you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 72 points 1 week ago (23 children)

Probably won't stand up in the Supreme Court which only recognizes the religious rights of Christians to be bigots.

  • source
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    That only matters if it goes to court that high.

    I am in no way religious, but every retail job I've had that pushes credit cards I break out the Bible verses to inform management I can't push a credit card on any American, because there's a verse about not charging your own people interest, and since every credit card does that, It goes against my "religious beliefs". No manager has ever pushed back against it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • This is honestly one of the greatest uses of religious exemptions. It's not like the store is really making that much from every individual cashier they ask to hawk credit cards. But if they did make an issue of it, and you did sue them for violating your religious rights, then they would have to pay legal fees. And even a simple legal case would likely cost them more in legal fees than they would make from many years of you hawking credit cards.

    You would get more pushback if you were requesting something that required serious accommodations on the part of the company. But simply letting you not sell credit cards? That's an easy one to get approved.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 1 week ago* (18 children)

    The very first sentence mentions that this takes place in the UK

    Edit: actually, I think I'm wrong on that. It sounds like this is a US story

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 61 points 1 week ago (15 children)

    University of Kentucky (UK). No worries, mate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 1 week ago (3 children)

    TIL there are more than zero universities in Kentucky.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 week ago (10 children)

    LOL when I read it my first impression was: Oh wow, I didn't know UK also had a city called Kentucky, good that they pointed out it is not in US.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 week ago (5 children)

    If there was a Kentucky in the UK then the one in the US would be called New Kentucky?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago* (2 children)

    I’m from Connecticut, the town names of which* fall roughly into three categories: Native American names, biblical place names, and English names. Under the latter category, we have new Britain and new London (arguably the only two which fit that pattern, though maybe New Haven is referencing an older British city I don’t know about), but we also have Manchester, Bolton, and Glastonbury, and of course just English language words or last names, like Plainville, Plainfield, and Putnam.

    *This is also true for most other New England states and probably most of the east coast, with substitution for French or Spanish (and a little Dutch) for English/British as appropriate. Actually, I could see this being mostly true everywhere in the US, with the relevant settling nationality taking over for British town names and last names, but I could also see biblical place names being less popular in some states, maybe superseded by other religious references.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    There's also a New Boston in MA right over the border from Colebrook, CT

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago

    The normal Boston in Massachusetts was originally named after the Lincolnshire village town of Saint botolph, iirc, so new Boston probably refers to a new offshoot of Boston, MA, like CT’s new Milford/new Hartford, but I’d be lying if I said I knew.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    good that they pointed out it is not in US.

    Huh? It is in the USA.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    They wrote: "at the University of Kentucky (UK)", they could write "at the University of Kentucky (a.k.a. UK)" or "at the UK (University of Kentucky)" any of those would be less ambiguous.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    David Durman, a research administrator at the University of Kentucky (UK)

    I'm with you - why abbreviate the university like that? I immediately thought the UK (United Kingdom) too. Something like "University of Kentucky (aka UK)" would've been helpful.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 week ago* (1 child)

    You usually don't have any reason to go that far anyhow, corpos don't want to have to mount a defence and just roll over about it instead

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment