That is merely what the thread's starter posted, as a few people pointed out, she seems to have been let go more due to the illness.
No, it doesn't seem that way at all. It's not clear whether she was fired for being Atheist or because she took medical leave. It's hard to separate the two, really. The point is that neither of these are valid reasons for firing someone.
"Soon after this information came to light Amanda had to take time off from work due to breast cancer surgery and rehabilitation. She further claims that on her first day back to work she was fired and the main cause behind it was her lack of belief. "
So he learns she's an athiest, and nothing happens for a while....then she has to leave for cancer treatment and is gone a while, then is canned her first day back.
Uh, no, "nothing happened" doesn't even remotely describe the situation. When her boss found out she was Atheist he harrased her and, at one point, threatened her with termination if her husband didn't take down his blog which had "anti-Christian" sentiments. That's not "nothing."
It's not a strawman at all, the laws associated with this still require a valid reason to fire someone, they just don't let you over-turn those reasons by claiming discrimination.
What? This doesn't even make sense. You're saying "you need a valid reason to fire someone legally, but the law says you can fire someone for any reason."
You can still challenge the termination itself, just can't play the race card to do it.
The fuck did race come in? The "race card" has nothing to do with this discussion. And you're *still* contradicting yourself. If you can challenge the termination, but not on the basis of racial discrimination, what grounds can you challenge it on? The problem in this case is that she *can't* challenge the termination, because anti-discrimination laws specifically exempt small businesses.
and if that's invalid, you can challenge that. But that reason is allowed to be 'I need a receptionist and this one's in the hospital'
Unfortunate for the woman with health issues, but not illegal and not his responsibility.
Yes, it's not illegal. That's the problem. That's the entire crux of this discussion, that it's absurd that small businesses are exempt from these anti-discrimination laws.
I don't even really know how to address the argument that it's okay to fire someone because they needed to take medical leave. They could have easily found someone to take her place on a temporary basis--this happens all the time; it's half of the reason temp agencies exist.
But if you seriously think that it's okay just to fire someone because they need time off for life saving surgery, you're a fucking dipshit.