• NJ bank wouldn't notarize American Atheist documents for ‘personal reasons’
    162 replies, posted
[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 does not matter in the least what her reasons for refusal are. It is her job. She has no right to refuse service to anyone unless the legality of the client's request is in question, or they are causing a public disturbance. This is just as ridiculous as if a cashier decided not to ring you out because they didn't like the brand of tea you chose.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44367484]You must be intentionally ignoring anything anyone is telling you to remain so convinced you're right.[/QUOTE] Jeez you guys are getting hostile. I could say that to the other guy as well. [editline]27th March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Jacen;44367827]It does not matter in the least what her reasons for refusal are. It is her job. She has no right to refuse service to anyone unless the legality of the client's request is in question, or they are causing a public disturbance. This is just as ridiculous as if a cashier decided not to ring you out because they didn't like the brand of tea you chose.[/QUOTE] She actually does have a right to do it. Once again I think there's a difference [editline]27th March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Snickerdoodle;44367699]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.[/QUOTE] She did everything but sign and I didn't mean for it to sound condescending
The Jew/Muslim/Black comparison is completely inaccurate. She wasn't denying it because the customer was an atheist, but because they were an aggressive organization. This is in no way religious discrimination. They are specifically targeting religious groups. [t]http://brooklynink.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/BillboardNew.jpg[/t] [url]http://thebrooklynink.com/2012/03/08/42651-atheist-billboard-enrages-jewish-community/[/url] [url]http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/30/dueling-billboards-face-off-in-christmas-controversy/[/url] [url]http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-758697[/url] These billboards might as well say "You're wrong, you're dumb." Why can't they have a billboard advertizing to join them opposed to bashing other religions? How does this not make them an aggressive group?
[QUOTE=matt000024;44369298]The Jew/Muslim/Black comparison is completely inaccurate. She wasn't denying it because the customer was an atheist, but because they were an aggressive organization. This is in no way religious discrimination.[/quote] You keep saying this dude and time after time you fail to explain how you know this. Your personal reservations about the group are irrelevant.
[QUOTE=matt000024;44369298]The Jew/Muslim/Black comparison is completely inaccurate. She wasn't denying it because the customer was an atheist, but because they were an aggressive organization. This is in no way religious discrimination. They are specifically targeting religious groups. [t]http://brooklynink.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/BillboardNew.jpg[/t] [URL]http://thebrooklynink.com/2012/03/08/42651-atheist-billboard-enrages-jewish-community/[/URL] [URL]http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/30/dueling-billboards-face-off-in-christmas-controversy/[/URL] [URL]http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-758697[/URL] These billboards might as well say "You're wrong, you're dumb." Why can't they have a billboard advertizing to join them opposed to bashing other religions? How does this not make them an aggressive group?[/QUOTE] And yet in churches around the country the faithful are told all about how atheists are devil worshippers intent on steering everyone into hell, or that they are automatically selfish and spiteful people for not believing in God. And can you blame them for being ignorant, hateful cretins? Their own holy book quite literally puts atheists in the same light as cowards, devil worshippers, murderers, etc. One way or another, atheists are the most hated group in the USA: more than blacks, gays, latinos, and even muslims. Atheists are the one group EVERYONE hates... but why? Over half of Europe and a third of Canada is atheist, and we don't have the same problem at all. So why are Americans so hostile towards them when no one else is? Simple: Christian Americans are an incredibly xenophobic and hostile people suffering from massive, often willful, ignorance. They know next to nothing of the world at large (they often cannot even place their country on a world map) and barely know their own country and its history. Every time some fundie cries "FOUNDING FATHERS" I want to scream because those same men wanted the church far away from government. You think AA is hostile for pointing out that Christians are probably wrong? Do you not remember the legions of Christians who wanted to march on a Muslim community center a few blocks away from the WTC? For every "militant" atheist who hates religion, there is several militant Christians who harrass, violate, or even kill for their beliefs. If you support almost any church in the USA but think AA is overly aggressive and harsh, your priorities are so mixed up I don't know what the fuck to tell you. I mean you're basically telling me that WBC is getting notarized somehow, but AA shouldn't be if someone disagrees with it, and I just can't make sense of that. Oh and just as a bonus, [URL="http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey/"]here is a 2010 study proving Atheists and Agnostics are more religiously literate than even most Christians[/URL]. Either Atheists/Agnostics like to be more educated, or actually reading the bible for yourself is more likely to turn you away from Christianity and its hateful message.
[QUOTE=Explosions;44369449]You keep saying this dude and time after time you fail to explain how you know this. Your personal reservations about the group are irrelevant.[/QUOTE] A bank isn't always government owned business ([url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto-Dominion_Bank]they aren't government owned by the way[/url]). They have the right to deny customers unless it is a form of discrimination. Due to the group being an obnoxious aggressive propaganda group the bank theoretically could've denied them overall. As a comparison, a restaurant cannot deny a Christian family from eating there due to their religion. If a group of Christians want to throw their annual God Hates Fags Dance there the restaurant can deny them. I don't get how organizations=individual people.
[QUOTE=matt000024;44369596]A bank isn't always government owned business ([URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto-Dominion_Bank"]they aren't government owned by the way[/URL]). They have the right to deny customers unless it is a form of discrimination. Due to the group being an obnoxious aggressive propaganda group the bank theoretically could've denied them overall. As a comparison, a restaurant cannot deny a Christian family from eating there due to their religion. If a group of Christians want to throw their annual God Hates Fags Dance there the restaurant can deny them. I don't get how organizations=individual people.[/QUOTE] Once again you say that they were refused service because they are "an obnoxious aggressive propaganda group" yet you still have zero evidence for this. They could have been refused because the notary was a bigot. You don't know. But more about what you actually said, you think that groups can be denied service if they're sufficiently obnoxious or something. Who determines this "obnoxiousness"? Could a racist banker refuse to serve the NAACP because he think that they're obnoxious? What if I thought that a Christian charity group was obnoxious due to their belief in Biblical literalism? Can I now deny them service?
I should take pictures of all of the religiously motivated billboards in my area. These things, for whatever reason, are socially acceptable. Attempting to intimidate people by threatening them with hellfire, and calling abortion child abuse etc. etc. Hell for the longest time we even had signs for the creation museum everywhere targeting children. Somehow those are socially acceptable, but the AA billboards aren't. If someone is insecure enough with their religion that these billboards offend and otherwise distress someone belonging to that religion that probably says more about that person than it does the billboard. Sure, they're irritating, but so are all of the other religiously/politically motivated billboards. If she had been smarter about her approach to the situation this would have never made news, but the fact of the matter is non-religious individuals experience ostracism at all levels of society.
[QUOTE=Explosions;44369647]Once again you say that they were refused service because they are "an obnoxious aggressive propaganda group" yet you still have zero evidence for this. They could have been refused because the notary was a bigot you don't know. But more about what you actually said, you think that groups can be denied service if they're sufficiently obnoxious or something. Who determines this "obnoxiousness"? Could a racist banker refuse to serve the NAACP because he think that they're obnoxious? What if I thought that a Christian charity group was obnoxious due to their belief in Biblical literalism? Can I now deny them service?[/QUOTE] Yes you can. If a bank feels that a group is a propaganda group there is no reason in denying them service. As I showed before, they specifically target other religious groups. [QUOTE=FlakAttack;44369578]And yet in churches around the country the faithful are told all about how atheists are devil worshippers intent on steering everyone into hell, or that they are automatically selfish and spiteful people for not believing in God. And can you blame them for being ignorant, hateful cretins? Their own holy book quite literally puts atheists in the same light as cowards, devil worshippers, murderers, etc. [/quote] Churches who act like that are in my opinion spreading propaganda and bankers shouldn't be forced to serve them. [quote]One way or another, atheists are the most hated group in the USA: more than blacks, gays, latinos, and even muslims. Atheists are the one group EVERYONE hates... but why? Over half of Europe and a third of Canada is atheist, and we don't have the same problem at all. So why are Americans so hostile towards them when no one else is? Simple: Christian Americans are an incredibly xenophobic and hostile people suffering from massive, often willful, ignorance.[/quote] Let's try this another way. [quote]One way or another, whites are the most hated group in the USA: more than gays, latinos, and even muslims. Whites are the one group EVERYONE hates... but why? Over half of Europe is white, and we don't have the same problem at all. So why are Americans so hostile towards them when no one else is? Simple: Black Americans are an incredibly racist and hostile people suffering from massive, often willful, ignorance.[/quote] Nobody cares if you are an atheist outside religious debates and the deep south. I have no clue where this myth is coming from. I've gone to Christian schools all my life and knew multiple atheists. Heard a lot of antisemitic comments and comments about blacks, but never did anyone insult an atheist. Literally one one expect the token conservative teacher who got fired for being a bigot cared. [quote]They know next to nothing of the world at large (they often cannot even place their country on a world map) and barely know their own country and its history.[/quote] Want me to replace Christian with black again? [quote]Every time some fundie cries "FOUNDING FATHERS" I want to scream because those same men wanted the church far away from government.[/quote] That is dumb, but pretty irrelevant. [quote]You think AA is hostile for pointing out that Christians are probably wrong? Do you not remember the legions of Christians who wanted to march on a Muslim community center a few blocks away from the WTC? For every "militant" atheist who hates religion, there is several militant Christians who harrass, violate, or even kill for their beliefs. If you support almost any church in the USA but think AA is overly aggressive and harsh, your priorities are so mixed up I don't know what the fuck to tell you. I mean you're basically telling me that WBC is getting notarized somehow, but AA shouldn't be if someone disagrees with it, and I just can't make sense of that.[/QUOTE] I'm not supporting them. I think WBC is a hate group and actually was in support of the mosque near the World Trade Centers. If specific churches or church related groups that say "Evolution is dumb, you're dumb" I think they should be labeled as a hate or propaganda group too. I think no one should be forced to support any group in anyway. There is a major difference between denying individuals and denying groups. [editline]27th March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=1legmidget;44369721]I should take pictures of all of the religiously motivated billboards in my area. These things, for whatever reason, are socially acceptable. Attempting to intimidate people by threatening them with hellfire, and calling abortion child abuse etc. etc. Hell for the longest time we even had signs for the creation museum everywhere targeting children. Somehow those are socially acceptable, but the AA billboards aren't. If someone is insecure enough with their religion that these billboards offend and otherwise distress someone belonging to that religion that probably says more about that person than it does the billboard. Sure, they're irritating, but so are all of the other religiously/politically motivated billboards. If she had been smarter about her approach to the situation this would have never made news, but the fact of the matter is non-religious individuals experience ostracism at all levels of society.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying it is acceptable. Both billboards, the hellfire and atheist ones, are stupid. Two wrongs don't make a right.
[QUOTE=matt000024;44369725]Yes you can. If a bank feels that a group is a propaganda group there is no reason in denying them service. As I showed before, they specifically target other religious groups.[/QUOTE] Legally incorrect and morally reprehensible.
[QUOTE=matt000024;44369725]Let's try this another way. Want me to replace Christian with black again?[/QUOTE] You're comparing a belief - an idea - to a race. One is a philosophical choice that is indoctrinated after birth, while the other is something you are the moment you are concieved. It's the difference between philosophy and genetics. What is your point? Are you trying to say that belief deserves the same protection as race? Because religion is a choice, but race isn't. Or are you just being intellectually dishonest?
[QUOTE=Explosions;44369740]Legally incorrect[/quote] Source? [quote]and morally reprehensible.[/QUOTE] What defines your morals? I morally believe people should have the right to be forced into nothing unless lives or health are at stake. I believe it is morally wrong to actively support propaganda. Should people do their job no matter what they have to do? Does everyone have an obligation to follow orders no matter the circumstances? This lady just brought over another coworker to sign it, but you act like she took a shit on the paper. [editline]27th March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=FlakAttack;44369800]You're comparing a belief - an idea - to a race. One is a philosophical choice that is indoctrinated after birth, while the other is something you are the moment you are concieved. It's the difference between philosophy and genetics. What is your point? Are you trying to say that belief deserves the same protection as race? Because religion is a choice, but race isn't. Or are you just being intellectually dishonest?[/QUOTE] Then replace it with Americans or Canadians instead. One part cannot control the whole and judging individuals based on other parts of the group is very similar to racism especially with very vague categories like Christians. Religion does deserve the same protection as race as long as they aren't inciting violence or discriminating themselves. Oh and by the way, have seen people replace Atheist with Black a lot here when they need to feel persecuted. [editline]27th March 2014[/editline] Also just realized how hypocritical you are being. You said that religion shouldn't be protected that much, but you're complaining about an atheist group being discriminated against for their beliefs
[QUOTE=matt000024;44369725] I'm not saying it is acceptable. Both billboards, the hellfire and atheist ones, are stupid. Two wrongs don't make a right.[/QUOTE] I don't think either are acceptable as well, and while your position seems fairly reasonable to me, I'm willing to wager that most individuals in our society tend not to share our view. While we might think such things shouldn't be put up, society at large and many businesses treat these organizations preferentially. I'm not sure if they can legally. I have mixed feelings on that matter, as it would be nice to deny service to organizations that are demonstratively harmful (such as antivax organizations and the like), but that opens up a lot of legal situations that I don't think are beneficial. I've found this document on commercial/noncommercial advertising on billboards and am trying to find information regarding whether such preferential treatment has a legal basis, but the thing is over 30 pages long and reading over court cases is kind of dry: [URL="http://digitalcommons.law.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1378&context=urbanlaw"]http://digitalcommons.law.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1378&context=urbanlaw[/URL] Back to the original topic, this looks like a shitty situation to me. Generally I tend not to side with Silverman as I find is approach to be less than genuine or reasonable, but speaking from personal experiences being socially ostracized in professional or academic environments for one's religious affiliation or lack thereof is quite humiliating and infuriating. When I was 16 the first lab I worked in dealt with small angle x-ray scattering and mostly did structural characterization and determination on novel lipid structures. It was a pretty good gig, and I was quite excited to work in such a lab at a relatively young age as the department and faculty involved were quite reputable, but after a couple months of work and training I was effectively shunned from the research group after it was implied that I was non-religious. I didn't start the conversation, I wasn't really even involved for most of it at the time. I was calibrating equipment while everyone else was dicking around, and after being pressured about it I told them politely. From that point on I wasn't given anything to work on or any materials to work with. During meetings and presentations I was often forced to sit away from the group and pretty much everyone refused to talk or even interact with me in the lab or elsewhere. That's one of the main reasons I transferred schools actually, and things are mostly fine now. I'm sorry if you find AA's actions to be antagonistic. I'm not a member, and I often sympathize with those that are offended by their actions, but having directly experienced a lot of the things this group protests against, I'm inclined to defend a number of their actions. Generally I think they act with the intention of bringing about awareness of these issues that social minorities experience. I don't often agree with their methods, but if they bring about dialogue that eventually leads to a more inclusive and a more open society I'm all for it. Sadly I don't think this is often the case. However, providing legal protection for religious/minority groups in such situations seems like a smart idea. I vaguely remember a study demonstrating that banks tend to discriminate when it comes to small business loans for ethnic and racial minorities as well as for filing paperwork for charitable organizations. I'll see if I can scrounge it up after I get back from lab.
[QUOTE=1legmidget;44370197] I'm sorry if you find AA's actions to be antagonistic. I'm not a member, and I often sympathize with those that are offended by their actions, but having directly experienced a lot of the things this group protests against, I'm inclined to defend a number of their actions. Generally I think they act with the intention of bringing about awareness of these issues that social minorities experience. I don't often agree with their methods, but if they bring about dialogue that eventually leads to a more inclusive and a more open society I'm all for it. Sadly I don't think this is often the case.[/quote] I personally am not offended by them. Could care less what a billboard is saying, I am merely trying to display that it is possible for one to be offended by billboards that they would feel uncomfortable signing a document with them. [quote]However, providing legal protection for religious/minority groups in such situations seems like a smart idea. I vaguely remember a study demonstrating that banks tend to discriminate when it comes to small business loans for ethnic and racial minorities as well as for filing paperwork for charitable organizations. I'll see if I can scrounge it up after I get back from lab.[/QUOTE] The bank in this situation let them sign it still though. It was one individual who did not want to be involved. I'm also stating that the article is really bad journalism and doesn't define if their charity groups are funding the billboards, helping starving children, or something in between. Also there is a bit of a difference in an ethnic minority wanting to start up a car wash and a religious minority wanting to start up a religious organization. Thank you for being civil and bringing valid points forward instead of bringing up some BS fallacy of an argument.
[QUOTE=matt000024;44370265]I personally am not offended by them. Could care less what a billboard is saying, I am merely trying to display that it is possible for one to be offended by billboards that they would feel uncomfortable signing a document with them. The bank in this situation let them sign it still though. It was one individual who did not want to be involved. I'm also stating that the article is really bad journalism and doesn't define if their charity groups are funding the billboards, helping starving children, or something in between. Also there is a bit of a difference in an ethnic minority wanting to start up a car wash and a religious minority wanting to start up a religious organization. Thank you for being civil and bringing valid points forward instead of bringing up some BS fallacy of an argument.[/QUOTE] Totally agree this is journalistic trite and that this situation has been blown totally out of proportion. AA's sub divisions don't classify as a religious organization from a tax or legal perspective though, even if some of their actions mimic those of religious organizations. There are some protections that prevent just anyone from filing for a 501(c), but it would be nice if there were some way to make sure that groups aren't being discriminated against on a societal and individual level. I'll at least be interested to see what sort of legislation they draft up.
[QUOTE=matt000024;44363292]Starting a business or buying a house isn't related to religion. She didn't want to fund a propaganda group, big deal. Please tell me how you all know she wouldn't reject a Christian group too? This article is really biased and we can't tell much about it since it has only one point of view.[/QUOTE] Hi, I wanted to get a loan so I can buy a new house with my husband (says a gay man) "I'm sorry, I can't sign this for personal reasons" Hi, I wanted to get a loan so I can open a new Mosque and teach people... "Not Muslim, sorry can't sign this for personal reasons"" Hi, I wanted to open a private school... "Sorry, can't sign this kids go to public school" Can't wait to open my new sub shop! "I hate subs, I can't sign this!" Edit: I can imagine her using her credit card "4 dollars for a bag of chips? I can't sign this!" "But ma'am you picked them out yourself and already swiped your card..." "The food was bland I'm sorry I can't sign this bill for personal reasons" "But you ate all the food..." I know I'm stupid for finding her saying, "I can't sign this for personal reasons" so god damn funny, but her job is to fucking sign things and she's too opinionated to sign something? Sounds like someone got the wrong job. I can imagine me at work, oh my lord look at that those shitty fries! I'm sorry I can't cook these for personal reasons.
[QUOTE=Comrade_Eko;44370549]Hi, I wanted to get a loan so I can buy a new house with my husband (says a gay man) "I'm sorry, I can't sign this for personal reasons"[/quote] That's blatant discrimination against an individual due to how they were born and is 100% different. [quote]Hi, I wanted to get a loan so I can open a new Mosque and teach people... "Not Muslim, sorry can't sign this for personal reasons""[/quote] Is the mosque going to put up posters around town about how Allah hates all non-Muslims? If this specific group has been shown to do this in the past then they can reject them. If they're just a mosque with no history of this then it'd be completely different. [quote]Hi, I wanted to open a private school... "Sorry, can't sign this kids go to public school"[/quote] If someone morally objects to private schools then this is fine. There are millions of other bankers out there that will sign it though. [quote]Can't wait to open my new sub shop! "I hate subs, I can't sign this!"[/QUOTE] Not an issue relating to moral ideals unless their beliefs state that subs are evil. Once again, millions of other bankers who will sign. These are unrelated scenarios. [QUOTE=1legmidget;44370497]Totally agree this is journalistic trite and that this situation has been blown totally out of proportion. AA's sub divisions don't classify as a religious organization from a tax or legal perspective though, even if some of their actions mimic those of religious organizations.[/quote] They should be considered one though. They are a group of people organized based on beliefs relating to religion. [quote] There are some protections that prevent just anyone from filing for a 501(c), but it would be nice if there were some way to make sure that groups aren't being discriminated against on a societal and individual level. I'll at least be interested to see what sort of legislation they draft up.[/QUOTE] I agree. [editline]27th March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Comrade_Eko;44370549] Edit: I can imagine her using her credit card "4 dollars for a bag of chips? I can't sign this!" "But ma'am you picked them out yourself and already swiped your card..." "The food was bland I'm sorry I can't sign this bill for personal reasons" "But you ate all the food..."[/QUOTE] How is this related in anyway? There's a difference between not paying debts and not giving loans. Want a more valid comparison? "I need a loan for my anti-gun lobby group. We need money to advertize outside of gunstores." "Sorry, I morally object to malicious propaganda, but my coworker can sign it for you."
[QUOTE=matt000024;44370625]That's blatant discrimination against an individual due to how they were born and is 100% different. Is the mosque going to put up posters around town about how Allah hates all non-Muslims? If this specific group has been shown to do this in the past then they can reject them. If they're just a mosque with no history of this then it'd be completely different. If someone morally objects to private schools then this is fine. There are millions of other bankers out there that will sign it though. Not an issue relating to moral ideals unless their beliefs state that subs are evil. Once again, millions of other bankers who will sign. These are unrelated scenarios. They should be considered one though. They are a group of people organized based on beliefs relating to religion. I agree. [editline]27th March 2014[/editline] How is this related in anyway? There's a difference between not paying debts and not giving loans. Want a more valid comparison? "I need a loan for my anti-gun lobby group. We need money to advertize outside of gunstores." "Sorry, I morally object to malicious propaganda."[/QUOTE] I think you're getting the wrong message, I just wanted to point out how ridiculously hilarious it is for a notary to get opinionated and refuse to sign something. To me saying, "your atheist sorry can't sign", is as ridiculous as saying, "oh I don't like subs can't sign" It really has nothing to do with being 100% accurate in every way in regards to recreating her exact situation so I can shit all over people in a flame war. Like with any other job, I do a lot of things I don't like doing, like throwing away perfectly good food. I personally think it's wrong but it's one of those wrongs that aren't that big of a deal. This notary wouldn't be in the news negatively if she said, "Wait this loan is to buy a giant oven to cook Jews in? I can't sign this!" Sure the whole bit about it being the worst slight she's ever received and "this is not over" is her being a little cry baby. She got the loan, there are stupid people that live in this world, get over it. Doesn't mean that the notary refusing to sign something isn't hilarious.
[QUOTE=Comrade_Eko;44370677]I think you're getting the wrong message, I just wanted to point out how ridiculously hilarious it is for a notary to get opinionated and refuse to sign something. To me saying, "your atheist sorry can't sign, is as ridiculous as saying, oh I don't like subs can't sign"[/quote] But she isn't signing because the woman is an atheist. She morally can't sign a paper to fund an atheist propaganda group (if you don't think so just look at the shitstorm they are trying to start over this minor incident). There is a huge difference. It is the difference between a white male and a MRA. All AA members are atheists, but not all atheists are in AA. [quote]Like with any other job, I do a lot of things I don't like doing, like throwing away perfectly good food. I personally think it's wrong but it's one of those wrongs that aren't that big of a deal. This notary wouldn't be in the news negatively if she said, "Wait this loan is to buy a giant oven to cook Jews in? I can't sign this!"[/QUOTE] So you agree that it isn't a big deal she refused to sign?
[QUOTE=matt000024;44370726]But she isn't signing because the woman is an atheist. She morally can't sign a paper to fund an atheist propaganda group (if you don't think so just look at the shitstorm they are trying to start over this minor incident). There is a huge difference. It is the difference between a white male and a MRA. All AA members are atheists, but not all atheists are in AA. So you agree that it isn't a big deal she refused to sign?[/QUOTE] Well, it's probably a big deal to her boss. It should also be a annoyance to the degree that the person who was refused to be helped by the notary complaining to a manager (which would cause her boss to REALLY care) Just because something isn't a big deal doesn't mean we can't laugh at how stupid people are, I know you're saying the notary was probably thinking, "Eh I don't know this organization is so antagonistic and I don't want to sign a document that's going to blah blah blah..." But this notary didn't even know what the organization was about until she met this person, who then probably (I'm going to make an assumption she gave the notary a normal answer, just like you assumed the notary didn't sign for a normal reason) gave her an answer like, "We're a group of atheists who have formed together to promote atheism" or something along those lines, NOT, "To kill Christians imaginary friend" Now the notary only knows the organization is atheist and promotes atheism, and found that grounds enough to get so high and mighty she couldn't bring herself to sign a document for such a group against her personal beliefs. She did the right thing and called another employee, but she did the stupid thing and let her personal life as a Christian influence her job performance. Not a big deal to us, but as a manager do you really want someone working for you who lets their personal life get in the way of their work? Edit: Oh and before you say, "yes because she morally found it wrong" I'd like to activate my trap card and say is it ok to hire racist bankers who won't give loans to asians, blacks, whites, or whatever because the banker can't morally give money to a certain skin colour? Morals are subjective right? You can't judge people biased on their morals! Except when those morals fit outside the norm, like when something as simple as doing your job and signing a piece of paper for AA so it can give money to legal charities (I think that's what they were doing anyway) is too much of a moral dilemma for you. The notary has a right to be that idiotic, the manager has the right to fire such idiocy, and everyone should have a right to laugh at such idiocy on the web.
[QUOTE=matt000024;44370726]But she isn't signing because the woman is an atheist. She morally can't sign a paper to fund an atheist propaganda group (if you don't think so just look at the shitstorm they are trying to start over this minor incident). There is a huge difference. It is the difference between a white male and a MRA. All AA members are atheists, but not all atheists are in AA. So you agree that it isn't a big deal she refused to sign?[/QUOTE] But you keep acting as if that was the exact reason she didn't want to sign "She morally can't sign a paper to fund an atheist propaganda group (if you don't think so just look at the shitstorm they are trying to start over this minor incident)" How do you that was her reasoning and not just because of what particular atheist organization it was Is there a source you have that I don't? I agree there's not much sense arguing anymore about it but I agree with Comrade_Eko in saying that her boss probably wasn't happy about it at all; even if it wasn't that big of deal. Because it's her job
[QUOTE=Comrade_Eko;44371051]Well, it's probably a big deal to her boss. It should also be a annoyance to the degree that the person who was refused to be helped by the notary complaining to a manager (which would cause her boss to REALLY care)[/quote] How do you know her boss and coworker care? Her and the coworker may be friends and she knew that they would be more comfortable handling it. All the boss cares about is that the job is complete. It isn't like everyone refused it. [quote]Just because something isn't a big deal doesn't mean we can't laugh at how stupid people are, I know you're saying the notary was probably thinking, "Eh I don't know this organization is so antagonistic and I don't want to sign a document that's going to blah blah blah..." But this notary didn't even know what the organization was about until she met this person, who then probably (I'm going to make an assumption she gave the notary a normal answer, just like you assumed the notary didn't sign for a normal reason) gave her an answer like, "We're a group of atheists who have formed together to promote atheism" or something along those lines, NOT, "To kill Christians imaginary friend"[/quote] Knowing how condescending some atheists could be it could've been along those lines. As I said, the article is terrible and refuses to provide details like this. [quote]Now the notary only knows the organization is atheist and promotes atheism, and found that grounds enough to get so high and mighty she couldn't bring herself to sign a document for such a group against her personal beliefs. She did the right thing and called another employee, but she did the stupid thing and let her personal life as a Christian influence her job performance. Not a big deal to us, but as a manager do you really want someone working for you who lets their personal life get in the way of their work?[/quote] She made her own decision and thought for herself. [quote]Oh and before you say, "yes because she morally found it wrong" I'd like to activate my trap card and say is it ok to hire racist bankers who won't give loans to asians, blacks, whites, or whatever because the banker can't morally give money to a certain skin colour? Morals are subjective right? You can't judge people biased on their morals! Except when those morals fit outside the norm, like when something as simple as doing your job and signing a piece of paper for a legal charity is too much of a moral dilemma for you. The notary has a right to be that idiotic, the manager has the right to fire such idiocy, and everyone should have a right to laugh at such idiocy on the web.[/QUOTE] As I've said about twenty times. There is a huge difference between discriminating individuals based on how they were born and disagreeing with organizations due to their beliefs and actions. You choose to be an atheist, you aren't just born one. You deserve to be protected under the law, but you can't whine if someone disagrees with you. Atheists are not an organization, AA is one though. [editline]27th March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Kite_shugo;44371120]But you keep acting as if that was the exact reason she didn't want to sign "She morally can't sign a paper to fund an atheist propaganda group (if you don't think so just look at the shitstorm they are trying to start over this minor incident)" How do you that was her reasoning and not just because of what particular atheist organization it was Is there a source you have that I don't? [/quote] I don't have any proof, but there is also no proof she denied them for being atheists. The article is a piece of horsecrap because it only gives one very bias account of the story. No one except her can know for sure why she denied everyone. I am just stating a logical reason one could have because half the thread is just people calling her a "bitch" and a "moron" for doing something that isn't even bad. [quote]I agree there's not much sense arguing anymore about it but I agree with Comrade_Eko in saying that her boss probably wasn't happy about it at all; even if it wasn't that big of deal. Because it's her job[/QUOTE] If it is just this one incident working at a bank for maybe years then I don't think her boss would care much. As I said, the job was complete, that is probably all he cares about. We've reached the point of assumptions though due to a lack of details in the story.
If we are going to go with the defense that it wasn't really bigotry because the notary got another employee to do her job for her, it's still disastrously bad customer service and doesn't paint the bank in a much better light. I've worked in some CS capacity for the past 7 years now and I can tell you that it would be massively embarrassing to yourself and your store to decide not to do your job because of your customers religious background or affiliation. [QUOTE=OvB;44363656]Do they have the right to not sign for personal reasons in the first place?[/QUOTE] This is what I want to know. Forget the religious debate, if a position as important as notary public can be compromised by someones personal reasons then we have a real problem. [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] Atheism isn't a belief and it's mostly irrelevant as to whether it was because the people in the room were atheist or because they were trying to get documents for their atheist group notarized. [editline]27th March 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=matt000024;44371174]You deserve to be protected under the law, but you can't whine if someone disagrees with you.[/QUOTE] What does this even mean? She didn't disagree with AA; she refused to notarize their documents that were otherwise completely legitimate.
[QUOTE=matt000024;44371174]How do you know her boss and coworker care? Her and the coworker may be friends and she knew that they would be more comfortable handling it. All the boss cares about is that the job is complete. It isn't like everyone refused it.[/QUOTE] Seriously? That's your argument? Sure the co-worker might not care but you think the manager wants people to think his bank's notaries are going to judge you worthy of their signature whether or not you are legitimate, because you believe in X thing? [QUOTE] Knowing how condescending some atheists could be it could've been along those lines. As I said, the article is terrible and refuses to provide details like this.[/QUOTE] Don't use this argument unless you want me to fix your quote so I can get a few zingers out of it. Also why would you assume the religious notary was polite while simultaneously assuming the atheist was rude? Hmmm... suspicious... [QUOTE] Knowing how condescending some religious people could be it could've been along those lines. As I said, the article is terrible and refuses to provide details like this.[/QUOTE] Couldn't help it. [QUOTE]She made her own decision and thought for herself.[/QUOTE] I swear have you ever even worked before? She THOUGHT FOR HERSELF?! God damn you're really giving me a strong case that the manager is going to fire him/her. Managers hate it when their employees think for themselves. [QUOTE]As I've said about twenty times. There is a huge difference between discriminating individuals based on how they were born and disagreeing with organizations due to their beliefs and actions. You choose to be an atheist, you aren't just born one. You deserve to be protected under the law, but you can't whine if someone disagrees with you. Atheists are not an organization, AA is one though.[/QUOTE] Stop. I think you know what my point was, I picked race out of thin air and you used my mistake to your advantage and changed the subject. Just in case you legitimately don't understand, I'll clarify, there is a huge difference between standing up for a moral that the society you live in as a whole shares or standing up for a moral that only your specific subculture shares. This is true times a million when you use this moral to inconvenience another.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;44371303]If we are going to go with the defense that it wasn't really bigotry because the notary got another employee to do her job for her, it's still disastrously bad customer service and doesn't paint the bank in a much better light. [/quote] All depends on their target demographic. Most people honestly wouldn't give a flying fuck. [quote]I've worked in some CS capacity for the past 7 years now and I can tell you that it would be massively embarrassing to yourself and your store to decide not to do your job because of your customers religious background or affiliation. [/quote] How do we know she is constantly doing this and this isn't one isolated incident. Firing an employe over a minor incident like this is a dick move. [quote]This is what I want to know. Forget the religious debate, if a position as important as notary public can be compromised by someones personal reasons then we have a real problem. [/quote] Congress is a really important job and they are controlled by personal reasons all the time. [quote]Atheism isn't a belief and it's mostly irrelevant as to whether it was because the people in the room were atheist or because they were trying to get documents for their atheist group notarized.[/quote] Atheism is a belief in there being no deity or controlling force. Not believing is oddly a belief in itself. It is relevant if it was based on the individual or the organization. Look at my example earlier. There is a huge difference between white males and MRA. People aren't likely to dislike you for being a male, but if you're an MRA they probably will. Groups based towards actively mocking or discriminating others can be a huge moral issue to many. They have a right to form and speak, but why should a private bank be forced to work with them? [quote]What does this even mean? She didn't disagree with AA; she refused to notarize their documents that were otherwise completely legitimate.[/QUOTE] She morally objected to them. As I said, the bank is a private business and it isn't like they refused them. They just got another person to sign. [QUOTE=Comrade_Eko;44371335]Seriously? That's your argument? Sure the co-worker might not care but you think the manager wants people to think his bank's notaries are going to judge you worthy of their signature whether or not you are legitimate, because you believe in X thing?[/quote] That's his or her decision to deal with. I really doubt the atheist pizza shop owner at this bank will be affected by it. [quote]Don't use this argument unless you want me to fix your quote so I can get a few zingers out of it. Also why would you assume the religious notary was polite while simultaneously assuming the atheist was rude? Hmmm... suspicious...[/quote] I never said religious people aren't condescending. Radicals in any group are and that isn't right. Two wrongs don't make a right. [quote]I swear have you ever even worked before? She THOUGHT FOR HERSELF?! God damn you're really giving me a strong case that the manager is going to fire him/her. Managers hate it when their employees think for themselves.[/quote] So we should all mindlessly follow are bosses' orders? What you're going to cut my pension? Thanks boss! Join a union? No I'd never go against anything you say! I think most bosses in this situation would understand your actions and thoughts and in the future would just have other employees deal with religious groups. [quote]Stop. I think you know what my point was, I picked race out of thin air and you used my mistake to your advantage and changed the subject. [/quote] And? You're changing the subject now to avoid my point. Can you explain to me why organizations deserve protection over individuals. Or are you one of those people who agreed with Congress when they decided corporations were people? [quote]Just in case you legitimately don't understand, I'll clarify, there is a huge difference between standing up for a moral that the society you live in as a whole shares or standing up for a moral that only your specific subculture shares.[/quote] Every culture is a subculture. There is no ideal that an entire society agrees on. [quote]This is true times a million when you use this moral to inconvenience another.[/QUOTE] Inconvenience? It probably took less than a minute to call the other person over. If you go to a bank to make a pretty important action like this you really should have a lot of time put aside for it. A few minutes won't make a difference. Also can someone tell me why as an atheist organization you would want her as your banker? Maybe she refused because she knew she couldn't remain neutral when dealing with the money. If I owned an organization I would like my banker to be someone that I know supports me so I can ensure they do the best job. [editline]27th March 2014[/editline] Oh and by the way... [quote]“Our employee did not understand how to process this particular paperwork and needed help that, unfortunately, led to the miscommunication,” Acevedo said.[/quote]\ [url]http://www.nj.com/union/index.ssf/2014/03/atheist_group_says_it_was_denied_by_td_bank_notary_because_of_religion.html[/url] Told you the source was bias and just AA being attention whores.
[QUOTE=FlakAttack;44362813]Amazing that notaries in NJ can just outright refuse based on religious grounds. That's ridiculous.[/QUOTE] I live in NJ and I didn't even know this, I've never seen this actually happen
[QUOTE]The managing director of American [B]Christians[/B], Inc. reported on Tuesday that she was refused notary service at a TD bank in Cranford, NJ because of her [B]christian[/B] affiliation. In a post on Facebook, Amanda Knief wrote, “I was just refused service — because I am a [B]christian[/B]. It was embarrassing, humiliating, and it pissed me off.” According to Knief, she and American [B]Christians[/B] president David Silverman were in the process of getting documents notarized by one of the bank’s notaries public when the woman asked them what the documents were for. “The documents were charitable organizations registrations for American [B]Christians[/B] in several states,” wrote Knief. “So I told her what AC is about. She looked down, then looked at me and Dave Silverman and said she couldn’t sign the documents because of ‘personal reasons’ and went to find another notary who was eating his lunch to come do the authentications.” “I have been called names, threatened, hated on and all manner of ridiculed because of my [B]christian[/B] activism, but I think sitting in a bank and having another professional refuse to do business with me because I am an [B]christian[/B] was the worst slight I have ever received,” she continued. “This is completely unacceptable, and far from over.”[/QUOTE] Public response: [B][I][U]RAGE[/U][/I][/B] Original article response: "hurp de durp fuck athiests"
[QUOTE=Pyroknight;44372283]Public response: [B][I][U]RAGE[/U][/I][/B] Original article response: "hurp de durp fuck athiests"[/QUOTE] Did you even read the less bias article? [url]http://www.nj.com/union/index.ssf/2014/03/atheist_group_says_it_was_denied_by_td_bank_notary_because_of_religion.html[/url] [quote]“Our employee did not understand how to process this particular paperwork and needed help that, unfortunately, led to the miscommunication,” Acevedo said.[/quote] This wasn't even a religious matter. She just didn't know how to handle the paperwork. And them being Christians wouldn't change the response at all.
Matt, how is American Atheists a propaganda group, but an ordinary church is anything but? A church wants to proselytize no? To preach? I don't know how you can honestly call one group a flat out propaganda group that you disagree with vehemently, but the other you belong to and don't allow any negative discussion upon without some level of intellectual dishonesty here.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;44372393]Matt, how is American Atheists a propaganda group, but an ordinary church is anything but? A church wants to proselytize no? To preach? [/QUOTE] I'm not saying most churches aren't. There are tons of Christian lobbyist groups out there. There is a huge difference though in preaching to people who will go to your church without even seeing a sign and posting billboards over town openly mocking religions and telling people they are objectively wrong in public. There can be propaganda groups on both sides of the coin. There are leftist propaganda groups along with conservative propaganda groups. There are religious propaganda groups and anti-religous ones. There are American propaganda groups along with Russian ones. I don't get why you all are assuming I don't think that Christian propaganda groups don't exist. Are you even reading my posts at this point? I've already stated that it is just as bad to be a religious group posting "Atheists are dumb" around town. [quote]I don't know how you can honestly call one group a flat out propaganda group that you disagree with vehemently, but the other you belong to and don't allow any negative discussion upon without some level of intellectual dishonesty here.[/quote] Since when do I belong to a propaganda group? I was born a Catholic and usually identify as one to make things simple for people, but I don't follow everything I hear. I also rarely attend Church and have knowledge of other religious groups beliefs. You people are calling me a bigot, but you are all stereotyping me based on my religion. Apparently all Christians believe the exact same thing. Also why are you all ignoring the article which makes the thread pretty much pointless? The lady didn't refuse to sign based on religion, she refused due to not being able to handle the paperwork. That pretty much proves that AA are making a big deal to push their agenda, not because any discrimination happened.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.