Obama's speech today, an atheist asks him a question.

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Obama's speech today, an atheist asks him a question.

If anyone can find a clip of that segment of today's speech in MD, please post a link here.

I listened to his response and quite frankly I got the feeling, because of his shout out to atheists during his inauguration, that he was uncomfortable in answering it, but seem to want to say "Yea, you have rights too", but because of society and politics simply defaulted to the same non answer when faced with a hard question.

The question was about non-profits and hiring and firing polices. According to the lady she was fired for being an atheist.

He did say that no one should be discriminated against based on religion, race or sexual orientation. But he did not flat out say "atheists should not be fired for being atheists".

If someone can find a clip of that question, please post it here and tell me what you guys thought of his response.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Correction, here is the

Correction, here is the actual clip from CBS her question and Obama's response. She didn't say she was fired but said that it was difficult for atheists to get hired.

I admit I was multi tasking watching tv and posting at the same time.

BUT I still stand by my criticism that like a typical politician Obama gave a non-answer.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20082217-503544.html

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4580
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Any business should be

Any business should be allowed to discriminate based on any of the beliefs of the potential employee. Actually, I will take it one step further, business should be allowed to discriminate based on anything in their hiring practices. Trying to protect certain classes of people using the legal system causes real harm to others who might be better qualified but don't get the job because the company needs a token minority or if the minority is better qualified they will be harmed by the perception of others who believe they were hired simply because of their minority status.

 

I think bigotry should be allowed to be out in the open because I don't want to give my money to bigots. If I know who they are, it is much easier to avoid doing business with them.

 

I would have been much happier if Bama announced that we should STOP SENDING GOVERNMENT MONEY TO RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS. This whole thing is about W's "faith based initiative" and government money going to openly religious businesses. No religious organization should get any federal money, period. And since the budget is our main concern right now, that seems as good a place as any to start. Cut the faith based program 100%.  

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
But when someone is hired

But when someone is hired who would not formerly because of bigotry the employer and coworkers learn their bigotry is generally unfounded. Living in isolation maintains ignorance and hatred.

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister wrote:But when

ex-minister wrote:
But when someone is hired who would not formerly because of bigotry the employer and coworkers learn their bigotry is generally unfounded. Living in isolation maintains ignorance and hatred.

 

Very true.  And at this point, I wouldn't mind being hired as the token old white woman IT specialist.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Any

Beyond Saving wrote:

Any business should be allowed to discriminate based on any of the beliefs of the potential employee. Actually, I will take it one step further, business should be allowed to discriminate based on anything in their hiring practices. Trying to protect certain classes of people using the legal system causes real harm to others who might be better qualified but don't get the job because the company needs a token minority or if the minority is better qualified they will be harmed by the perception of others who believe they were hired simply because of their minority status.

 

I think bigotry should be allowed to be out in the open because I don't want to give my money to bigots. If I know who they are, it is much easier to avoid doing business with them.

 

I would have been much happier if Bama announced that we should STOP SENDING GOVERNMENT MONEY TO RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS. This whole thing is about W's "faith based initiative" and government money going to openly religious businesses. No religious organization should get any federal money, period. And since the budget is our main concern right now, that seems as good a place as any to start. Cut the faith based program 100%.  

 

Well, it is not as black and white as you want to make it. Again, lots of things "in theory" sound good on paper but don't translate well all the time in reality. I am quite sure if it were not for a lot of government action during the movement of women and blacks things would have been much harder.

BUT I do agree that trying to silence bigots through law, mainly trying to silence speech. But I am not against laws that say a business cant discriminate on the basis of race or religion or sexual orientation. However, in this case, we are talking about government funded charities. The people starting them don't have to ask for government money, but if they do, then they have to consider themselves as neutral as the government they are asking the money from.

Having said that there are some things that would be absurd, like a church being forced to hire an atheist as a priest. Or a strip club being forced to hire a fat guy.

I agree it should be about the best person for the job, but I am damned sure for someone getting sued or fined if that "best person" is a minority and it is proven they did it because of bigotry.

But I already avoid certain businesses. If I go into a business and it is not Christmas and all over the store are non sales items like crosses and quotes in frames that are mere decorations not for sale, I will turn around and  walk out. I walked out of a hair cut place because when I walked in the entire place looked like a fucking church.

AND there is a fucking annoying car commercial on tv where the guy at the end says " Where family, country and God come first" He might as well be saying " Fuck non-Christians" instead.

Its not that these business are run by Christians, it is off putting and while it may appeal to Christians it limits their target audience.

I hate hotels and hospitals and Drs offices the most because there is always a bible somewhere as if the only people who use those places are Christians.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4580
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Well, it is

Brian37 wrote:

Well, it is not as black and white as you want to make it. Again, lots of things "in theory" sound good on paper but don't translate well all the time in reality. I am quite sure if it were not for a lot of government action during the movement of women and blacks things would have been much harder.

BUT I do agree that trying to silence bigots through law, mainly trying to silence speech. But I am not against laws that say a business cant discriminate on the basis of race or religion or sexual orientation. However, in this case, we are talking about government funded charities. The people starting them don't have to ask for government money, but if they do, then they have to consider themselves as neutral as the government they are asking the money from.

Having said that there are some things that would be absurd, like a church being forced to hire an atheist as a priest. Or a strip club being forced to hire a fat guy.

I agree it should be about the best person for the job, but I am damned sure for someone getting sued or fined if that "best person" is a minority and it is proven they did it because of bigotry.

But I already avoid certain businesses. If I go into a business and it is not Christmas and all over the store are non sales items like crosses and quotes in frames that are mere decorations not for sale, I will turn around and  walk out. I walked out of a hair cut place because when I walked in the entire place looked like a fucking church.

AND there is a fucking annoying car commercial on tv where the guy at the end says " Where family, country and God come first" He might as well be saying " Fuck non-Christians" instead.

Its not that these business are run by Christians, it is off putting and while it may appeal to Christians it limits their target audience.

I hate hotels and hospitals and Drs offices the most because there is always a bible somewhere as if the only people who use those places are Christians.

 

 

So it is ok for you to discriminate when deciding whether or not to give money to a business based on religion, but it is not ok for the business to discriminate who it can purchase labor from? Why is your economic transaction exempt from the taboo against discrimination?

 

I have news for you, if someone comes and applies to work for me and they launch into scripture during the interview, I am not hiring them. Is that ok? If I find out the attend/support the Westboro Baptist church I am not hiring them. And I believe I should have that choice. 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Well, it is not as black and white as you want to make it. Again, lots of things "in theory" sound good on paper but don't translate well all the time in reality. I am quite sure if it were not for a lot of government action during the movement of women and blacks things would have been much harder.

BUT I do agree that trying to silence bigots through law, mainly trying to silence speech. But I am not against laws that say a business cant discriminate on the basis of race or religion or sexual orientation. However, in this case, we are talking about government funded charities. The people starting them don't have to ask for government money, but if they do, then they have to consider themselves as neutral as the government they are asking the money from.

Having said that there are some things that would be absurd, like a church being forced to hire an atheist as a priest. Or a strip club being forced to hire a fat guy.

I agree it should be about the best person for the job, but I am damned sure for someone getting sued or fined if that "best person" is a minority and it is proven they did it because of bigotry.

But I already avoid certain businesses. If I go into a business and it is not Christmas and all over the store are non sales items like crosses and quotes in frames that are mere decorations not for sale, I will turn around and  walk out. I walked out of a hair cut place because when I walked in the entire place looked like a fucking church.

AND there is a fucking annoying car commercial on tv where the guy at the end says " Where family, country and God come first" He might as well be saying " Fuck non-Christians" instead.

Its not that these business are run by Christians, it is off putting and while it may appeal to Christians it limits their target audience.

I hate hotels and hospitals and Drs offices the most because there is always a bible somewhere as if the only people who use those places are Christians.

 

 

So it is ok for you to discriminate when deciding whether or not to give money to a business based on religion, but it is not ok for the business to discriminate who it can purchase labor from? Why is your economic transaction exempt from the taboo against discrimination?

 

I have news for you, if someone comes and applies to work for me and they launch into scripture during the interview, I am not hiring them. Is that ok? If I find out the attend/support the Westboro Baptist church I am not hiring them. And I believe I should have that choice. 

 

Again, still thinking in black and white.

First off, I dont need to buy a car from that dealer. But as far as business go, IT DEPENDS on why. I am not forced to buy a car from him. But when you look at our history, you give a bigoted majority the right to discriminate in hiring, that makes the minority's ability to look for a job much harder.

How many people do you know personally that are old enough to remember what white society was like during Martin Luther King's time? Judging from your response to my posts, probably not many, if any.

I cannot play Malcom X in a movie, anymore than you could play Ann Frank in a movie. So in that context, yes it is ok to discriminate. And of course it is ok for a strip joint to only hire hot strippers.

But you are out of your mind if you think any private business has the right to say "I don't want to hire blacks or Jews or atheists". I am not talking about non business clubs or churchs or Mosques. I am talking about Wal Mart down to the mom and pop gas station.

You keep wanting to make this out to be either/or. NO one should be forced to hire someone simply because they are black or jewish or atheist. That is a quota, I AM NOT FOR QUOTAS

 

BUT, if one of those minorities is more qualified than the white guy and that minority can prove in a court that they did discriminate, DAMNED RIGHT I AM FOR THAT LAWSUIT.

I don't want to live in a society of xenophobes supported by a government that says " I'll look the other way while you treat others as sub human" This country has already lived through that bigoted bullshit and government has to sometimes step in.

We had up until the 60s a white Christian dominated society that did everything it could even through laws that allowed what you are saying "Why should I be forced to hire someone I dont like".

If we go strictly by your model of "let me do what I want" Women would still be treated as if they were only baby factories and blacks would still be using separate bathrooms.

SO by your standard a private business, even if they let blacks in, according to you, should be allowed to have "black" bathrooms? Why stop at not letting them in the door?

ANYTHING GOES!

Businesses already and still have the right to kick out individuals AS THEY SHOULD. But considering our bigoted history I am damned glad my government stepped in to protect minorities from zealous majorities.

Hire people you like, YES! Fire people who do a bad job, YES!

You really live in fantasy land just like a theist. "If everyone would just do things my way"

Ok, put your money where your mouth is. Next time you see a minority co-worker, tell them you should have the right to not hire them based on their race or religion, then listen to their response.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4580
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Again, still

Brian37 wrote:

Again, still thinking in black and white.

First off, I dont need to buy a car from that dealer. But as far as business go, IT DEPENDS on why. I am not forced to buy a car from him. But when you look at our history, you give a bigoted majority the right to discriminate in hiring, that makes the minority's ability to look for a job much harder.

No you don't. And I don't need to hire anyone from the Westboro Baptist Church. So what is the difference between you choosing not to by a car from the lot with the big cross on it, and me deciding not to hire Phelps solely because of his religious beliefs? (assuming he was otherwise qualified for the position)

 

Brian37 wrote:

You keep wanting to make this out to be either/or. NO one should be forced to hire someone simply because they are black or jewish or atheist. That is a quota, I AM NOT FOR QUOTAS

BUT, if one of those minorities is more qualified than the white guy and that minority can prove in a court that they did discriminate, DAMNED RIGHT I AM FOR THAT LAWSUIT.

Ok, but how do you enforce it? What constitutes proof? If it is against the law, an employer isn't going to say, "I am not hiring you because you are _____" They will say "We found a better candidate for the position" How do you prove they didn't? I get what you are saying, and it is well intentioned, but it doesn't work in practice. If you think that the EEOC has prevented discrimination, you are the one who is out of his mind. Discrimination will die out as people live in and are raised in close proximity to one another. Clunky laws that invite lawsuits against innocent small businesses are not the answer. It is a cultural problem, and it is the culture that needs to be changed. And as you know, the culture has changed a lot for the positive. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

I don't want to live in a society of xenophobes supported by a government that says " I'll look the other way while you treat others as sub human" This country has already lived through that bigoted bullshit and government has to sometimes step in.

We had up until the 60s a white Christian dominated society that did everything it could even through laws that allowed what you are saying "Why should I be forced to hire someone I dont like".

If we go strictly by your model of "let me do what I want" Women would still be treated as if they were only baby factories and blacks would still be using separate bathrooms.

SO by your standard a private business, even if they let blacks in, according to you, should be allowed to have "black" bathrooms? Why stop at not letting them in the door?

Apparently, you believe you do live in a society of xenophobes that only avoid discrimination because the government forces them to. I give us more credit than that. I believe if a business opened up tomorrow with separate bathrooms, it would be ran out of business so fast your head would spin. Whites and blacks would be out in front of it protesting. Our culture has changed dramatically, it isn't government laws that have made the KKK weak, it is our culture that now looks upon racism as ignorant

 

Brian37 wrote:

Businesses already and still have the right to kick out individuals AS THEY SHOULD. But considering our bigoted history I am damned glad my government stepped in to protect minorities from zealous majorities.

Hire people you like, YES! Fire people who do a bad job, YES!

Except we don't. You don't think a business person contemplates the increased liability that comes with hiring and firing a person from one of the protected classes? You don't think we factor that into our decision? If I am firing a white male, I don't even bother with paperwork, I just tell them their employment is terminated and go hire someone else. If you are firing someone from the protected classes, you damn well better have your ducks in a row, spend a few weeks doing write-ups, warnings and documenting everything. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Ok, put your money where your mouth is. Next time you see a minority co-worker, tell them you should have the right to not hire them based on their race or religion, then listen to their response.

 

My money is always where my mouth is. I don't change my political arguments based on the race, sex or beliefs of the person I am talking to.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:But I am not

Brian37 wrote:

But I am not against laws that say a business cant discriminate on the basis of race or religion or sexual orientation.  

Then you're openly promoting tyrannical government.

Brian37 wrote:

Again, still thinking in black and white.

Pot meet kettle.

Brian37 wrote:
But you are out of your mind if you think any private business has the right to say "I don't want to hire blacks or Jews or atheists".

Are people out of their minds if they think they have the right to choose who they breed with?

You have the most erratic train of logic.

And you don't know the first thing about business. And you really don't even know what you're talking about, here.

 

Businesses are owned by individuals, and individuals have preferences and bias, and have the same liberties to practice them, that anyone else does.

Period.

 

I don't need to justify myself as to who I hire, and why.

If I don't want to hire someone because they have acne, I don't have to.

You want a law where I can get sued for exercising my 'personal' preferences?

Grow a brain...

 

It's my business, my preferences.

Just like the employee has the right to decide that they're no longer fond of working for an employer.

That's 'liberty'.

 

What part of that escapes you?....

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Brian37

redneF wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

But I am not against laws that say a business cant discriminate on the basis of race or religion or sexual orientation.  

Then you're openly promoting tyrannical government.

Brian37 wrote:

Again, still thinking in black and white.

Pot meet kettle.

Brian37 wrote:
But you are out of your mind if you think any private business has the right to say "I don't want to hire blacks or Jews or atheists".

Are people out of their minds if they think they have the right to choose who they breed with?

You have the most erratic train of logic.

And you don't know the first thing about business. And you really don't even know what you're talking about, here.

 

Businesses are owned by individuals, and individuals have preferences and bias, and have the same liberties to practice them, that anyone else does.

Period.

 

I don't need to justify myself as to who I hire, and why.

If I don't want to hire someone because they have acne, I don't have to.

You want a law where I can get sued for exercising my 'personal' preferences?

Grow a brain...

 

It's my business, my preferences.

Just like the employee has the right to decide that they're no longer fond of working for an employer.

That's 'liberty'.

 

What part of that escapes you?....

 

 

When did I claim that businesses don't or shouldn't have preferences or bias? Please provide a quote.

I said multiple time that a strip joint should not be forced to hire a fat guy. I also said it would be wrong to force a church to hire an atheist as a preacher. I also said it would be absurd to hire Beyond to play Ann Frank in a serious period movie. And the KKK has every legal right to exclude blacks no matter how vile I may find it.

And when I go to a Japanese Restaurant, if I don't see a Japanese cook making my sushi I'll be a bit disappointed.

I also agree with a business hiring the best person for the job. I also agree that a person can be fired and should be fired if they do a bad job.

Businesses are in the business to make money.

DUH and thanks for the update.

I don't think you should be forced to hire someone based on race or religion or sexual orientation.

BUT you cannot stop them from applying nor can you fire them for those reasons either.

The reason you cant do this is LONG TERM and is a good thing. It protects the minority from an over zealous majority.

Again, if you have a less qualified minority and a more qualified white guy, the goal should be the same, hire the best qualified. BUT if you have a more qualified minority and you refuse to hire them on the basis of their race or religion, and they have documented evidence that you did so. Damned right I am for that lawsuit.

Anyone old enough to remember when government left business to it's own hire/fire practices before EOE laws can tell you why those laws were needed.

If all you are doing is hiring someone because they are qualified, then you have nothing to worry about.

CONTEXT seems to be what you are missing. It depends on what type of business or charity and especially if they are getting government funding, grants or tax exemptions.

There is no blanket solution which you and Beyond seem to want to slap on everything.

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4580
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:But I am not

Brian37 wrote:

But I am not against laws that say a business cant discriminate on the basis of race or religion or sexual orientation.

Brian37 wrote:

And when I go to a Japanese Restaurant, if I don't see a Japanese cook making my sushi I'll be a bit disappointed.

So white boys can't make Japanese food? Or do you just have a racial preference in regard to who cooks your food in a specific restaurant?

 

What would you say if I opened a restaurant and declared that I would only hire white male chefs because I believed my customers would be "disappointed" to be served food cooked by someone who isn't white? 

 

And back to the original subject, are you saying I should be sued if I refuse to hire Phelps and I honestly say I won't hire him because of his religious affiliation?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2399
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is onlineOnline
To Brian37 & Beyond Saving

 

 

 

                    Funny story about ethnic restaurants.  My favorite watering hole [easy walking/staggering distence] is Scruffy"s Irish Pub; a franchise outfit.  The cook is from Sri Lanka, the owner is from Pakistan,  my favorite very shapely bartender especially in a mini skirt, is Canadian but his family is from the Ukraine. Most of the staff are young and Canadian but few have any Irish in their background.

 

 

                     The menu at this Irish pub includes  Venloo Chicken Maharajah[or plain], rice pilaf, buchetti, bangers & mash, and some other ethnic dishes that I can not pronounce. There are some Irish dishes on the menu,  but this is central Mississauga [pop. 800,000] and trying to survive in buisness on Irish alone isn't going to do it.

 

 

                      Join me sometime, I'll pay.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick

Jeffrick wrote:

                    Funny story about ethnic restaurants.  My favorite watering hole [easy walking/staggering distence] is Scruffy"s Irish Pub; a franchise outfit.  The cook is from Sri Lanka, the owner is from Pakistan,  my favorite very shapely bartender especially in a mini skirt, is Canadian but his family is from the Ukraine. Most of the staff are young and Canadian but few have any Irish in their background.

                     The menu at this Irish pub includes  Venloo Chicken Maharajah[or plain], rice pilaf, buchetti, bangers & mash, and some other ethnic dishes that I can not pronounce. There are some Irish dishes on the menu,  but this is central Mississauga [pop. 800,000] and trying to survive in buisness on Irish alone isn't going to do it.

                      Join me sometime, I'll pay.

 

Love to.  It is only 2613+/- miles and about 38 hours driving time.  May take me a while to get there.

 

The problem with this discussion is very few of you are old enough to remember the conversations about hiring people who were not white males.  "How is he going to fit in?  We'll have nothing to talk about."  "You don't want to be hired here, honey, the language is a little salty."  "Why aren't you at home raising your children?"  And so on.  I remember being in a meeting, and the sales man saying, "Well, it isn't like we need a RCH (red cunt hair) tolerance here."  Then being horribly embarrassed, poor man, when I raised my eyebrows at him.

(Actual quotes said directly to me or that I overheard at work.)

Working in IT for over 20 years, I can state unequivocally that people do not like change and will fight it whenever they have their noses rubbed in it.  Most people would not have willingly hired blacks, Indians (east or west), Asians, Jews, Catholics, women, etc, without the force of the law.  At the time the anti-discrimination laws passed, they were necessary.  Now, they may not be for most.  I haven't had anyone remark on my perceived lack of ability just because I am female in about 10 years.  (Yes, someone commented about my gender and technical expertise that recently.) 

And yes, it is darn near impossible to file a case if you are not hired.  When I walked into an interview a few months ago - and the hiring managers looked at each other, asked a few questions, agreed, yes, I had all the necessary qualifications, 20 minutes later I shook their hands and walked out.  They hired someone else.  My thought is they hired some young guy, though I don't know for sure.  And my thought is my age and gender had a lot to do with their decision.  Prove it?  Not likely and they would deny all the way to court.  I don't have that kind of money and the place wasn't large enough that the ACLU or any other law firm would be interested in pursuing it for a possible cut out of a class action suit.  Life sucks.

So perhaps the law needs to be changed.  Perhaps people's attitudes have changed.  But don't look for any sympathy from me for all you white men who are "victims" of reverse discrimination.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13689
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Jeffrick

cj wrote:

Jeffrick wrote:

                    Funny story about ethnic restaurants.  My favorite watering hole [easy walking/staggering distence] is Scruffy"s Irish Pub; a franchise outfit.  The cook is from Sri Lanka, the owner is from Pakistan,  my favorite very shapely bartender especially in a mini skirt, is Canadian but his family is from the Ukraine. Most of the staff are young and Canadian but few have any Irish in their background.

                     The menu at this Irish pub includes  Venloo Chicken Maharajah[or plain], rice pilaf, buchetti, bangers & mash, and some other ethnic dishes that I can not pronounce. There are some Irish dishes on the menu,  but this is central Mississauga [pop. 800,000] and trying to survive in buisness on Irish alone isn't going to do it.

                      Join me sometime, I'll pay.

 

Love to.  It is only 2613+/- miles and about 38 hours driving time.  May take me a while to get there.

 

The problem with this discussion is very few of you are old enough to remember the conversations about hiring people who were not white males.  "How is he going to fit in?  We'll have nothing to talk about."  "You don't want to be hired here, honey, the language is a little salty."  "Why aren't you at home raising your children?"  And so on.  I remember being in a meeting, and the sales man saying, "Well, it isn't like we need a RCH (red cunt hair) tolerance here."  Then being horribly embarrassed, poor man, when I raised my eyebrows at him.

(Actual quotes said directly to me or that I overheard at work.)

Working in IT for over 20 years, I can state unequivocally that people do not like change and will fight it whenever they have their noses rubbed in it.  Most people would not have willingly hired blacks, Indians (east or west), Asians, Jews, Catholics, women, etc, without the force of the law.  At the time the anti-discrimination laws passed, they were necessary.  Now, they may not be for most.  I haven't had anyone remark on my perceived lack of ability just because I am female in about 10 years.  (Yes, someone commented about my gender and technical expertise that recently.) 

And yes, it is darn near impossible to file a case if you are not hired.  When I walked into an interview a few months ago - and the hiring managers looked at each other, asked a few questions, agreed, yes, I had all the necessary qualifications, 20 minutes later I shook their hands and walked out.  They hired someone else.  My thought is they hired some young guy, though I don't know for sure.  And my thought is my age and gender had a lot to do with their decision.  Prove it?  Not likely and they would deny all the way to court.  I don't have that kind of money and the place wasn't large enough that the ACLU or any other law firm would be interested in pursuing it for a possible cut out of a class action suit.  Life sucks.

So perhaps the law needs to be changed.  Perhaps people's attitudes have changed.  But don't look for any sympathy from me for all you white men who are "victims" of reverse discrimination.

 

CJ, in another time and in another universe I would so hit on you!

But, I think we will always need the protection of minorities because that demographic is always shifting. What was once a minority is now accepted, but even today there are new "outsiders" the majority fear.

Someone is always a minority to others somewhere.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:CJ, in another

Brian37 wrote:

CJ, in another time and in another universe I would so hit on you!

But, I think we will always need the protection of minorities because that demographic is always shifting. What was once a minority is now accepted, but even today there are new "outsiders" the majority fear.

Someone is always a minority to others somewhere.

 

Now, it is homosexuals.  And Muslims.  And.....

If - your organization is not a government agency.  If - you do not receive federal funding.  If - you do not have any governmental contracts.  Then - you are not subject to the anti-discrimination law. 

See?  Not so bad after all.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Any

Beyond Saving wrote:
Any business should be allowed to discriminate based on any of the beliefs of the potential employee. Actually, I will take it one step further, business should be allowed to discriminate based on anything in their hiring practices. Trying to protect certain classes of people using the legal system causes real harm to others who might be better qualified but don't get the job because the company needs a token minority or if the minority is better qualified they will be harmed by the perception of others who believe they were hired simply because of their minority status.

 

I will only partially agree here.

 

Let's say that you are interviewing for a position as the church janitor. At the interview stage, there are a great many ways for any applicant to tank the interview. Honestly, wearing an openly atheist Tshirt would not be any better than one that said “Divers do it deeper”. You just don't do either of those if you are seriously interested in getting the job.

 

Now, let's say that you get the job. Then you never show up for services. After some time, any reasonable man of the cloth would have to take pause on whether he had hired a member of his specific in group. However, when you get fired, you are simply not going to be told anything other than “you are just not working out for us”. Here, it would not matter if you happen to be an atheist or just a member of a different sect.

 

In that case, you probably should not have been fired but try proving that.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Any business should be allowed to discriminate based on any of the beliefs of the potential employee. Actually, I will take it one step further, business should be allowed to discriminate based on anything in their hiring practices. Trying to protect certain classes of people using the legal system causes real harm to others who might be better qualified but don't get the job because the company needs a token minority or if the minority is better qualified they will be harmed by the perception of others who believe they were hired simply because of their minority status.

 

I think bigotry should be allowed to be out in the open because I don't want to give my money to bigots. If I know who they are, it is much easier to avoid doing business with them.

 

I would have been much happier if Bama announced that we should STOP SENDING GOVERNMENT MONEY TO RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS. This whole thing is about W's "faith based initiative" and government money going to openly religious businesses. No religious organization should get any federal money, period. And since the budget is our main concern right now, that seems as good a place as any to start. Cut the faith based program 100%.  

 

BUT I do agree that trying to silence bigots through law, mainly trying to silence speech. But I am not against laws that say a business cant discriminate on the basis of race or religion or sexual orientation. However, in this case, we are talking about government funded charities. The people starting them don't have to ask for government money, but if they do, then they have to consider themselves as neutral as the government they are asking the money from.

Having said that there are some things that would be absurd, like a church being forced to hire an atheist as a priest. Or a strip club being forced to hire a fat guy.


 

Right. But I got a slightly different message from the clip. What I saw was Obama saying that you can't ever please everyone. So he is talking about striking balances. Honestly, I prefer the term circling the wagons.


 

Let religions draw the metaphorical circle around some activities but keep all federally funded programs outside that circle. Inside the circle, if you don't want Big Gay Al as a minister, then don't hire him. You may have to do a sham interview but ultimately, whomever you hire is arguably more qualified anyway. Outside the circle, you need to follow federal law.


 

Past that, it is true that government laws and rules do go way beyond where they should. However, to some extent, it is worthwhile to let the process play out in the market to see what imponderable factors may be relevant.


 

As an example, there was a time when the construction industry had a tacit assumption of one death per million dollars of total cost. Then congress passed the enabling legislation for OSHA, with all of the rules and regulations that followed. I don't really think that any employer was happy that they had to spend money on workplace safety.


 

Then, over the next several years, it turned out that not having to deal with the consequences of an unsafe work place (for example, greater retention of already trained workers) was wort more than the investment in fully reusable nets to catch workers who fell from the high steel.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote: Brian37 wrote: CJ,

cj wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

CJ, in another time and in another universe I would so hit on you!

But, I think we will always need the protection of minorities because that demographic is always shifting. What was once a minority is now accepted, but even today there are new "outsiders" the majority fear.

Someone is always a minority to others somewhere.

 

Now, it is homosexuals.  And Muslims.  And.....

If - your organization is not a government agency.  If - you do not receive federal funding.  If - you do not have any governmental contracts.  Then - you are not subject to the anti-discrimination law. 

See?  Not so bad after all.


 

cj, actually, yes, you still are subject to some of the rules. The load is just higher for anyone financially connected to the government.


 

I would have to dig but I know that many years ago, the supreme court ruled that any university with federal funding had to obey the full load of all rules that the federal government did. In fact there are times when the load is even greater.


 

If you walk into your job at the FBI wearing a tshirt which is in poor taste, you can probably expect to be packing up your things within half an hour. Unless you are working undercover, I suppose but then you might attract exactly the wrong attention from the group you are trying to get in with.


 

If you show up for freshman physics, then it doesn't matter how bad the shirt is, it is protected speech.


 

If memory serves, the shirt in question said “club faggots, not seals”.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:
cj wrote:

 

Brian37 wrote:

CJ, in another time and in another universe I would so hit on you!

But, I think we will always need the protection of minorities because that demographic is always shifting. What was once a minority is now accepted, but even today there are new "outsiders" the majority fear.

Someone is always a minority to others somewhere.

Now, it is homosexuals.  And Muslims.  And.....

If - your organization is not a government agency.  If - you do not receive federal funding.  If - you do not have any governmental contracts.  Then - you are not subject to the anti-discrimination law. 

See?  Not so bad after all.

cj, actually, yes, you still are subject to some of the rules. The load is just higher for anyone financially connected to the government.

I would have to dig but I know that many years ago, the supreme court ruled that any university with federal funding had to obey the full load of all rules that the federal government did. In fact there are times when the load is even greater.

 

Yes, if you are a federally funded agency/organization, you have to obey all the rules.   And I wouldn't be surprised if there were a lot of rules.  Some of them - for universities - would likely have to do with accreditation which from what I have been told are a bear to satisfy.

But if you are running that strip joint, and you don't have a federal grant (or a grant from any other governmental jurisdiction with similar rules), you do not have to hire the fat man as an exotic dancer - unless it is that kind of club and that is what your clientele wants.  I try to avoid those kind of clubs.

 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

If you walk into your job at the FBI wearing a tshirt which is in poor taste, you can probably expect to be packing up your things within half an hour. Unless you are working undercover, I suppose but then you might attract exactly the wrong attention from the group you are trying to get in with.

If you show up for freshman physics, then it doesn't matter how bad the shirt is, it is protected speech.

If memory serves, the shirt in question said “club faggots, not seals”.

 

 

If I wore a shirt like that to any job I have ever had, I would be fired.  And the employer may fire me without saying why in most states - "at will" is the usual law.  The employer doesn't have to justify any firing.  Though the employer may say other things - such as the employee was not performing up to standards whether or not that is demonstrably true - depending on the rules whereby a business' assessed unemployment tax rate is increased in that state.

And yes, that t-shirt is protected speech if you are a student, walking down the street, in church, or most other places.  I'm fine with that.  But though a corporation may be considered an "individual" and has protected free speech, an employee - who is also an individual - does not have free speech at their place of employment.  I don't think this is fair, but life isn't fair.  I'll try to get over it.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.