Nope. their job is passenger safety. The stuff you observe is unnecessary window dressing and cash grabbing.

what if making the person do that thing is itself illegal. Which is the case here.

Remember its about REASONABLE accommodation. The law is very clear. And if you were working as a mechanic. Working on cars is an essential function of the job and it would not be a Reasonable accommodation for you to not do it. If however you were a mechanic with a profound religious belief that you must pray every…

Just to edify the argument a bit.

The job does not require it.

Yes she is a fundie.. just like christian fundies...

sigh.

Add in that it is her right as guaranteed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Well don’t worry because people cant just get anything they want, but no people should not have to go shopping for employers that happen to align with their religious beliefs. That would amount to segregation and that never ends well.... But look this has been going on for decades with very few problems. All Companies…

Another key difference is the degree of accommodation being requested. Title VI of the civil rights act of 1964 forbids discrimination in employment on the basis of religion among other bases. Court rulings have found that employers are required to make “REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION” to religious needs. The lines have…

Yes.

That one might be on me.

Thank God she is no Ina Garden. Giada is at least a little fun and Ina is pretentious and annoying.

I read someone speculate that she had come to a stop with the front of her car already sticking out into traffic.

Its very easy to explain. There is no relationship between the accident and the transition at all. They merely happened near in time. It is a coincidence. There is no information that has been presented that connect the two events in any way.

No, no killer is suing anyone. Some victims are suing the estate of another victim.

I can see how that played in your case. I think that the parked driver had done something that people believe contributed to the matter. I have heard that she was parked sticking out into traffic or that her breaks were off, but I have not seen that in anything official so it is only speculative.

Etiquette dictates that you refer to her ever on by the name she has chosen, even in the past tense. You may indicated that she used to refer to herself as Bruce if it is to eliminate confusion.

From reviewing all the comments this is what I am getting.

Wait, the people in the hummer are suing. They did not kill anyone, they just were not killed when they were hit. They are suing the estate of the woman that hit them. I now understand that that will come from the insurance company. But who is the person who killed someone and is also suing that you refer to??