• NJ bank wouldn't notarize American Atheist documents for ‘personal reasons’
    162 replies, posted
It's like declining to help a customer because you don't happen to like the cut of their jib. You're obligated to do it, you're an employee and you get paid for it. Why would saying "no" and making someone else do it [I]ever[/I] be okay?
Well hold on a second, was she outright refused service or did they indeed find another teller who did it in place of the original teller? I read the article and it sounded like that's exactly what happened, there's nothing that says she was refused service, just that the teller didn't want to do it. If she was outright refused service, then she's completely right and I agree entirely that this is discrimination and needs to be prevented. If not, which is how it sounds to me, then this woman is blowing this entirely out of proportion; yes, the woman works for the bank and it's part of the job, but if anti-atheism is part of her religious beliefs and the problem was resolved via another teller, then this is ridiculous and, IMO, makes the rest of the atheist community look bad.
[QUOTE=Baconator 7;44365609]Well hold on a second, was she outright refused service or did they indeed find another teller who did it in place of the original teller? I read the article and it sounded like that's exactly what happened, there's nothing that says she was refused service, just that the teller didn't want to do it. If she was outright refused service, then she's completely right and I agree entirely that this is discrimination and needs to be prevented. If not, which is how it sounds to me, then this woman is blowing this entirely out of proportion; yes, the woman works for the bank and it's part of the job, but if anti-atheism is part of her religious beliefs and the problem was resolved via another teller, then this is ridiculous and, IMO, makes the rest of the atheist community look bad.[/QUOTE] She's being a shitty employee regardless. Having someone else complete your work for you because you're too opinionated to do it is ludicrous.
[QUOTE=Baconator 7;44365609]Well hold on a second, was she outright refused service or did they indeed find another teller who did it in place of the original teller? I read the article and it sounded like that's exactly what happened, there's nothing that says she was refused service, just that the teller didn't want to do it. If she was outright refused service, then she's completely right and I agree entirely that this is discrimination and needs to be prevented. If not, which is how it sounds to me, then this woman is blowing this entirely out of proportion; yes, the woman works for the bank and it's part of the job, but if anti-atheism is part of her religious beliefs and the problem was resolved via another teller, then this is ridiculous and, IMO, makes the rest of the atheist community look bad.[/QUOTE] No I'm pretty sure she was refused service by the Notary who said it was for "personal reasons"and that particular one went to get another Notary who did it for her. So she wasn't completely denied service [editline]26th March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Furioso;44365626]She's being a shitty employee regardless. Having someone else complete your work for you because you're too opinionated to do it is ludicrous.[/QUOTE] That's also a good point :v:
I wouldn't sign the papers either. All the group does is stir up shit and be antagonistic. And jeez be a bigger fucking cry baby, I mean holy shit that is the worst slight you have ever received. This really is a joke, come on [editline]26th March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Furioso;44365626]She's being a shitty employee regardless. Having someone else complete your work for you because you're too opinionated to do it is ludicrous.[/QUOTE] She didn't feel comfortable doing something that literally takes about a second to do so she got someone else. It didn't affect anything. Its not a big deal, its not being a shitty employee.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;44365768]I wouldn't sign the papers either. All the group does is stir up shit and be antagonistic.[/QUOTE] Enjoy the reprimand from your boss (or, alternatively, the unemployment line) [editline]26th March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=BusterBluth;44365768]She didn't feel comfortable doing something that literally takes about a second to do so she got someone else. It didn't affect anything. Its not a big deal, its not being a shitty employee.[/QUOTE] If this was food service and she refused to serve someone because they were wearing a pin that declared their support for X political affiliation, would it still be okay for her to make someone else serve that person? The answer is no; never. She's a shit employee. It shouldn't matter whether or not you agree with the person's beliefs or affiliations. You have an obligation to do your job and not pass it off to someone else.
[QUOTE=Furioso;44365808]Enjoy the reprimand from your boss (or, alternatively, the unemployment line) [/QUOTE] "Hey could you sign this for me?" "yea sure" fuck you, your fired [QUOTE=Furioso;44365808] If this was food service and she refused to serve someone because they were wearing a pin that declared their support for X political affiliation, would it still be okay for her to make someone else serve that person?[/QUOTE] Serving the person food isn't directly funding or supporting a specific political organization.
[QUOTE=Baconator 7;44365609] If she was outright refused service, then she's completely right and I agree entirely that this is discrimination and needs to be prevented. If not, which is how it sounds to me, then this woman is blowing this entirely out of proportion; yes, the woman works for the bank and it's part of the job, but if anti-[b]Semitism[/b] is part of her religious beliefs and the problem was resolved via another teller, then this is ridiculous and, IMO, makes the rest of the [b]Jewish[/b] community look bad.[/QUOTE] Do you see how ridiculous it is to say it's okay to discriminate against there people because they're atheists? If it was any other group being discriminated against there'd be near uniform criticism of her actions, regardless of whether it was part of her beliefs or not.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;44365840]"Hey could you sign this for me?" "yea sure" fuck you, your fired [/QUOTE] "Hey, could you do my job that I get an hourly wage for for me?" [QUOTE=BusterBluth;44365840]Serving the person food isn't directly funding or supporting a specific political organization.[/QUOTE] I'm not okay with having my company fund this organization even though I shouldn't have anything to do with that type of decision! Guess I'll have someone else sign the dotted line so I can look the other way!
Obviously this isn't cool but calling it the biggest slight to atheism ever is reactionary bollocks...
[QUOTE=Robbobin;44365881]Obviously this isn't cool but calling it the biggest slight to atheism ever is reactionary bollocks...[/QUOTE] She didn't. She said it was the biggest slight to [I]her[/I].
[QUOTE=Furioso;44365860]"Hey, could you do my job that I get an hourly wage for for me?" [/QUOTE] Next time someone goes to the copier for someone, fire em. Next time I'm at work I ask someone to hand me a hammer, fire my ass too. It's the same thing, it took two seconds. [QUOTE=Furioso;44365860] I'm not okay with having my company fund this organization even though I shouldn't have anything to do with that type of decision! Guess I'll have someone else sign the dotted line so I can look the other way![/QUOTE] Sure, who cares?
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;44365909]Next time someone goes to the copier for someone, fire em. Next time I'm at work I ask someone to hand me a hammer, fire my ass too. It's the same thing, it took two seconds.[/QUOTE] "Hey, could you help me out real quick?" is a LOT different than "I don't agree with this customer's beliefs and I don't want to deal with them." There's a huge difference, it's not even close to being the same. Plus, the person she asked to do her job for her was on his break. [QUOTE=BusterBluth;44365909]Sure, who cares?[/QUOTE] hahaha
[QUOTE=Furioso;44365929]"Hey, could you help me out real quick?" is a LOT different than "I don't agree with this customer's beliefs and I don't want to deal with them." There's a huge difference, it's not even close to being the same. Plus, the person she asked to do her job for her was on his break.[/QUOTE] Why shouldn't she have the right to respectably decline to sign her name to something? Especially something involving an aggressive political organization. [QUOTE=Furioso;44365929] hahaha[/QUOTE] I think its laughable too that it is such a big deal.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;44366127]Why shouldn't she have the right to respectably decline to sign her name to something? Especially something involving an aggressive political organization.[/QUOTE] Because she's contractually obligated as an employee to OK them if all parameters are met. She's signing on behalf of the company she's working for, not for herself.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;44365768]I wouldn't sign the papers either. All the group does is stir up shit and be antagonistic. And jeez be a bigger fucking cry baby, I mean holy shit that is the worst slight you have ever received. This really is a joke, come on[/QUOTE] And if the notary was turning away Christian, Jew, and Muslim organizations and they said it had been a massive slight, you would be just as complacent about this? Yeah, ok. Those of you supporting this notary need to look at what you're saying before you open your mouths, because right now you all look retarded. There is no excuse for this, and had it happened to any other organization it would be a total shitstorm. But atheists? Who gives a fuck about them, right?
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;44366127]Why shouldn't she have the right to respectably decline to sign her name to something? Especially something involving an aggressive political organization. [/QUOTE] Because it's her fucking job to sign these things, and the American Atheists is an educational, and charity group, they aren't "an aggressive political organization", they organize charity events and try to spread atheist awareness. All she has to do is sign and stamp, she doesn't have to agree with what she's signing, she just has to make sure it isn't illegal.
I just hope that other notary, when told he needed to interrupt his lunch, said "Jesus fucking Christ!"
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;44366227]And if the notary was turning away Christian, Jew, and Muslim organizations and they said it had been a massive slight, you would be just as complacent about this? Yeah, ok. [/QUOTE] If it was a politically aggressive Christian, Jewish or Muslim organization, yea I would be fine with it. I don't think its offensive she disagrees with their world view and is uncomfortable singing her name to something that supports it. [QUOTE=FlakAttack;44366227] Those of you supporting this notary need to look at what you're saying before you open your mouths, because right now you all look retarded. There is no excuse for this, and had it happened to any other organization it would be a total shitstorm. But atheists? Who gives a fuck about them, right?[/QUOTE] Who gives a fuck about douchebaggy groups. I would be saying the same thing about any other antagonistic political groups. [editline]26th March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Furioso;44366220]Because she's contractually obligated as an employee to OK them if all parameters are met. She's signing on behalf of the company she's working for, not for herself.[/QUOTE] If the company has a problem with what she did then its what it is, I however don't think its worth her losing her job over.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;44366284]If it was a politically aggressive Christian, Jewish or Muslim organization, yea I would be fine with it. I don't think its offensive she disagrees with their world view and is uncomfortable singing her name to something that supports it. Who gives a fuck about douchebaggy groups. I would be saying the same thing about any other antagonistic political groups. [editline]26th March 2014[/editline] If the company has a problem with what she did then its what it is, I however don't think its worth her losing her job over.[/QUOTE] Performing the duties of a notary public requires a certain level of objectivity. Deciding which groups to fund on the basis of personal belief and "antagonism" is absurd. Can you even define political antagonism? Because from a subjective point of view, almost any political group can be considered antagonistic...
[QUOTE=Furioso;44366348]Performing the duties of a notary public requires a certain level of objectivity. Deciding which groups to fund on the basis of personal belief and "antagonism" is absurd. Can you even define political antagonism? Because from a subjective point of view, almost any political group can be considered antagonistic...[/QUOTE] She didn't decide not to fund, she just got someone to act in her place for the signing because it was something she wasn't comfortable with doing. I'm defining it as an antagonistic political organization because a lot of the things they do seem oddly antagonistic. Perhaps she felt the same or maybe just did't want to sign something that promoted atheism, I don't know. I just don't think having another employee sign it for her is some huge personnel insult or worth pursing some sort of legal action. You may think she should have signed it, but she didn't have too, and I don't think possibly ruining someones career over it is appropriate.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;44366463]You may think she should have signed it, but she didn't have too, and I don't think possibly ruining someones career over it is appropriate.[/QUOTE] But she [I]did[/I]. Where are you getting this idea that an employee doesn't have to do what they're supposed to do if they don't feel like it? She should be reprimanded at the very [I]least[/I].
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;44366463]She didn't decide not to fund, she just got someone to act in her place for the signing because it was something she wasn't comfortable with doing. I'm defining it as an antagonistic political organization because a lot of the things they do seem oddly antagonistic. Perhaps she felt the same or maybe just did't want to sign something that promoted atheism, I don't know. I just don't think having another employee sign it for her is some huge personnel insult or worth pursing some sort of legal action. You may think she should have signed it, but she didn't have too, and I don't think possibly ruining someones career over it is appropriate.[/QUOTE] You know what, I agree with you. If she didn't want to sign it because the people she was dealing with were black then that's her business, it isn't her fault they were [i]black[/i], or if they were Jews she shouldn't have to sign it either. She could be an anti-semite and she's allowed to have her beliefs. Imagine if she was [i]forced[/i] to sign [i]her name[/i] for an arab, the shame. She signs shit she probably disagrees with every fucking day. All she's doing here by refusing to sign because they're atheists is being a bigot.
[QUOTE=Furioso;44366499]But she [I]did[/I]. Where are you getting this idea that an employee doesn't have to do what they're supposed to do if they don't feel like it? She should be reprimanded at the very [I]least[/I].[/QUOTE] It's in the article sir [editline]26th March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Janus Vesta;44366516]You know what, I agree with you. If she didn't want to sign it because the people she was dealing with were black then that's her business, it isn't her fault they were [i]black[/i], or if they were Jews she shouldn't have to sign it either. She could be an anti-semite and she's allowed to have her beliefs. Imagine if she was [i]forced[/i] to sign [i]her name[/i] for an arab, the shame. She signs shit she probably disagrees with every fucking day. All she's doing here by refusing to sign because they're atheists is being a bigot.[/QUOTE] Atheism isn't a race, its a belief. She refused to sign because of the nature of the organization anyway, not because the people seeking it where atheist.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;44366531] Atheism isn't a race, its a belief. She refused to sign because of the nature of the organization anyway, not because the people seeking it where atheist.[/QUOTE] Okay, then she should be able to deny Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and Mormons then, because those are all beliefs. And what do you mean the nature of the organisation? The fact that they try to make sure separation of church and state is actually upheld? That they represent atheists in court? You're talking like they fucking terrorise religious communities and attack people.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;44366463]She didn't decide not to fund, she just got someone to act in her place for the signing because it was something she wasn't comfortable with doing. I'm defining it as an antagonistic political organization because a lot of the things they do seem oddly antagonistic. Perhaps she felt the same or maybe just did't want to sign something that promoted atheism, I don't know. I just don't think having another employee sign it for her is some huge personnel insult or worth pursing some sort of legal action. You may think she should have signed it, but she didn't have too, and I don't think possibly ruining someones career over it is appropriate.[/QUOTE] The notary had to ask what the group did and a representative of that group informed her of their activities. I find it hard to believe that a representative of American Atheists would portray the organization in an aggressive light when explaining it to someone who didn't know what it was. No, it is far more likely that the notary heard that they're a group that promotes atheism and she didn't want to sign it. [editline]26th March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=BusterBluth;44366531]Atheism isn't a race, its a belief. She refused to sign because of the nature of the organization anyway, not because the people seeking it where atheist.[/QUOTE] It's not a belief any more than not believe in unicorns is a belief. And why are you making claims about things you couldn't possibly know? You don;t know what her motives were for not signing.
Part of me wonders if this would have been a big deal if the notary faked an excuse to leave (like, say, pretending she had to go to the bathroom) and then asked her co-worker to take over. Would anyone have noticed if that happened?
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;44366531]It's in the article sir [editline]26th March 2014[/editline] Atheism isn't a race, its a belief. She refused to sign because of the nature of the organization anyway, not because the people seeking it where atheist.[/QUOTE] You must be intentionally ignoring anything anyone is telling you to remain so convinced you're right.
[QUOTE=Bradyns;44363310]Black, White, Jew, Muslim.. who cares who/what you are.. banks should only look at people as dollar signs.[/QUOTE] As has been a long and cherished tradition since time immemorial.
[QUOTE=BusterBluth;44366531]It's in the article sir [editline]26th March 2014[/editline] Atheism isn't a race, its a belief. She refused to sign because of the nature of the organization anyway, not because the people seeking it where atheist.[/QUOTE] It doesn't matter what the organization is either. Her job is to notarize the paper. Also, replying to someone with "sir" on the Internet sounds really condescending.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.