Should employers be able to refuse to hire women based on religious objections?

[Conager]

It shouldn't remind you of that at all because these are two different things. You're wrongly comparing people who are protected by law because of something they can't help and people who are not protecting by law.

That's kind of the point. The majority of Obama and Clinton voters are part of some protected class. A lot of Trump voters are in the only class that is completely legal to discriminate against: White Anglo-Saxon Protestant and now Catholic Males.

 

[tallladiesman]

Employers in Northern Ireland refused to employ men and women based on religion. Take it from me it did not work out well. If you need this explained to you then you have my sympathies.

 

[BotanyBoy]

That's kind of the point. The majority of Obama and Clinton voters are part of some protected class. A lot of Trump voters are in the only class that is completely legal to discriminate against: White Anglo-Saxon Protestant and now Catholic Males.

It's not discrimination or racism if you do against white people though!!! It's PROGRESS!!

 

[Conager]

It's not discrimination or racism if you do against white people though!!! It's PROGRESS!!

If the fuckers had looked through their knapsack of privilege they would understand why they deserve it but most of them are blissfully unaware of the charmed life they lead.

Getting fired without cause, or being denied admission or employment in favor of a less qualified candidate is just the thing they needs to be "woke" to, ya dig?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

That's kind of the point. The majority of Obama and Clinton voters are part of some protected class. A lot of Trump voters are in the only class that is completely legal to discriminate against: White Anglo-Saxon Protestant and now Catholic Males.

No, that wasn't the point at all.

 

[Conager]

No, that wasn't the point at all.

Is too.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Is too.

Awesome. Looking forward to you backing that up.

 

[Conager]

Awesome. Looking forward to you backing that up.

The gratuitous denial of a gratuitous assertion is entirely self-contained and complete.

I'm glad to have had the opportunity to assist you in learning something today.

 

[Plane_Guy]

Absolutely!

I think an employer should certainly be able to deny a job based on the religious beliefs of the perspective employee.

Otherwise:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...les-federal-complaint/?utm_term=.ae3b3259881a

She knew before interviewing that alcohol service was in the job description. Now the Airline is being sued? They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

This is a pure money grab by a senseless individual hidden under the guise of "religious freedom". She had no intention of working that job longterm.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

The gratuitous denial of a gratuitous assertion is entirely self-contained and complete.

I'm glad to have had the opportunity to assist you in learning something today.

I already knew you don't read & write well. You're literally making things up that no one is talking about.

My point was clear, AJ is trying to compare apples to oranges.

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I think an employer should certainly be able to deny a job based on the religious beliefs of the perspective employee.

Otherwise:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...les-federal-complaint/?utm_term=.ae3b3259881a

She knew before interviewing that alcohol service was in the job description. Now the Airline is being sued? They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

This is a pure money grab by a senseless individual hidden under the guise of "religious freedom". She had no intention of working that job longterm.

Yes, the airline is being sued because after they had put in writing that it was reasonable for her not to serve alcohol they changed their mind after another flight attendant complained about her "headdress".

 

[Conager]

I already knew you don't read & write well. You're literally making things up that no one is talking about.

My point was clear, AJ is trying to compare apples to oranges.

1) Who was your point made clear to? I didn't see anyone chiming in in support of whatever point you were trying to make clear.

2) You are now asserting that your point was clear, as if that has anything to do with my agreeing with and amplifying 4est's point. I was not addressing your point, I was addressing his counterpoint. I already suspected (but cannot know) that you do not read well and have seen your inability to cogently express yourself through your writing, but do try to follow a conversational thread. It's important to pay attention to who is speaking to whom and about what. Just because I quoted and directly addressed your weak refutation of 4est's counterpoint does not mean that I was directly referencing your initial point. Whatever that might have been. Perhaps you should go back and use the edit function in hopes that you might make it clear to someone other than yourself.

3) 4est's point had nothing whatsoever to do with apples, oranges or any other fruit, stated or implied. You are effectively, but not literally, making things up that no one is talking about.

4) I quite understood that you felt 4est'point was not analogous. I explained why his point is valid and stands in its own right.

I'm glad we had this talk! I feel like this should certainly help you in your future attempts to communicate your thoughts effectively. I do like that, for a nice change, you more or less attempted to stake out a position.

 

[Conager]

Yes, the airline is being sued because after they had put in writing that it was reasonable for her not to serve alcohol they changed their mind after another flight attendant complained about her "headdress".

Phrodeau is not going to like this post at all.

It appears you posted withou doing your requisite "research" prior.

I might be wrong, did you just forget to annote this post with the proper citations? Do you happen to have the depositions handy to cite in order to reasonably assert that the various communications that you allege took place and were of the nature and substance you allege?

 

[Disgustipated]

I'm sorry but Q-Bert explaining a point made to Spidey by AJ might be last minute contender for Lit Exchange of the 2016.

 

[Conager]

I'm sorry but Q-Bert explaining a point made to Spidey by AJ might be last minute contender for Lit Exchange of the 2016.

There is sort of a surreal breaking of the fourth wall with your sage commentary upon it

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

I'm sorry but Q-Bert explaining a point made to Spidey by AJ might be last minute contender for Lit Exchange of the 2016.

As a point of fact AJ hasn't replied to me yet and Conger has yet to explain anything. What thread are you reading?

 

[about_average]

Phrodeau is not going to like this post at all.

It appears you posted withou doing your requisite "research" prior.

I might be wrong, did you just forget to annote this post with the proper citations? Do you happen to have the depositions handy to cite in order to reasonably assert that the various communications that you allege took place and were of the nature and substance you allege?

Try reading the linked article. though the person who linked to it as "evidence" obviously didn't read it so I don't really expect you to.

In a nutshell:
Flight attendant asked for religious accommodation, not to sit on her ass, but to do other required work while another attendant did alcohol service.
The airline said it was fine and wasn't an issue (which employers are required to do if possible)
Another flight attended complained about her hijab and and carrying a book "with foreign writing".
Airline dismissed the Muslim flight attendant

It sounds like the economist on an American Airlines flight who was removed and detained and questioned for doing math.
Though ExpressJet is an American Airlines partner, so I guess at least they are consistent.

At least Rite-Aide had the sense to settle with the Christian woman who said her religious belief's prevented her from handling alcohol.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Employers should be able to refuse anyone for anything, customers too.

It's really to their detriment on the latter but not the former.

Forcing pieces of shit to hire people they hate is really just paving with good intentions, it's a big disservice to everyone involved.



If they have valuable skills and are able to market themselves it won't be a problem.

Then as I said, I'll take a non-free society.

If your definition of freedom means refusing to hire people because they're women, then you deserve to be in irons.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

I think this will be interesting to see in practice. A lot of anit-gay people will support this, especially religious people. But will they think it is so good when an employer refuses to hire a catholic because their religious views could result in abuse of discrimination of the LGBT employees? Similarly, could atheists discriminate against 'believers'? Such situations could be an unintended side effect of such legislation.

I hope that happens a lot. Just so these fuckers can get a taste of their own medicine.

 

[yukonnights]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

While it's easy to agree, in theory, with "these truths", I'm wondering if the above sentiments are really possible under the Constitution? Given the ideals of some who have expressed their hunger for freedom above; if one person's freedom restricts another person's happiness...or if one's freedom entirely eradicates another's happiness...it seems to follow that, while all men might indeed be created equal, not all men are treated equal in a democracy where majority rule is the norm.

I don't really see anyway the USA is sustainable if/when everyone defines "freedom" in the narrowest of terms to read; "my freedom".

It also seems much to do about nothing...does baking a cake for a person of another race or sexual identity really condemn one to hell? Are we too dull as a nation to figure out a way to provide adequate toilet facilities for all people (at one point we spent millions to retrofit non-accessible facilities for people with physical disabilities...it worked out very well) Are we really honest in praising our democracy when we persist in the gerrymandering of congressional districts for the express purpose of excluding the Congressional representation of others?)

Oh well...just another day in America

 

[BotanyBoy]

Then as I said, I'll take a non-free society.

Most freedom hating control freak socialist Nazi types do.

If your definition of freedom means refusing to hire people because they're women, then you deserve to be in irons.

My definition of freedom means the government not telling people how to run their bidnizz and hiring whoever they want without the governments racism/sexism being forced upon them.

 

[Hard_Rom]

No, employers should not be able to refuse to hire women based on religious objections.

If 'they' can deny another person their rights how long before 'they' come to deny you your rights?

 

[BotanyBoy]

No, employers should not be able to refuse to hire women based on religious objections.

If 'they' can deny another person their rights how long before 'they' come to deny you your rights?

What right do people have to a position working for a business?

Are you even sane today or are you just going to hit caps and foam out on us?

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Most freedom hating control freak socialist Nazi types do.



My definition of freedom means the government not telling people how to run their bidnizz and hiring whoever they want without the governments racism/sexism being forced upon them.

Then like I said, fuck freedom.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Then like I said, fuck freedom.

Yes we all know you hate the USA and want it turned into another socialist shit hole.

Congrats you're another run of the mill asshole who can't do anything for himself.