> I also have a sense that if something like that ever did happen, it would be all over the news when the person sued... unless that wasn't the real reason.


I Don't know the whole story of her suspension either. But that is what "Management" represented it to be. They also claimed they had to rescind it because of her claim of not knowing about the policy (not because the policy was wrong). That was ostensibly why we were called into the special meeting, in order to have the policy explained to us all. Actually more obvious: so that they could actually "Get" the next guy.

I have never read the bible, Torah, or the Koran at work, on a break or any other time; never ever occurred to me to do that. In fact, it hardly occurs to me to read it at home either. Btw, they never did mention any such prohibition against those other books - just the Bible. I wonder if they just forgot; or if the Bible was the only target....?

But that ANYONE, for any reason whatsoever, would undertake to proscribe any such free exercise of religion, to any degree; is patently outrageous and appalling. This should not be happening in America - NOT EVEN ONCE! Nor should the things be happening that got Smitty all riled up. We all should just accept the fact that there are many religions, and that they all will inevitably be visible in public. We should therefore actually honor the 1st Amendment - not just say we do.


As to suing: You should know that a great many people don't just go around suing people; the middle class in particular. They often just lump it; as lawyers are expensive and mostly out of reach anyway - unless they (lawyers) smell money. And an illegal two or three week suspension would never smell of enough money to ever attract counsel. So much for the constitutional right to counsel. Perhaps the union would have done something about it - but I don't think she was in a unionized job.

You should therefore expect such doin's to remain mostly under the media's radar. But even if the media did hear about it, would they actually report it - if they thought their listeners didn't care or even want to know. Obviously, for every one story that gets reported, there are thousands of compelling stories that don't. Just as obvious, is that you reject "Fox News" for the same reasons - Apparently they keep telling you things you don't want to believe.

As for me, whether I want to believe or not; or even hear it or not; does not matter one bit, compared to whether a report is actually true or not. So I try to find that out, without regard to my own preconceived notions, or who reported it.

It does seem though, from your description of Fox, that they are telling a different side of the story - at least different enough from what you would like. Perhaps I should break down and pay for cable, so that I could see for myself. Maybe I could then broaden my own news sources a bit, and actually hear two sides to the story! What a concept - listening to all sides of a story - Wow!


To get this thread back to railroading, It IS great that Amtrak ignored all the silliness, and reported this "National Christmas Tree" display to be what it actually was. So indeed also, was the train display, itself awesome. Those large scale models were exceptionally accurate and commanding.

BTW, does anybody know how trains came to be associated with Christmas, and Christmas trees in particular?