The ten fastest growing states or federal districts for 2013 according to Forbes were as follows:

1. North Dakota

2. District of Columbia

3. Texas

4. Wyoming

5. Utah

6. Nevada

7. Colorado

8. Arizona

9. Florida

10. South Dakota

What do all of them, save Colorado, have in common with each other?

They are all right to work states, with the exception of Colorado.

http://www.forbes.com/pictures/mhj45mejl/1-north-dakota/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

It would be quite a dream if either the democrats, or the republicans could find an intelligent, savvy, and creative person with at least one degree of integrity, to run for president. Is there such a person in the US, who has any chances of raising the necessary money, and winning? How about shortening the election cycle to 90 days?

Spidermike

Chaiyaphum, Thailand

Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Mike,

A 90-day election cycle? I am all for it.

These politicians no longer even think about the job we hired them for--to run the country.

All they think about is the next election.

Cheers

Even if Obama and the Dems miraculously came up with an idea that would cure cancer, balance the budget and create peace on earth- the Repubs would vote against it. And if a Repub was in the White House, the Dems would do the same.

They're obligated to do whatever they can to get their guy elected- no matter how much it damages the country.

The real problem is that Obama sort of did promise to cure cancer and secure peace in the world.

I honestly think he could have obtained bi-partisan support on those two issues had he tried to achieve them.

He never intended to balance the budget.

Completely dodges the point I was making in favor of a cheap shot at Obama.

But if you want to go down that path, it's amazing how quickly some people forget that the big debate in 2000 Bush/Gore election was how to spend the budget surpluses after 8 years of a Dem in the WH. Flash forward 8 years of Repubs at the wheel and???

Not that I'm a fan of Obama, but I don't fault him for failing to balance the budget when his predecessor's administration left us in 2 unwinnable and possibly perpetual wars, and in the worst financial downturn since the great depression.

But the cheap shot at Obama is not surprising since your signature line quotes the very president who set the country on the road to bankruptcy by trying to outspend the Soviets to "win" the Cold War- but never had a plan for the peace dividend that could have resulted. ("Won" the Cold War, at least until the Russkies could rearm, get their finances in order and come back in a generation. Kind of like they are doing in the Ukraine today, and the defeated and humiliated Germans did in 1939)

But that's a little far off the topic...

Is it possible that some of the "Clinton surplus" was found on Monica Lewinsky's dress?

1. When Clinton was elected in 1992, Hillary immediately began to act as a co-president in a failed attempt to ram through her health care bill which would have been a budget buster. That idea was very unpopular with Americans and quickly died.

Obamacare is equally unpopular, LINK and if Hillary runs for POTUS expect that to come up.

2. Just 2 years after Clinton was elected, the backlash from Hillary and some of Bill's ideas enabled the Republicans to sweep the entire Congress, both House and Senate, for the first time in 40 years. Clinton had an instant problem by the name of Newt Gingrich who became Speaker of the House. The House draws all budgets.

3. Given a chance, Gingrich himself would have cut federal spending in half. Nonetheless, Clinton was forced to form an awkward alliance with Gingrich and began to appear so centrist that many pundits doubted his chances for re-election.

It isn't accurate to give either the Republicans or Clinton the credit for the surplus. They worked together and in a way I admire Clinton for that. Clinton had a knack for dodging bullets, and a great instinct for picking his fights.

But a blanket idea that Bush 2 (who I can't stand) inherited a surplus credited only to Clinton would be far, far from accurate.

I see the five Republican male Supreme Court justices have done their bit for the looney religious right.

And alienated yet more women voters in the process.

Result!

The five male Justices who made up the majority in the case all identify as Roman Catholic, and are 59 years of age or older. There is no way to know how much their personal beliefs inform their decisionmaking in this particular case, but it's not implausible to suggest a correlation. It is reasonable to wonder if the Court would have split on similar lines had the religious convictions under examination been Muslim, Jewish or Mormon.

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/stasi-supreme-court-hobby-lobby-decision-step-back-article-1.1851680

I see the five Republican male Supreme Court justices have done their bit for the looney religious right.

And alienated yet more women voters in the process.

Result!

The five male Justices who made up the majority in the case all identify as Roman Catholic, and are 59 years of age or older. There is no way to know how much their personal beliefs inform their decisionmaking in this particular case, but it's not implausible to suggest a correlation. It is reasonable to wonder if the Court would have split on similar lines had the religious convictions under examination been Muslim, Jewish or Mormon.

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/stasi-supreme-court-hobby-lobby-decision-step-back-article-1.1851680

Not really, they just pushed back against the government interfering in people's personal lives and businesses. Contrary to Democrat/Liberal opinion, women can still obtain birth control products, although they may have to show some accountability and responsibility for their own bodies. Seems funny that the argument is, they don't want someone interfering between them and their doctor, but they don't mind letting the government get in the middle of it.

I see the five Republican male Supreme Court justices have done their bit for the looney religious right.

And alienated yet more women voters in the process.

Result!

The five male Justices who made up the majority in the case all identify as Roman Catholic, and are 59 years of age or older. There is no way to know how much their personal beliefs inform their decisionmaking in this particular case, but it's not implausible to suggest a correlation. It is reasonable to wonder if the Court would have split on similar lines had the religious convictions under examination been Muslim, Jewish or Mormon.

http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/stasi-supreme-court-hobby-lobby-decision-step-back-article-1.1851680

This is an editorial by a wildly liberal feminist female writer. Of course she is going to howl about the decision.

What she is conveniently omitting from her noteworthy opinion piece is the fact that HHS has authorized a total of 20 different birth control medications for women.

Only the four that cause a woman to abort a fertilized egg have been covered in the exclusion.

The remaining 16 are still to be provided by Hobby Lobby and the remaining privately owned corporations that can prove that abortions or abortion inducers are against their religious principles. I seriously doubt if there are more than 100 companies, small and large, that can qualify for the exception.

Let me further point out part of her opinion piece you failed to print. This might show the mind set of Linda Stasi.

"The thing is that these corporations’ insurance plans will continue to pay for Viagra and Cialis for men, which ironically enough should kill any sex drive for all no-longer-insured women who aren’t named Duggard.

But, hey, what religion doesn’t love a guy with an erection lasting four or more hours? And why should insurance companies care if erection drugs like Viagra and Cialis can cause those erectioneers to go blind? At least the old fools will have the times of their lives, even if they can’t see who — or what — they’re trying to impregnate."

Lovely little creature, huh?

PS: This President has had a total of 13 decisions by SCOTUS against his actions made by a 9-0 vote. The latest one was his appointment of three individuals to the NLRB while the Senate was NOT in recess. It was declared unconstitutional. He can't even count on the two women he personally appointed to support him when he is so wrong.

Hey, UG and Chuckd, why aren't you sticking up for your country on the Thailand news threads, too? A serious question.

It is somehow ironic when the limey with the DPRK avatar has to do it for you...

Hey, UG and Chuckd, why aren't you sticking up for your country on the Thailand news threads, too? A serious question.

It is somehow ironic when the limey with the DPRK avatar has to do it for you...

Got a link? Post it.

Found it, I guess. Don't look at Thai News very often and post there even less often. I live in red shirt country so nobody likes me anyway.

"The thing is that these corporations’ insurance plans will continue to pay for Viagra and Cialis for men,

That's even more ludicrous.

But like I said, it's the female votes that count when it comes to it Chuck.

This bunch of hypocritical jesus wheezers just did the Dems a great favour.

Hey, UG and Chuckd, why aren't you sticking up for your country on the Thailand news threads, too? A serious question.

It is somehow ironic when the limey with the DPRK avatar has to do it for you...

Got a link? Post it.

You have to be joking:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/740110-no-us-ban-of-thai-products-despite-labour-rights-issue/

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/737617-get-off-your-high-horse-america-we-do-not-need-a-ride-thai-opinion/http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/737617-get-off-your-high-horse-america-we-do-not-need-a-ride-thai-opinion/

Another:http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/737881-the-west-might-regret-forcing-thailand-into-a-corner/

"The thing is that these corporations’ insurance plans will continue to pay for Viagra and Cialis for men,

That's even more ludicrous.

But like I said, it's the female votes that count when it comes to it Chuck.

This bunch of hypocritical jesus wheezers just did the Dems a great favour.

That little bit about viagra is what your source, Linda Stasi, claims...not me.

I just looked it up and Obamacare DOES NOT pay for viagra of cialis.

You really should do a little more research before you quote some junk article.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Question:

Will Obamacare cover Viagra?

With all the complaints by feminists about birth control coverage, one might not know that Medicaid already covered birth control, but a federal rule did not allow Viagra to be ...show more

Answer:

No, Viagara is not offered as a free entitlement under Obamacare as the birth control pill is. When it comes to services specific to gender, There are many specific to women that are covered, but those specific to men are for the most part omitted.(1)

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130501064822AAF2mvr

PS: You and Linda might want to read the following opinion piece. We've got 'em too.

6 Stupid Arguments About Hobby Lobby From xxxx Liberals (cleaned up to pass moderation)

http://thefederalist.com/2014/06/30/6-stupid-arguments-about-hobby-lobby-from-dumb-liberals/

If you take out the soundbites, the bottom line is that the Republican-loaded Supreme court has just opened the door to corporations pretending to be "religious persons".

The Koch brother' printers will be working overtime on new lawsuits as we speak.

So much for the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

The corporations don't just own the Republican party, they now seem to own the Supreme Court.

When these "religious persons" start dictating to which laws they choose to adhere, the whole separation of church and state goes out of the window.

And yet you still think this is a good thing?

And by the way, do you think this decision would have gone the same way if it was Muslims that had brought it to them?

I can just imagine the uproar.

This is a terrible, politically motivated decision.

No wonder the GOP try so hard to block any Obama appointments if this is the kind of thing they plan on churning out.

If you take out the soundbites, the bottom line is that the Republican-loaded Supreme court has just opened the door to corporations pretending to be "religious persons".

The Koch brother' printers will be working overtime on new lawsuits as we speak.

So much for the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

The corporations don't just own the Republican party, they now seem to own the Supreme Court.

When these "religious persons" start dictating to which laws they choose to adhere, the whole separation of church and state goes out of the window.

And yet you still think this is a good thing?

And by the way, do you think this decision would have gone the same way if it was Muslims that had brought it to them?

I can just imagine the uproar.

This is a terrible, politically motivated decision.

No wonder the GOP try so hard to block any Obama appointments if this is the kind of thing they plan on churning out.

It is still the land of the free up to a point. But how is it freedom to force a company to provide health insurance as a condition of employment? As I said, only the hysterical left would believe women are being denied access to contraceptives.

If you take out the soundbites, the bottom line is that the Republican-loaded Supreme court has just opened the door to corporations pretending to be "religious persons".

The Koch brother' printers will be working overtime on new lawsuits as we speak.

So much for the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

The corporations don't just own the Republican party, they now seem to own the Supreme Court.

When these "religious persons" start dictating to which laws they choose to adhere, the whole separation of church and state goes out of the window.

And yet you still think this is a good thing?

And by the way, do you think this decision would have gone the same way if it was Muslims that had brought it to them?

I can just imagine the uproar.

This is a terrible, politically motivated decision.

No wonder the GOP try so hard to block any Obama appointments if this is the kind of thing they plan on churning out.

It is still the land of the free up to a point. But how is it freedom to force a company to provide health insurance as a condition of employment? As I said, only the hysterical left would believe women are being denied access to contraceptives.

It's about forcing companies to comply with the laws, including the ones they conveniently feel like ignoring.

What happens when they start sacking people for cohabitating without being married? Or having children out of wedlock?

Presumably they're itching to have a go at the gay community.

Or perhaps they'll decide they want to get rid of the non-believers?

If you take out the soundbites, the bottom line is that the Republican-loaded Supreme court has just opened the door to corporations pretending to be "religious persons".

The Koch brother' printers will be working overtime on new lawsuits as we speak.

So much for the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

The corporations don't just own the Republican party, they now seem to own the Supreme Court.

When these "religious persons" start dictating to which laws they choose to adhere, the whole separation of church and state goes out of the window.

And yet you still think this is a good thing?

And by the way, do you think this decision would have gone the same way if it was Muslims that had brought it to them?

I can just imagine the uproar.

This is a terrible, politically motivated decision.

No wonder the GOP try so hard to block any Obama appointments if this is the kind of thing they plan on churning out.

It is still the land of the free up to a point. But how is it freedom to force a company to provide health insurance as a condition of employment? As I said, only the hysterical left would believe women are being denied access to contraceptives.

It's about forcing companies to comply with the laws, including the ones they conveniently feel like ignoring.

What happens when they start sacking people for cohabitating without being married? Or having children out of wedlock?

Presumably they're itching to have a go at the gay community.

Or perhaps they'll decide they want to get rid of the non-believers?

Complying with the laws of the land might be a good precedence to set from the Oval Office and DOJ.

He has changed or altered his own Obamacare a total of 38 times during his imperial reign and that's just the tip of the iceberg.

Your other questions are simply absurd.

You really should get a grip on reality.

Cheers.

PS: I might point out the only reason we are faced with the problems involved with Obaracare is because one Republican appointed Chief Justice sided with the liberals to make the bill constitutional. Look it up.

Stay on topic. Further off-topic posts are going to be deleted.

If you take out the soundbites, the bottom line is that the Republican-loaded Supreme court has just opened the door to corporations pretending to be "religious persons".

The Koch brother' printers will be working overtime on new lawsuits as we speak.

So much for the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave.

The corporations don't just own the Republican party, they now seem to own the Supreme Court.

When these "religious persons" start dictating to which laws they choose to adhere, the whole separation of church and state goes out of the window.

And yet you still think this is a good thing?

And by the way, do you think this decision would have gone the same way if it was Muslims that had brought it to them?

I can just imagine the uproar.

This is a terrible, politically motivated decision.

No wonder the GOP try so hard to block any Obama appointments if this is the kind of thing they plan on churning out.

It is still the land of the free up to a point. But how is it freedom to force a company to provide health insurance as a condition of employment? As I said, only the hysterical left would believe women are being denied access to contraceptives.

It's about forcing companies to comply with the laws, including the ones they conveniently feel like ignoring.

What happens when they start sacking people for cohabitating without being married? Or having children out of wedlock?

Presumably they're itching to have a go at the gay community.

Or perhaps they'll decide they want to get rid of the non-believers?

As already noted, perhaps Obama and Holder could start by setting a good example? So far as obeying the law, I would say the Supreme Court has already spoken, if they say it's legal then that's what we have to go with. But I have a feeling they aren't through with Obama just yet. Frankly, I don't care what a privately held company does, they should be able to hire or fire whomever they want in my opinion. People are still free to quit and go to work for whoever they want, or start their own business. They are certainly free to provide their own insurance, I have a couple of times.

As to the actual topic, I think there has been an over reaction to Cantor's loss, he's just one guy in the end. But, I think it has opened a debate on which direction the country is going. Personally, I hope it does move in a more conservative, responsible direction. If we keep going, we will like Detroit and the other bankrupt cities across the U.S. that can't pay it's pensions and other obligations.

Frankly, I don't care what a privately held company does, they should be able to hire or fire whomever they want in my opinion.

Really? And how would you feel about, say, Dubai taking over a large American company and sacking all of its non-Muslim employees?

Frankly, I don't care what a privately held company does, they should be able to hire or fire whomever they want in my opinion.

Really? And how would you feel about, say, Dubai taking over a large American company and sacking all of its non-Muslim employees?

Not sure why you are asking something like that, because it has nothing to do with this Hobby Lobby situation. But, then I suppose that's one of the problems, you guys don't like dealing with the facts. But, if I was one of their employees, I would just go find another job, that hasn't been a problem the past 40 years.

As to Cantor and government in general, seems to me he tried to put some legislation on the budget that would have addressed several issues, Harry, Nancy, and Obama weren't having any of it. One of those I just read about, were the SS Disability are going to run out of funds by 2016. There are a number of issues Obama should have been dealing with, but he has been asleep at the wheel. It's obvious he doesn't know how to organize, or manage assets and resources, but why would he, he's never held a real job before.

Frankly, I don't care what a privately held company does, they should be able to hire or fire whomever they want in my opinion.

Really? And how would you feel about, say, Dubai taking over a large American company and sacking all of its non-Muslim employees?

Not sure why you are asking something like that, because it has nothing to do with this Hobby Lobby situation. But, then I suppose that's one of the problems, you guys don't like dealing with the facts. But, if I was one of their employees, I would just go find another job, that hasn't been a problem the past 40 years.

As to Cantor and government in general, seems to me he tried to put some legislation on the budget that would have addressed several issues, Harry, Nancy, and Obama weren't having any of it. One of those I just read about, were the SS Disability are going to run out of funds by 2016. There are a number of issues Obama should have been dealing with, but he has been asleep at the wheel. It's obvious he doesn't know how to organize, or manage assets and resources, but why would he, he's never held a real job before.

Actually it does, because the ruling is so vague that it opens all sorts of doors.

As for Cantor, he was ousted because he didn't do enough to keep out the Mexicans.

Apparently the WASPs have decided there is no more room in the nation of immigrants for hard working, swarthy immigrants from the South.

There's plenty of room for legal immigrants. It's the 11 to 14 million ILLEGAL ones that are the problem.

You really should try to keep up.

Oh, by the way, your Dubai reference was laughable. It was a good stab in the dark, though.

There's plenty of room for legal immigrants. It's the 11 to 14 million ILLEGAL ones that are the problem.

You really should try to keep up.

Oh, by the way, your Dubai reference was laughable. It was a good stab in the dark, though.

So make them legal. Get them paying taxes. Get them funding Obamacare. Or do you just have an irrational fear that they work cheap and send their money home?

Again, it's irrelevant. The GOP's continual blocking of any Immigration bill will cost them at the ballot box. I pity Boehner having to take the can for all those other Republicans that don't want to be made to vote on it.

And my Dubai reference was a hypothetical question. Which you didn't answer.

How about it, Chuck? What if Hobby Lobby was Abu Labu Inc, and was asking for an exception to a law based on its Islamic principles?

Do you think the Catholics on the Supreme Court would have been quite so supportive?

Frankly, I don't care what a privately held company does, they should be able to hire or fire whomever they want in my opinion.

Really? And how would you feel about, say, Dubai taking over a large American company and sacking all of its non-Muslim employees?

Not sure why you are asking something like that, because it has nothing to do with this Hobby Lobby situation. But, then I suppose that's one of the problems, you guys don't like dealing with the facts. But, if I was one of their employees, I would just go find another job, that hasn't been a problem the past 40 years.

As to Cantor and government in general, seems to me he tried to put some legislation on the budget that would have addressed several issues, Harry, Nancy, and Obama weren't having any of it. One of those I just read about, were the SS Disability are going to run out of funds by 2016. There are a number of issues Obama should have been dealing with, but he has been asleep at the wheel. It's obvious he doesn't know how to organize, or manage assets and resources, but why would he, he's never held a real job before.

Actually it does, because the ruling is so vague that it opens all sorts of doors.

As for Cantor, he was ousted because he didn't do enough to keep out the damned Mexicans.

Apparently the WASPs have decided there is no more room in the nation of immigrants for hard working, swarthy immigrants from the South.

When you get through with the science fiction section, how about coming back and asking a question based on reality.

You obviously don't like tough questions.

Ironically this "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" essentially allows corporations to *impose* religious diktats on individuals. And it was Clinton legislation!

Where does it say Islam isn't covered?

Sent from my SM-N900T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

You obviously don't like tough questions.

Ironically this "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" essentially allows corporations to *impose* religious diktats on individuals. And it was Clinton legislation!

Where does it say Islam isn't covered?

Sent from my SM-N900T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I obviously don't like stupid questions. Why would I be required to work for any particular company? As to disqualifications, I've been told not bother to apply because I'm white, don't speak Spanish, wrong nationality(Thailand/Singapore), etc. As to avoiding religious diktats, even if it is possible to impose them, I would just quit and take another job, or start my own business. It's the U.S. not the Communist Soviet Union or China.

Why would I care about Islam? I'm Protestant, should I sue the Catholics for not letting me be a priest?

You obviously don't like tough questions.

Ironically this "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" essentially allows corporations to *impose* religious diktats on individuals. And it was Clinton legislation!

Where does it say Islam isn't covered?

Sent from my SM-N900T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I obviously don't like stupid questions. Why would I be required to work for any particular company? As to disqualifications, I've been told not bother to apply because I'm white, don't speak Spanish, wrong nationality(Thailand/Singapore), etc. As to avoiding religious diktats, even if it is possible to impose them, I would just quit and take another job, or start my own business. It's the U.S. not the Communist Soviet Union or China.

Why would I care about Islam? I'm Protestant, should I sue the Catholics for not letting me be a priest?

Since you & UG seem to be on the same page with your post, would you mind telling us what your career was?

And just so I don't misunderstand you--are you saying you see no problem if you are fired from a job you have performed exemplary for much of your life because of your race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, marital status, etc?

I must say, I do not know many people like you and UG, who would simply shrug it off and start over again with no ill feelings.

Cheers

There's plenty of room for legal immigrants. It's the 11 to 14 million ILLEGAL ones that are the problem.

You really should try to keep up.

Oh, by the way, your Dubai reference was laughable. It was a good stab in the dark, though.

So make them legal. Get them paying taxes. Get them funding Obamacare. Or do you just have an irrational fear that they work cheap and send their money home?

Again, it's irrelevant. The GOP's continual blocking of any Immigration bill will cost them at the ballot box. I pity Boehner having to take the can for all those other Republicans that don't want to be made to vote on it.

And my Dubai reference was a hypothetical question. Which you didn't answer.

How about it, Chuck? What if Hobby Lobby was Abu Labu Inc, and was asking for an exception to a law based on its Islamic principles?

Do you think the Catholics on the Supreme Court would have been quite so supportive?

How would making them legal help the economy? They're still going to work cheap and send their money home. How many of the 11-14 million illegal immigrants are even of working age or inclination? Their unemployment rate is currently 9.1% and that's only for those actively seeking employment.

The Democrats would love to see making them legal. Many people feel these illegal immigrants should be called "illegal Democratic voters" instead. By the way there are many ways for them to gain citizenship...legally. The best way is to arrive in the US with a visa issued by the State Department and then begin the process. My good friend took his very lovely Thai wife to the US and within three years she had passed the citizenship test and was a US citizen. And she did it legally.

Now let me apologize for not answering your hypothetical question about some mythical Dubai company. My reading of your question led me to believe this mythical company was housed and operating in Dubai and was laying off "other than Muslims" in Dubai. Now I understand this mythical company from Dubai is operating in the US and laying off non-Muslims in the US. Do I have it right now?

Do I think the Catholics on the Supreme Court would be so supportive? I do not, simply because it would never reach the Supreme Court.

There would already be so many injunctions and Federal court rulings against the mythical Dubai company that their doors would have long been closed. The EEOC would take particular delight in closing their doors.

You see, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. Their actions would be as illegal as swimming the Rio Grande to enter the country...and this law would be enforced.

Finally to your remark about the ballot boxes and the GOP. This from the Gallup Poll of 19 May 2014. You will note only 3% of voters consider illegal immigration to be the major problem facing the US, followed closely by dissatisfaction with government. Obama's economy and government seems to rule the roost.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/169289/jobs-government-economy-remain-top-problems.aspx

Cheers

You obviously don't like tough questions.

Ironically this "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" essentially allows corporations to *impose* religious diktats on individuals. And it was Clinton legislation!

Where does it say Islam isn't covered?

Sent from my SM-N900T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I obviously don't like stupid questions. Why would I be required to work for any particular company? As to disqualifications, I've been told not bother to apply because I'm white, don't speak Spanish, wrong nationality(Thailand/Singapore), etc. As to avoiding religious diktats, even if it is possible to impose them, I would just quit and take another job, or start my own business. It's the U.S. not the Communist Soviet Union or China.

Why would I care about Islam? I'm Protestant, should I sue the Catholics for not letting me be a priest?

Since you & UG seem to be on the same page with your post, would you mind telling us what your career was?

And just so I don't misunderstand you--are you saying you see no problem if you are fired from a job you have performed exemplary for much of your life because of your race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, marital status, etc?

I must say, I do not know many people like you and UG, who would simply shrug it off and start over again with no ill feelings.

Cheers

beechguy:

From what I can gather, this particular individual has worked in the US his entire life and has never been an expat worker.

Perhaps he simply doesn't understand that there are very few nations in this world that have enacted anything resembling the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

You work under the rules they impose in the country you are working in. If they want to replace a Non-Muslim American in Saudi Arabia with a Muslim Saudi citizen, they give you 30 days notice and send you home.

End of story.

You obviously don't like tough questions.

Ironically this "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" essentially allows corporations to *impose* religious diktats on individuals. And it was Clinton legislation!

Where does it say Islam isn't covered?

Sent from my SM-N900T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I obviously don't like stupid questions. Why would I be required to work for any particular company? As to disqualifications, I've been told not bother to apply because I'm white, don't speak Spanish, wrong nationality(Thailand/Singapore), etc. As to avoiding religious diktats, even if it is possible to impose them, I would just quit and take another job, or start my own business. It's the U.S. not the Communist Soviet Union or China.

Why would I care about Islam? I'm Protestant, should I sue the Catholics for not letting me be a priest?

Since you & UG seem to be on the same page with your post, would you mind telling us what your career was?

And just so I don't misunderstand you--are you saying you see no problem if you are fired from a job you have performed exemplary for much of your life because of your race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, marital status, etc?

I must say, I do not know many people like you and UG, who would simply shrug it off and start over again with no ill feelings.

Cheers

Where do you guys get this people being fired business? All I've seen, is the Supreme Court ruled in Hobby Lobby's favor on the insurance/contraceptive issue. If people don't like working there, they can quit and get another job, nobody is forcing them to stay there.

Haven't been fired, but I've probably been discriminated against for one or more of the reasons listed. So what? I just applied for jobs where I thought I would be satisfied, and haven't had any problem finding work for over 30 years. I guess the difference for me, is that except for a paycheck for services rendered, I don't think anybody owes me anything.