-allowed-to-discuss-stuff-from-class-on-here-and-ask-questions-about-it#post-623049
On this thread you posted:
“According to Mod 80 – Ubiq -feivel, you can post your contact info, but I can’t ask you to!”
yet I explicitly wrote a few posts up:”They dont want contact info given out,…”
Your dishonesty is amazing! Seriously great stuff
“Is this good enough?”
Yes I lost the bet 🙁
“What’s your definition of a loss?”
whats yours>?
“I made a mistake because I know that I’ve never seen anyone’s real name here so I assumed that was the rule! If it’s not – I believe you, but I’m not going to be the first. When I see others that do it, like the owner, I’ll join in. I might use a different SN.”
I wasnt asking you to, just curious if youd admit your mistake. Dont feel pressured. DO what feels right to you.
“it was obviously a rhetorical question! “
Well it wasnt obvious to you, since after I explained what right a few times, it was only then that you decided it was rhetorical
“I’m not talking about their definition of “undue hardship”!”
Isnt that part of the law? IS that what we have been discussing from the get go.
As I asked before, do you think congress required an empolyer to suffer a loss on Shabbos? How much loss?
Health
“Which rule?”
You said “Btw, I personally don’t care about my privacy, but YWN does!
If they changed the rules… “
There is no such rule that YWN cares about your privacy. They font want contact info given out, they dont want peoplke to try to pry/pressure people to divulge personal info. But there is no rule (that i can find) thta prevents you from giving up “your privacy” Again, you have every right to obviously. However when you said this was a rule on ywn that prevented you from revealing the court case, You are wrong.
Here are the rules again: http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/rules-of-the-ywn-coffee-room-please-read
can you either point out the rule that prevents you from saying whcih court case you refer to. OR admit that you made up that it was against the rules?
Thanks
“But when I wrote – “what “(moral) right” do they have to judge”, it was a rhetorical question! But I think you knew that!”
amazing! So we went from “what right do they have” meaning the most obvious legal right, to “moral right” to a rhetorical question about morality of their judgement.
Amazing stuff.
Health
“It’s a good thing Elul is very soon, because you could Klapp Al Chait – Latznu!”
what do you mean could klapp Al cheit? I do! dont you? I have a minhag to make sure I cover all bases so “LAtznu” wont be a lie. I see you have the same minhag considering how much Dofi and sheker your posts contain.
Seriously though I;m sorry if was too harsh. You are genuinely my favorite poster here, which is why I spend so much time discussing things with you. sometimes I get a little caught up in the heat of the moment.
“Btw, I personally don’t care about my privacy, but YWN does!”
they dont, see the rules “http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/rules-of-the-ywn-coffee-room-please-read”
They dont let you post contact info. And dont want me to pry out persoanl info, which as I said earlier is why i am leaving it alone.
If you want to post the case, it is completely your prerogative, ywn has no rule against it.
incidentally, care to admit you were wrong about the rule?
“I wasn’t questioning their moral right of existence, but the morality of their judgments! They seem very immoral to me!”
Ha. So you asked “what right” they had to judge. After I provided the source you said you meant what “moral right” do they have to judge. Now you concede they do in fact have both the legal and moral authority to judge.
Is that fair?
Health
“I couldn’t and can’t tell you the name “
Oh you could. But if you dont want that is obviously your right.
Though supreme court cases are public so if you were so concerned about your privacy, brining it up in the first place wasnt smart. Are you sure it was SCOTUS and not the secret supreme court, or perhaps it was nothing?
“Of course they are! My point was that SCOTUS is interested in keeping the Torah just like their judgment on Gay marriage!!!”
I was addresing your qestion about what gives them the”right” after you changed what you emant to “moral right” I figured I’d reply to that too. Setting up a legal system is a chiyuv, that they dont allways follow everything in the Torah, in no way changes the moral right of the existence of a supreme court
Health
“Wrong! Like I posted to Charlie – I don’t go by the Goyishe definition of liberal and conservative! Trump appears to be close to Torah rules, not like the libs!”
you can go with any definition you like. The bottom line is that regarding the issue we spent most of the time discussing, your problem is with the corurt not applying the law liberally enough. The Torah has many rules rregarding some Trump is closer regarding others Hillary is closer. As mentioned regarding Shabbos you prefer a liberal interpretation.
“Yeah right; especially now when the SCOTUS dealed with gay marriage!
How about thinking before posting?!?”
So dinim is no longer a mitzvah for goyim?
“Don’t you read the posts before posting yourself?!?”
I thought TWA is your case. (Trying to give you benefit of the doubt that you didnt make your case up) sorry if I was wrong (see another apology)
“If you would have asked that previously to mention it; I’d have!
IDK you were confused about that!”
no confusion we went over that point 7 times before you admitted that it wasnt the supreme court that added anything.
Health
” but the first thing you do is say I’m lying!”
Nope not the first thing. It is only after repeated questions that you fail to answer. and after you’ve been caught lying, changing what you’ve been saying without owning up to it.
This isnt our first such discussion you know
“Do I have to clarify to you an English teacher?!?”
Lol, the irony of that statement! (note proper use of exclamation) I know I know you meant it ironically.
“Their definition of “undue hardship” severely restricts Religious rights in employment!”
Ok so vote for a liberal candidate who will place liberal justices to support your liberal interpretation. What does that have to do with anything.
As for their “moral right” it comes from the Ribono shel Olam who was metzaveh benei noach in dinim which includes courts to interppret ambiguous wording in laws.
BTW, didnt you earlier say you didnt think they misinterpreted in this case
Also congrats on finally admitting that they were interpreting “undue burden” and not adding. Though I was really looking for a more direct, admission.
Health
Please stop lying “When did they add it in? I think they changed it after my Court case!!”
In context “they” seems to refer to suprem court. If you meant congress fine. I’m sorry if I misinterpreted what you said. Though I have been you could have clarified earlier (unless you are changing your mind again like you did when you didnt know SCOTUS’s job was to interpret law), as I have been repeating that point to you over and over.
“what gives them the right (ie. Moral right) to severely restrict the employment discrimination law?!? “
And Ive answered. They didnt severly restrict it at the time was not required if caused undue hardship. All they decided that violating seniority was undue hardship. It is their job to decide what constitutes undue hardhsip.
Again I’m not sure what you mean by moral right. you never clarified.
I’m also not sure how you intereprt the law. (since you didnt answer when asked) Earlier you said they didnt misinterpret in this case, is that still your position.
“Why don’t you first explain what you mean by a & b? “
gladly! which word needs explaining? (a. you seem to no longer be arguing on in your previous post)
“We seem to not be able to get each other’s points across! “
no it is becasue you change your postion when you realize you are wrong.
For example. You repeatedly asked why SCOTUS had a right to decide laws. I replied it is in the constittuion, you asked where I told you where. After several morte back and forths you said “I meant moral right” Clearly this was a position switch as it didnt come up int he first 5 posts regarding SCOTUS’s “right” to interpret laws. You do this in most conversations you have which is why you are my favorite poster here
Health.
You thought nothing. Stop your silly games. I’ve been saying that repeatedly. The Supreme Court doesn’t write laws. You kept insisting they do. You are wrong.
They determine what undyear hardship means. Not you.
You kept saying what gives them the right, they need you changed to “moral rught” (not sure what that means in this setting, you never clarified when asked)
You’ve confusesdone yourself so much, you don’t know what youreally own opinio was.
These where the 2 points we were most recently discussing;
a the supreme court does not ammend the law
b this law had already been ammended before the ruling
I’d be happy to point out where u incorrectly disputed the two above points
Health
“I really don’t understand you! Are you in some sort of denial?!?”
Nope
“I posted the US Code here in this topic, right above my response to Charlie! I even put it in question marks!”
I found the code. I know the code requires reasonable accomodation as Ive been saying all along and as you conceded. That ist what we are discussing
“I proved that I was right!
Why do you keep denying this?!? Because you can’t admit that you’re wrong?!?”
No, If I’m wrong i admit, and I provided a link were I have done such.
We are discussing wheter the supreme court changes laws. You say they do. I am fairly certain you are wrong but am eager to be corrected. You have not provided a link to where scotus chnages law. Granted after a supreme court rulin ie after they explain a law that carification is sometimes ammended to the original law. But that is doen by congress not the courts. You have not provided a source that says otherwise.
At any rate as menitoned earleir, At the time of TWA v Hardison see the ruling: “the 1967 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidelines in effect at the time requiring an employer, short of “undue hardship,” to make “reasonable accommodations” to the religious needs of its employees” These terms where already in the law at the time. Not after.
At any rate you are wrong on two points:
a the supreme court does not ammend the law
b this law had already been ammended before the ruling
Health
“I’ve seen the picture. What color are the stripes? They’re probably white. There’s nothing wrong.”
Theyre not…
Health
“I want justices that the Torah has No problem with!!!”
So you think Trump will appoint charedi Judges?
BTW I have a side queston for you. Since youve been so upfront with answering questions until now (See I can be facetious too) Seriously though this question is easier than my others:
Im sure youve seen the picture of R’ Moshe learning outdoors with tzitzis over shirt. (ITs easily googleable search “R’ Moshe) IF you look closely his shirt has stripes.
I’m curious what your thoughts are on the fact that hes wearigna striped shirt
Thanks (This doesnt have to turn into a side discussion, I wont even reply if you dont want)
Health
No the code isn’t lying.
The code isn’t touched by ScoTus.
It is ammended by Congress. You haven’t provided a source that says otherwise.(nor have you replied to several of my questions)
I double checked with several lawyers, codes aren’t edited by the court. That simply isn’t how it works.
Health
We dont have to go back and forth.
But:
a. that wasnt what I asked. I am asking for you to to provide a source that Supreme court’s decisions are written/amended into laws.
b. You are lying again. At the time of TWA v Hardison as mentioned in the ruling “the 1967 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidelines in effect at the time requiring an employer, short of “undue hardship,” to make “reasonable accommodations” to the religious needs of its employees”
I dont think court didn’t add this in at the time.
And as for what you want. yOu want opposite things from your justices. for the first youd like liberal justices who interpret things broadly and maximize govt’s role in private enterprise.
and regarding sodomoy you want a time machine see Sam’s comment
“and also something for which science does not have a clear answer.”
Of course not. It is a legal/religious question not a scientific one.
“Obviously you do, especially here!!”
nope and As always I provided proof seee link above.
“I studied medicine and I had to learn law because of my court cases.”
Too bad In your studies of medicine and law you didint come across the phrase “non-sequitur” What does medicine have to do with anything? I remember your firm grasp on medicine form the time you tried to make up Triage guidelines and pass them off as readily available knowledge.
“I’ve a question for you – how do you come here pretending that you’re the know-it-all?”
By reading, and providing sources for almost all that I say. And from learning from others including you when applicable. Try it. Also if you would please anwer my questions…
“You obviously don’t know a thing about law!”
I wasnt the one who had to be told what the function of the supreme court was…
“I’ll try to teach you something, IDK if I can,”
Please do. I love learning new things.
“wherever you got that from,”
I got it from “Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub. L. 88-352) (Title VII), as amended,” widely available online.
“it’s from the or I should say based on the Court’s decisions, not because Congress wrote it into law!!!!!!”
Do you have a source for that? I was not aware that The courts decisions were written into laws and am ready to admit my mistake (and boy would I be off) if what you say is indeed correct
Health
I have no trouble admitting when wrong
see here for example: http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/conspiracy-theories-1/page/2#post-611749
Now your turn…
“They have the legal right to interpret anyway they want, not necessarily what is a moral interpretation!”
I’m sorry I don’t know what that means. At any rate it clearly wasnt what you were saying in the first few exchanges on the subject as I indicated above.
“Keep dreaming that an employee can take off Shabbos because that’s the law.”
oops I forgot, it is because most of our bosses are Ohavei Yisroel
“”They used to post after the SCOTUS decision”
I dont know what decision you are talking about. Their is none I can find regarding Shabbos (there are a few about Sunday).
I dont know when various definitions were added, nor do I know when this possibly imaginary SCOTUS decision you reference took place. So it is impossible to argue that point.
I do have a question for you (though you haven’t answered most until now) In your mind does the law as written in 1964 require an employer has to suffer a loss so his employee can keep Shabbos? how much loss?
BTW Health
Stranger still You also said:
“I happen not to have a problem with that interpretation,”
So the one example weve been talking about, about which not only are you unable to provide a reference to the case in question (being one of the secret supreme court cases that none of us can know about), at one point you indicated you dont even disagree with the court on that issue. So how exactly are they like Germany. If the court does what (you now acknowledge is ) their job and rules in a way that you dont feel they misinterpreted?
Health
“When I wrote they “have No right”, you misinterpreted that I meant no legal right, what I meant No moral right!”
not quite. See here:
I said “”The court interprets the law. That is their role.”
You replied: “Who says? If the law says “Religious accommodation” and they said not more than “de minimus”. Who says that what it means? I say no matter what!”
To which I have been replying several times. It doesnt matter what you say. The court’s role as defined by the constitution is to interpret the law. Of course some of their interpretation wont fit with yours or mine for that matter. In fact in most cases their are even supreme court justices, often as many as 4 who disagree with the court’s interpretation. That doesnt mean every time the court’s interpretation doesnt agree with yours its “just like in Germany”
You are also ignoring the part of the law i keep pointing out, and that you quoted earlier religious accommodation is not absolute. It is only employer’s job to “reasonably accommodate” You keep ignoring this point, much like when you were asked several times regarding how many jobs you need listed that allow for Shabbos observance (earlier you said there was one)
ben LEvi
“It so happens that in the current environment it appears that the conservative are the ones that are more respectful of religious rights.
In fact I do not think that Liberals would even argue the point.”
It’s probably true in the “current environment.”
However regarding the very issue at hand, the mere fact that a Jew cant be fired simply becasue he is a Jew or becasue he wont work on Saturday (again Health, as long as it doesn’t put an “undue burden” on the employer) is quite a liberal idea. Most conservatives (note not most Republicans, party affiliations were different in the 60’s) voted against it. the very idea of a goverment telling a employer who he can and cant hire is the antithesis of conservatism.
And who knows how the “current environment” can change. Especially when a leading candidate is being spoken of as ushering in the 4th Reich
SinanJew
Your history isnt quite right. They here never called “Jordanians.” prior to 1948 people who lived in the region known as Palestine were Patestinians there were Palestinian Jews, and Palestinian Arabs. (For example, The “Palestine Post was a Jewish paper today known as the Jerusalem Post”)
Once the State was created the Jews became Israelis, Arabs who lived in ISrael became “Israeli arabs” and Arabs who lived in the non-Israel part of Palestine remained known as Palestinians.
Now none of this changes the fact that Palestinians didnt have a separate national identity from other Arabs of what was once Trans-Jordan. As Golda Meir said in 69′
“There were no such thing as Palestinians. When was there an independent Palestinian people with a Palestinian state? It was either southern Syria before the First World War, and then it was a Palestine including Jordan. It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist.”
However that ship has sailed
Health
“When I wrote they “have No right”, you misinterpreted that I meant no legal right, what I meant No moral right!”
not quite. See here:
I said “”The court interprets the law. That is their role.”
You replied: “Who says? If the law says “Religious accommodation” and they said not more than “de minimus”. Who says that what it means? I say no matter what!”
To which I have been replying several times. It doesnt matter what you say. The court’s role as defined by the constitution is to interpret the law. Of course some of their interpretation wont fit with yours or mine for that matter. In fact in most cases their are even supreme court justices, often as many as 4 who disagree with the court’s interpretation. That doesnt mean every time the court’s interpretation doesnt agree with yours its “just like in Germany”
You are also ignoring the part of the law i keep pointing out, and that you quoted earlier religious accommodation is not absolute. It is only employer’s job to “reasonably accommodate” You keep ignoring this point, much like when you were asked several times regardinghow many jobs you need listed that allow for Shabbos observance (ealier you said their was one)
Stranger still You also said:
“I happen not to have a problem with that interpretation,”
So the one example weve been talking about, about which not only are you unable to provide a reference to the case in question (being one of the secret supreme court cases that none of us can know about), at one point you indicated you dont even disagree with the court on that issue. So how exactly are they like Germany. If the court does what (you know acknowledge is ) their job and rules in a way that you dont feel they misinterpreted?
Health are you for real?
From the law YOU provided and as I have been saying all along:
It is the courts job to determine what “reasonable accommodation” means
Kudos on you for fianly admitting that you were wrong on that point, “Even if they have the right to interpret the law!” Though its tnot quite that they have “the right” That is their purpose, to interpret the law. If we argue as to what “reasonable accommodation means” Say you say it means having more senior employess work the less desirable saturday shift, I say that is too much to ask. IT is the Courts EXACT ROLE to define whether this is “reasonable accommodation” of course you might not agree, but to say they have no right ruling on the issue (as you did earlier) is to fundamentally misunderstand what the role of the court is (Though as I mentioned earlier the Doanld isnt sure either).
BTW when you said you provided an example earlier, where you referring to the secret supreme court case that only you know about?
yehudayan
Without question.
Of course it depends how you define “Jewish names”
I would define it as names used (primarily?) by Jews
Which makes all of your examples Jewish names.
Ben Levi
“However Liberal’s were ardently in favor of forcing Hobby Lobby to cover birth control in spite of their religious beliefs.”
So what? they were wrong, and that isnt how the court ruled
At any rate, Religious accommodation while important and protected under the constitution is not a be all end all.
My neighbor is an Amaleki he has a yichus brief tracing his lineage back to Amalek, there are eidim who testify to it, he even has a DNA test. I spoke to my Rav who said there is a mitzva to kill him. (I’m sure there are Rabbanim out there who are meikil but my Rav is very machmir on these things) This is my sincerly held religious belief. My lawyer however cautioned that my right to kill him would not be protected
sikhs have a religious mandate to carry a knife with them at all times (this is true unlike my first more ridiculous example). Their religion is not accommodated on airplanes.
Even Shabbos which is the part of the discussion that led to this path. While one of the posters was lying when he said that their is only one job that lets you keep Shabbos. The truth is if an employee’s Shabbos would cause “undue burden” on the employer the employee’s sincerly held religous beliefs does not have to be accommodated.
(Keep in mind that any accommodation exists at all is quite a liberal idea)
My point is that while other values are deemed by the courts to be more important than religous accommodation (namely, public safety, being non-discriminatory, or arguably providing basic healthcare), doesnt mean religous accommodation doesnt exist. and the court’s stance in the case you cite only proves that it does (even if it isnt as high un the totem pole as you’d like)
Ben LEvi
I am not arguing to support Clinton per se. I am vehemently against Trump which by default makes me “support” Clinton.
As you are on the fence regarding Trump Our difference on the subject at hand is not that vast.
Therefore for now I will hold off n replying to the bulk of your (admittedly excellent) post at this time.
I will however respond to #3 since it is clearly factually inaccurate. A doctor does not have to prescribe or perform any procedure against his/her beliefs. He/she does have to refer the patient to someone else however. (As to whether this is against halacha see R’ Zilbershteyn’s teshuva on the matter.)
I am sorry to hear about the tzarros your family has endured. May Hashem grant you a nechama and may your family and all of klal yisroel no longer have to endure such tzar.
Have a wonderful Shabbos Nachamu
Health
“So do really think he’ll start up with anyone he doesn’t like because the way he acts now?!? If you really do, that’s idiocy!”
What do you mean by start up? shoot some nukes? Probably not though he HAS downplayed use of chemical weapons in the past. And according to some accounts isnt quite sure why we dont use nuclear weapons more often and IT is too risky to find out how he will punish those who criticize him. that he will suddenly grow thick skin and for the first time in over 20 years that we have grown to know and love him, he will brush off and ignore an insult is the literal definition of insanity according to Einstein (look it up)
“But Trump’s daughter was willing to become Jewish, in order that her husband didn’t have to assimilate!”
So trump is now your example of promoting multiculturalism?
“Again they have No right, call it what you want – interpret or misinterpret, to change the basic normal understanding of the law!”
you couldnt be more wrong. That is PRECISELY the job of the courts in general, and the supreme court in particular. Nmaely to interpret the law.
See Article 2 of the US constitution. You say misinterpret, though a. you indicated at one point that you couldnt list such an example. b. misinterpret is obviously subjective. and c. in a sense it is their job to “misinterpret” sicne by interpreting the law (ie doing their job) they will sometimes get it wrong in your opinion.
“And out of the kindness of my heart, I gave you an example how they changed the meaning of “Religious accommodation”
that IS very kind of you to back up your baseless statements with examples. However I cant find where youve provided your example. would you mind linking to the post where you provided said example of where “they changed the meaning of “Religious accommodation””
Thanks a ton!!!!!!!!!!!!! (now thats how you use exclamation marks)
“Your implication that Mr. Trump will start a nuke war is absurd! With whom will he fight with?”
whoever says any thing he doesnt like? That has been the case throughout he campaign
What does the Constitution say that they can misinterpret the law anyway they feel?!?”
Article 2. you now say misinterpret earlier you said “I happen not to have a problem with that interpretation, but what I just posted was to make a point” Which is it?
At any rate earlier you asked “”Who says” regarding The courts interpreting the law. This is in the constitution. You dont get to decide (though of course you can have an opinion). but interpreting the law is PRECISELY the courts role.
“here it’s very subtle!”
What is you havent brought anything to back up your claim. you cite a secret supreme court case that you “happen not to have a problem with [its] interpretation” So what is the issue?
“That’s right!”
wow you have a nice view of the world. SO thousands and thousands of bosses are all ohavei yisreol. Interesting.
” Or the employers think that it’s the law,”
“but if they didn’t hire the guy and he took it to court – the employer would win!”
an assertion youve made without backing up.
also
when you said “Stop with the liberal lies! Name one area of jobs – where it’s Not required to work Friday afternoon!”
where you lying? Or do you want me to start listing jobs?
What do you mean by goyish names?
Abraham, Moses, Jacob Jeremy, Jonathon David etc are all Jewish names.
what names do you have in mind?
Christian and Christina are certainly goyish
Health
“Who says?”
The constitution.
“I happen not to have a problem with that interpretation, but what I just posted was to make a point!”
What is your point? Especially if you do in fact agree with the courts on the one example you cited to show how courts discriminate against Jews?
“”Care to mention an example?”
Why don’t you read the topic before you come here to post?!?
Start from the beginning and you won’t have such silly questions!”
It is an excellent question one that has been asked of you by several posters. and by myself 3 times. You have yet to answer.
Here it is a third time:
So when you said “Stop with the liberal lies! Name one area of jobs – where it’s Not required to work Friday afternoon!”
It was in fact you who was lying? Or do you want me to start listing jobs?
“I think that your whole purpose is to prove me wrong, in order to push your liberal agenda!”
No it is to see if when you are clearly wrong (for example when you say there is one job that can take off Friday afternoon, when theri are in fact hundreds) You can say you were wrong.
“But I’ll answer this one!”
You dint answer the question. You said their are no such jobs
” If the employer isn’t nice, they could make up any story why they can’t give off!”
So the thousands upon thousands of frum professionals in hundreds of careers who take of Friday afternoon all have nice employers?
dbrim
” did you intentionally misconstrue or simply misunderstand my post:”
Mostly the latter.
“this is what Obama and other liberals call islamic terrorist attacks”
He called Nice “workplace violence”? Paris? Brussels? Boston?
“We should be concerned because these attacks are on the rise and it matters what we call these terrorist attacks because if we call these attacks workplace violence,”
Ah but that wasnt my question. The question was why is it so important to call it “Radical Islam” Calling it terrorism makes sense. But insulting allies who we need to combat terrorism doesnt really make sense.
“but if it’s Islamic terrorism, then we should probably scrutinize our immigration policies sans trump (did you get the sarcasm or should I explain?)”
You’ll need to explain. sarcastic or not that line doesnt make sense (sans means without)
“(I am not voting for supporting Israel, unless there is such an election)”
There isnt, which is why that line didnt make sense much like the rest of your post.
“I was insinuating (do you know what that means?) that you don’t support Israel but I apologize – it was a little judgemental of me.”
I know, yes and apology accepted
“In any event, once you pull the Daas Torah card, the discussion ends”
Not in this election. The 3 rabbonim IVe spoken are all in the #never trump camp. One going so far as to say anyone who votes for trump isnt a ben torah.
” the discussion ends,”
discussion never ends. That is what makes us human: The ability to think and by extension discuss.
“She will probably win,”
Amen
” and when the results are disasterous we can all laugh at you and say “Told you so”.”
At least we will live to laugh…
Health
sigh
“He will let in Muslims, but first we need a system to differentiate between the ones that could become radicalized & the ones that believe in democracy!”
So for now he is opposed to muslim immigration. Fair?
“No! My point was that the courts should start following the law!”
I know I know this is a liberal lie and he meant something else but as usual is so inarticulate that he couldnt get his point across.
and quick question:
So when you said “Stop with the liberal lies! Name one area of jobs – where it’s Not required to work Friday afternoon!”
It was in fact you who was lying? Or do you want me to start listing jobs? (Sam started but I’m prepared to list as many as you like (within reason since I only know a finite number of shomer shabbos people))
Health
I still dont follow, The law demans “reaosnable accomodation”
Is that incorrect?
you said “My point was that the courts aren’t doing what they’re supposed to do!”
What are they supposed to do dmeand all accomodation even if not “reasonable”
“It was a point how the laws are a joke when it comes to Jewish Religious Rights!”
I am not sure where you live, Go to Brooklyn, 5 towns, Lakewood, Monsey etc you will find thousands of proffesionals who have no trouble keeping Shabbos. IF you are having some trouble (and I’m not saying it is perfect, but we have come a long way from the early 20’th century thanks to liberal judges may they have continued hatzlacha to continue their avodas hakodesh) contact the Agudah they can help you, they have relevant state statutes that protect your rights on their website.
“It wasn’t a point about getting off. “
So when you said “Stop with the liberal lies! Name one area of jobs – where it’s Not required to work Friday afternoon!”
It was in fact you who was lying? Or do you want me to start listing jobs? (Sam started but I’m prepared to list as many as you like (within reason since I only know a finite number of shomer shabbos people))
Health
“Are you talking about yourself?!?”
nope, I am referring to all your posts calling everything you dont like a “liberal lie” even when it is based on facts that you simply dont care for.
“Stop twisting his words!”
I didnt twist his words, I quoted him verbatim
“If you would know what he actually holds, you wouldn’t push those liberal lies!”
I know exactly what he holds. He holds that he will say anything that pops into his brain that his supporters want to hear. He doesnt care about Muslims, Jews, Mexico or anything all he cares about is Trump.
“Secondly, he holds we can’t let in Any Muslims, until we have some sort of system to differentiate between the ones that could become radicalized & the ones that believe in democracy!!!!!”
Ok for arguments sake lets say that is what he holds.
So when you said this: “Another liberal lie! He’s only against ILLEGAL Mexicans and Muslims that aren’t vetted properly!” you were lying/wrong/mistaken/exaggerating/incorrect (you can choose which you think best describes your conflicting statments) as you are now saying he is in fact against ALL Muslim immigration albeit temporarily and perhaps for a good reason.
however he is not only opposed to “Illegals that arent vetted properly” He is in fact opposed to ALL and that statement was not a “liberal lie” but a fact.
Health
he’s the type of person to try and change the law”
I don’t follow the law calls for “reasonable accommodation ” for genuinely held religious belief. Are you saying trump would pass a law calling for all accommodation even unreasonable?
“Stop with the liberal lies! Name one area of jobs – where it’s Not required to work Friday afternoon”
Are you for real? You don’t know of any jobs where people have successfully navigated taking off Friday afternoon? What are you talking about?
Granted not every profession can offer “reusable accomodation”but you can only think f one that does?
At the risk of turning this post too long, before I start listing, how many professions would you like?
dbrim
Im sorry I dont understand your response. Are you saying workplace violence is due to radical islam? and that by calling it radical islam it will go away?
ISIS is a problem. Obama never said or implied otherwise. He is reluctant to call it “Radical islam” which I sort of get though not fully. what I completly dont get is why calling it Radical islam is so critical. I eagerly await your response
” It may make sense to take apart a post point-by-point if you actually have a counterargument to those points but if all you really have to say is “Well, I don’t agree” then just say that and be done with it. “
Are you sure that was addressed to me? I’m not sure where I said “well I dont agree”
“either Clinton supports Israel or she doesn’t”
Sorry My world isnt binary and there is a lot of in between. Some support Israel more some less. But in a binary world then she in fact supports ISrael. Tell me does AIPAC frequently have ISrael’s opponents speak at their confrences?
“and you either care whether she does or you don’t “
I do
“(I vote the latter for both)”
Well shame on you. You should care about Israel, but if you dont, well it is a free country. (Though Ive never really heard of “voting” whether someone supports ISrael or not)
“If you believe in the delusion that Clinton was being polite in kissing Arafat’s wife “
Well she definitly was, but you are saying that she kissed Shua Arafat because she loves Radical Islam. Though wouldnt that mean when she kissed R’ Genack she loves Orthodox Jews?
“he doesn’t support radical Islam ot hate Jews – sounds like someone worthy of support to me.”
No he doesnt hate Jews (probably) but many of his supporters do and that he doesnt condmen those supporters is concerning, though perhaps not a reason not to vote for him. However his advocating war crimes is a reason (in my book) not to vote for him.
(BTW if this isnt a point by point rebuttal, I dont know what is)
Health
Like almost everything you post you are wrong yet again (and with such vitriol too)
A few months ago Trump called for a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States”
This is readily searchable.
Total and complete does not equal only illegals nor does it equal those “that aren’t vetted properly”
IT means total and complete
Oh and !!!!!!
Musicaldignity
1) Presidential is not a “phantom word” People may define it differently. To me it encomposes a few things. One is acting in a way that is appropriate for a president. PErhaps growing up in our community this message has been hammered home that the way dress, talk, act all should be befitting a ben torah. Similaerly, (and lehavdil) a president should conduct himself a certain way. Which does not include routine use of vulgarities talking in a certain way about women etc. You yourself admit Trump is less than articulate. This is a problem.
More importantly however, a to be “PResidential” you need certain qualities including the right temperament judgement etc. Trump has shown over and over that eh is sevely lacking in both. Look at the debacle with the Khan family. Most people would ignore them, they lost a son and gave a non-prime time speech criticizing you. Big deal. But Trump cant let it go. nor can he let it go when his advisers urge him to just let it go .He lacks both the temperament and judgement required of a PResident. We are reassured, dotn worry he may not be knowedagble on foreign policy etc (another problem btw) but he has good advisers. What good are advisers, if he doesnt listen to them?
” but whether or not you can cut through the nonsense, listen to the relevant opinions, and lead the charge for real change.”
He has shown that he cant cut through the nonsense. He has shown this over and over.
” NOBODY is successful in business by alienating everyone.”
Who knows how succesful he is? He wont release any concrete evidence of that.
” I think people misunderstand this man and the way he operates. They mistake toughness and bluntness with arrogance.”
Trump isnt someone weve watched for a year. He has been in the limelight for several decades. We know quite well how he operates
2)” He will appoint conservatives to the Supreme court”
How do you know? This is a man with a very liberal ideas on most issues until he decided to run as a republican.
The same holds true for the bulk of your 2nd paragraph. Trump is unpredictable. which is a very dangerous quality for a PResident
3) “I believe, contrary to what people say, Trump is a very good man.”
I’mnot sure why you believe that since He stole a lot of money from unsuspecting trump university students. But I’ll grant that Hillary isnt good either
” I am VERY impressed with his kids, and you do not have good kids by accident. He raised them to be responsible and insisted no drugs, no alcohol, no cigarettes. Imagine having that message from the white house!”
Chelsea isnt a “good kid”? And what about the message of being a serial philanderer and whose wife posed in inappropriate magazines (Granted Bill might not send the best message either, but Hillary seems ok)
4)” There are countless more, but let me end by saying Hillary is dangerous…”
Assuming that is true. Does it concern you that Trump supported Hillary as late as 2015, If she is as dangerous as you say, does it worry you that your candidate didnt see it until he decided to run?
Health
“Some people can’t get jobs in certain fields in this wonderful country of yours’, because they are Shomer Shabbos!”
You think Trump will change that? how?
And those fields are the exception, not the rule. To the best of my knowledge, It is only fields where the employee is expected to work 7 days a week and no “reasonable accomodation” can be made to allow person to take off every Saturday (and leave early on Friday for a big chunk of the year)
what fields are you referring to?
kaganys
I suspect you are kidding, but I’ll bite what makes you say he is “the most successful businessman around today”?
CA
I’m good at googling. I’m just not sure about the story They are all sourced to one book some of which’s anecdotes have been shown to be false.
This one may be true I dont know.
I do know though that a google search of hillary and menora yields a few pictures of her lighting a menora and of being present for menora lightnings. Many more than one incident and all more recent than 1973
I disagree that frum Yidden confuse politics with religion – I think we’re a bit savvier than that. Imagine – some of us are not voting for Clinton, not because she’s a democrat”
I dont think that is what nequateim meant.
” I have repeatedly posted asking about the fact that she kissed Arafat’s wife,”
what does that prove? Isnt kissing your hostess the polite thing to do? She claims the translator mistranslated whatshua arafat said
” and about the fact that she refused to enter the home where a menorah was prominently displayed because she saw it as a symbolic affront to the Palestinian cause (these events are documented)”
i’m not familiar witht he second.
– I’m still waiting to hear a counter argument – Any takers, Clinton supporters?
I can’t fathom why anyone would vote a blatant anti-israel anti-semite
for several reasons:
1) She has a strong record on supporting Israel, one longer than the two anti-semitic incidents you list
2) Even if she was anti-Israel, it wont affect Israel as much as a Trump presidency will affect America and the world. In other words, even if that was a strike against her the plusses outweigh that
“Yes, we all agree – they are both corrupt liars – isn’t that the definition of “politician”? “
Yes but Trump is a much bigger liar, even when he doesnt need to be. He lies for the sake of lying
“Trump’s immorality doesn’t hold a candle to the the Clinton sordid affairs – doesn’t anyone remember Monica, the perjury, the filth that was on public display?”
filth on public display??? are you kidding? Do you know what magazines Trump has been prominetly featured in ? Do you know what he has said about women? Cmon try to be fact based. when supporting Trump you cant claim the moral high ground
Oh and never mind the Mayor’s inner circle press roast from 2000.
” We need a president call radical islam by its name”
why, explain why that is so important?
“There is no doubt that Obama seriously damaged America (moral affairs, health care, etc.) and seriously damaged the international stage (Syria, Iraq, etc.)”
I completely doubt that.
moral affairs is the natural progression of the way things have been for several decades. Did George W damage “moral affairs”?
When he started 0 states allowed “toeiva marriage” during his presidency two staes allowed it.
As for healthcare
how many people have you met who didnt have health insurance before Obama and have now?
How many have you met who had insurance then and lost now?
Granted some may be paying more, and it is far from perfect,
But I have met >100 people who never had insurance before and have now. I have never met someone who had and now doesnt.
If Hiallry will be a furtherance and continuation, then that is yet another reason to vote for her.
Though voting against Trump remains my primary reason
Nequateim
That sint just a problem in frum community. It is a natural outcome of the two party system, where people side with one party and for whatever reason seem to identify with it fully.
puhlease
I may have missed it, but where did anybody criticize or shame those that use footsteps?
Joseph was pretty clear “yemach shmos who run the place and/or organize any of their activities, attempts to shmad yidden into goyim”
Joseph
“Would you recommend a frum Yid go to Sedom on business?”
See the end of Sanhedrin regarding Eliezer’s trip(s?) to Sedom.
Granted he isnt technically a “Frum yid” but other Gemaras do indicate that he was a righetous person (albeit still from am hadome lechamor and an “arur”) who we learn halachos from