GM was recently sued for alleged religious discrimination by a 43-year-old employee who works in Pontiac, MI. As reported from the Billings Gazette, "The automaker had denied his request to form a company-sponsored Christian group, similar to nine employee affinity groups for veterans, women, gay men and lesbians, disabled people and racial or ethnic minorities." The request was denied because GM has a blanket policy on religious or political groups of any kind, not just Christian.
His attorney explains it this way, "They’re going to be an interdenominational group. They’re not going to be proselytizing, they’re not going to be putting any other religion down, they’re not going to be promoting their religion in the workplace. They just want the opportunity to meet on the same basis as everyone else is meeting." I can understand that, but they have no basis for their argument other than "we want it too. " Now I suppose that Christians could say they were discriminated against and thrown to the lions, but that was like 2000 years ago and in Rome. But thanks to Emperor Constantine, there are churches all over Rome now and Christianity runs rampant like a plague.
Enjoy the success of your religion and stop pestering people. With ignorant stuff like this happening, it’s just another reason for a company to move overseas. Besides there are tons of meeting places throughout the city where many evangelical Christians congregate… they’re called churches! I believe they hold weekly meetings every Sunday and many have live music and/or singing! They’re tax exempt and hold lots of land, thus raising property taxes in almost every community, but you don’t see me suing.
No related posts.

Still, why not let them meet?
You didn’t exactly give any reason why they shouldn’t.
This doesn’t really display any sort of religous freakdom at all. This man simply wants to meet with fellow believers at his workplace.
What is wrong with that?
If you read the start,
“GM has a blanket policy on religious or political groups of any kind, not just Christian”
then the answer is clear. The firm has a set policy of not endorsing any kind of religious activity (or political) so why they should change a company wide policy?
I see nothing wrong with a company having such policy on all of their premises. It is not really a public place but personal possession of the shareholders where people are employed.
If they would have wanted to keep their meetings at some ones home, some one who is not part of the group then the idiocy is quite clear. They have no right for that when it is about corporate property why the rules would be different?
If the owner does not allow religion of any kind on their property then what is wrong with that?
And preventing any religious or political endorsement is the best way to avoid trucks full of crap, just waiting for you to make a mistake.
besides, why not have an unofficial group? Nothing to stop you from meeting OUTSIDE of work.
“The request was denied because GM has a blanket policy on religious or political groups of any kind, not just Christian.”
Yes, but I wasn’t calling for the meeting of just Christians.
I think as long as it isn’t done on office hours (i.e.,when they should be working)that people have a constitutional right to gather in the workplace.
And I am not calling for endorsement, simply the right to gather with fellow believers.
If homosexuals and lesbians are to have a group, I really do not see a reason why believers shouldn’t.
But anyways, I just noticed the phrase “company-sponsored” and I don’t think thats right. If people wish to meet, it shouldn’t be company sponsored.
Anyways, since “company-sponsored” changes everything, I now support GM’s decision