People who are allergic to something, be it certain animals, or some kind of fruit, or whatever, have usually gone through a battery of tests to find out those allergies.

I know when my daughter was young, we found out that she was allergic to strawberries. She wound up having a bunch of tests to find out if there were other things that she was allergic to.

Right, I am aware of that. That said, you aren't requiring Wal-Mart of a food market stop selling strawberries, right? You just keep your daughter away from it, and monitor what she eats and touches, correct?

So if a person knows they have pet allergies, they'd be more smart to stay away from the animals... I don't force my animals on someone, they are free to stay away from me and the critters, or other people and their pets.

I was only replying based on your statement that there are a lot of things floating around in a Home Depot that people could be allergic to.

I was only pointing out that people who are allergic to dogs have probably been tested for many of the other substances and particles that would be in the air in a Home Depot. :)

There are many things floating around at home depot that people may be allergic to BUT the difference is people go there EXPECTING to be exposed to those products as it is what the store sells. People dont usually go to hardware stores or grocery stores, or malls, expecting to be around animals.

I know, and apologize if my response sounded snippy.

I tend to get irritated at the allergy thing, as that's a frequent excuse to dump animals into rescue. And the majority aren't getting tested to verify it.

I am allergic to insulation, but it's not going to stop me from going into HD.

My dad used to work construction and he builds his own furniture. For some reason he started having allergic reactions to the wood and sawdust. IT didn't it for about 2 years, and was an on-going joke, since he works with wood. Then it cleared up and that was that.

LOL! My brother and I are still arguing over who gets the set of furniture he built when they keel over.

the employee was not fired because he displayed a non denominational religious symbol. he was fired for not adhering to the dress code after he was told to comply but refused. other than the fourth and fifth amendments protecting liberty and pursuit of happiness the constitution offers no protection to an employee against descrimination of any kind. this is not a separation issue. the government is not restricting the practice of religion.

numerous federal and state laws do forbid employment descrimination but no law or statute that i know of forbids a company from enacting and enforcing a dress code. as a retired airline transport pilot i would never have been allowed to wear anything other than my wings. this guy will lose in court big time.

You must have a very unique Home Depot then, because every one that I've ever gone to, the employees don't know good **** from hard lumps.

Maybe not unique but it helps being a woman either employees or fellow shoppers always willing to help out

The point I was making is, I've done construction work for 27 years. Nine times out of ten, if ever I have to persuade myself to go in there, the employees haven't got a clue as to what I'm talking about....so, they'll call somebody else over....who has even LESS clue....

Hell, my daughter knows more about construction and tools than most of the people who work there.

sure could have used your expertise with my home remodeling project, but glad to say almost complete.

This had nothign to do with Christianity. It was not a symbol of the Christian cross, it was a politcal symbol over the debates on removing the line from govenmant and/or schools.

A private company can not fire a person "legally" for wearing a religious symbol as that is a form of persecution. However, wearing a pin that says "one nation under God" is not a religious statement it is a political statement. And ocmpanies DO have the right to ban politics from company grounds.

Yes, companies CAN enact dress codes, but if they are using dress codes as a backhanded way to discriminate, those sort of dress codes have been struck down in the past. Like so many times in court cases, a litigant has to demonstrate harm or injury to obtain relief.

Just saying "Because I say so" often doesn't cut it in court. The company has to demonstrate how their business would be negatively affected by allowing an individual to dress or adorn themselves in a certain manner.

It looks to me like HD's stance IS an example of the 'Because I say so' type. Heck, I'm an unbeliever and I wouldn't have been offended by the employee wearing that badge. I AM however, somewhat baffled by why they'd make a big deal out of this.

Too, it seems pretty dumb from a business standpoint to actually cultivate the backlash that this is going to cause just to throw the corporate authority weight around to prove a point.

Lastly, it seems to go against possibly two of the maxims of equity: "Those who seek equity must DO equity" and "Equity looks to the intent rather than to the form."


-Kerry O.

I still fail to see how anyone can think of this as a freedom of religion issue, which it is not{. It is a political issue, pure and simple.

His pin stated "one nation under God". Yes it may have had the Christian cross on it, but that does not make it a religious symbol.

This pin was designed for the sole purpose of showing support of the idea that there is nothing wrong with having our students (and others) say the words "one nation under God" int he pledge of allegiance; and while I agree with the fact that there is nothing wrong with that phrase being in the pledge, the company DOES have the right to keep all political beliefs from being shown while on the clock. This is because politic beliefs are so strong, that the company CAN suffer major financial losses due to one persons political belief offending a group of people.

For example, I think we all would agree, no matter our own personal opinion on the issue, that if a company had an employee that had a pin or shirt that advertised abortion rights, the company could come under serious boycott and possibly even physical attacks from the strength of belief some people have towards this issue. However, the only legal way an employer could stop an employee from wearing such an article of attire would be to say no political attire period, otherwise he would be discriminating against others political beliefs.

So, I must say again, this does not appear to me as an anti-Christian, or anti-religion issue. It is purely political all the way around, and HD was more than justified in enforcing it's dress code policy in this case.

shows how differently we see the issue. i can't imagine a downside to such free publicity. guess we'll see when they next report earnings.

Well, for one, I'm less inclined to shop there now. I spend a lot of my disposable income on tools and supplies to construct various projects. More often than not, Lowes has better quality tools and a better selection of supplies at better prices. And while I very rarely side with religionists, I do see this particular issue in a vox populi sort of light.

Home Depot may be Numero Uno in their industry _now_, but sometimes a tipping point is reached for the oddest of reasons. Just look at automotive industry-- Ford stunned the financial community yesterday by posting unexpectedly high earnings for the state of the economy, while former King of the Hill General Motors is now 'Government Motors' and on advanced life support.

One just never knows...


-Kerry O.

You're correct. But remember, that's what happens when people take minimum wage. You get what you pay for.

My dad would have been more then willing to work for a place like that, especially with all of the knowledge he has. But not at $7.50 an hour. Not when he can pull in $3,000 a week with some of the jobs he takes.