Is 17 kids enough?

[QuagmireMcGuire]

Well, since I'm not hiring him, I'm really free to personally discriminate all I want. That said, it would be very difficult to prove in court that I had not hired someone based upon their religion. I wonder what the case law is on that (Quagmire??). I could certainly choose to not do business with someone based upon their religion. At any rate, what Flash said.

Brett

Re: employment discrimination, it deals with providing religious accomodations for one to practice a recognized religion as long as it does not cause an undue burden on the business (such as building a temple, etc.). It also prohibits the favoring of one religious practice over another and it protects those who adorn themselves with religious adornment.

http://www.eeoc.gov/types/religion.html

Cases that I remember dealt with requiring employees to pray before the opening of a store, refusing to allow someone of a rarely known religion from participating in a religious observance; if I remember correctly, Jediism is either recognized or on its way to being considered a recognized, organized religion.

 

[exhelodrvr]

I was talking about the horrifically and willfully ignorant. If you equate that with being Chrisitan, then maybe you are the one with the issue.

But yes, I do feel purty darn comfortable judging people who have access to a decent education and forgo that for men riding dinosouars on a 2000 year old earth, and who can't get their 20 year old son to a 5th grade writing level.

The air up here atop my verah tall horse is so nice and clean!

"If you equate that with being Chrisitan, "

You might check your spelling. Let me guess, public school education?

 

[Brett327]

Re: employment discrimination, it deals with providing religious accomodations for one to practice a recognized religion as long as it does not cause an undue burden on the business (such as building a temple, etc.). It also prohibits the favoring of one religious practice over another and it protects those who adorn themselves with religious adornment.

http://www.eeoc.gov/types/religion.html

Cases that I remember dealt with requiring employees to pray before the opening of a store, refusing to allow someone of a rarely known religion from participating in a religious observance; if I remember correctly, Jediism is either recognized or on its way to being considered a recognized, organized religion.

What about hiring. Can an employer say, I'm not hiring you because you're a (insert religion)? What kind of burden would a plaintif have to meet in order to prove religious based hiring discrimination? Short of a declarative statement by the employer, couldn't an employer just say they weren't hired for any number of other intangible yet legally valid reasons (attitude, appearance, background, etc)?

Brett

 

[exhelodrvr]

What about hiring. Can an employer say, I'm not hiring you because you're a (insert religion)? What kind of burden would a plaintif have to meet in order to prove religious based hiring discrimination? Short of a declarative statement by the employer, couldn't an employer just say they weren't hired for any number of other intangible yet legally valid reasons (attitude, appearance, background, etc)?

Brett

When firing someone who is in a minority, and the individual claims discrimination, it is as much an issue of the employer proving non-discrimination, as it is the employee proving discrimination. And employers often don't want to go through the expense and time of going to court. This often results in better separation packages.

With hiring, there needs to be a "track record" of not hiring people who are "more qualified", which is generally harder for the prospective employee to prove.

(The former based on a combination of personal observation and subsequent discussions with legal/HR, the latter on discussions with legal/HR.)

 

[QuagmireMcGuire]

What about hiring. Can an employer say, I'm not hiring you because you're a (insert religion)? What kind of burden would a plaintif have to meet in order to prove religious based hiring discrimination? Short of a declarative statement by the employer, couldn't an employer just say they weren't hired for any number of other intangible yet legally valid reasons (attitude, appearance, background, etc)?

Brett

No. In general, an employer (exceptions include a religious organization with a hiring preference for those of the same religion) can't say that they will not hire someone due to their religious affiliation.

Fuck me! but I just spent the last 30 to 40 minutes typing out what disparate treatment versus failure to accomodate is and the prima facie elements to proving one of the two forms of discrimination. Then I realized that it was just a bunch of legalese that most of you couldn't give a tinker's damn about.

So, to sum up:

The employee would have to provide evidence that they were discriminated against; this could include statements about their religion to requiring that they work on religious holidays. The applicant would also have to prove that the employer knew of their religious background and that they were qualified for the position.

Burden shifts to employer to prove that there was a legitimate reason why the applicant wasn't hired.

Then burden shifts again to applicant to prove that this was not the reason why they weren't hired.

I'll never get those minutes back.

 

[villanelle]

Not the public school education causing it-- the public sector job, which means sometimes overworked with not enough time to spellcheck.

But that's mighty Christian of your to make me aware of my error! Bless you!

 

[nikiterp86]

...can't get their 20 year old son to a 5th grade writing level.

And I assume that you've had access to documentation proving this? Aptitude tests, academic writing samples, something along those lines? Surely no rational person would make so lofty a claim based solely on a blog, right?

 

[villanelle]

Are you saying that you can't identify horrible writing and grammar without an outside verification that it is in fact horrible?

I guess you'll have to take my word for it then. :shrug

Seriously, it was bad. A quick google makes it look like the site has been taken down so I can't provide samples for your reading pleasure, but if you have any 7 year old nephews or cousins, they can probably provide reasonable facsimiles.

 

[nikiterp86]

No, I'm saying that I can't identify an individual's reading level based on how they write in a blog. I'm not a teacher or an educational professional, and would never claim to be able to make those sorts of determinations, especially without more evidence than this. That's akin to judging someone's grammatical and spelling abilities based on text messages or IMs. Not everyone cares as much about internet grammar as you or I.

I suppose we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one

 

[HercDriver]

No one is making fun of the Duggars for being Christians; it is because they are squeezing out kids annually. Honestly, they seem nice, and the kids all seem sweet and respectful...we can all agree on that. It is just very unusual in this day and age to see such big families.

Quit trying to make it solely about religion, for Christ's sake (check my irony).

 

[eddie]

No, I'm saying that I can't identify an individual's reading level based on how they write in a blog.

A blog is like a diary for the world to look at. Personally, I would assume that it would be proofread, edited, and fairly representative of your best work gramatically and structurally. Given that it's a blog, I would expect the actual content to be somewhere just above drivel, but still well-written.

 

[Brett327]

No. In general, an employer (exceptions include a religious organization with a hiring preference for those of the same religion) can't say that they will not hire someone due to their religious affiliation.

Fuck me! but I just spent the last 30 to 40 minutes typing out what disparate treatment versus failure to accomodate is and the prima facie elements to proving one of the two forms of discrimination. Then I realized that it was just a bunch of legalese that most of you couldn't give a tinker's damn about.

So, to sum up:

The employee would have to provide evidence that they were discriminated against; this could include statements about their religion to requiring that they work on religious holidays. The applicant would also have to prove that the employer knew of their religious background and that they were qualified for the position.

Burden shifts to employer to prove that there was a legitimate reason why the applicant wasn't hired.

Then burden shifts again to applicant to prove that this was not the reason why they weren't hired.

I'll never get those minutes back.

Many thanks. For the record, I can handle the legalese, but you could PM me to spare the unwashed masses in the future. I may have to put you on retainer.

Brett

 

[BACONATOR]

What about hiring. Can an employer say, I'm not hiring you because you're a (insert religion)? What kind of burden would a plaintif have to meet in order to prove religious based hiring discrimination? Short of a declarative statement by the employer, couldn't an employer just say they weren't hired for any number of other intangible yet legally valid reasons (attitude, appearance, background, etc)?

Brett

While I wouldn't be very forthcoming with the reasons, I'd certainly shy away from hiring/working with anyone who wears their religion on their sleeve or is adamant about proselytizing. I don't care WHAT religion it is.

If they were to ask me "Have you accepted Christ into your heart?" or someone who knew I was jewish asking "So why didn't I see you at Shul (read: synagogue) on saturday?".... same result. NEXT.

 

[RockyMtnNFO]

Seriously? Get over yourself, bro. Ohh, the poor oppressed Christians - give me a break. But, since you're going that direction, why not? The Jews and Muslims have certainly had their "night in the barrel," so I guess fair's fair. Unlike your gender or ethnicity, religion is a choice, so I can judge you/discriminate against you based upon that.

Brett

Just because I don't take crap in silence doesn't mean all about myself. BTW the ad hominem attack doesn't help anybody's argument. By your agrument here, it would seem that since Christians as a whole are not are not oppressed in this country, then when we do catch crap, we should sit and take it without a reasoned response? I don't think so.

Did I say something inaccurate? Apparently you don't think so since you think religious discrimination is ok since it's Christians now.

You can do whatever you want, and so can everybody else. I merely pointed out that they were doing it.

r/

Steve

 

[Brett327]

Just because I don't take crap in silence doesn't mean all about myself. BTW the ad hominem attack doesn't help anybody's argument. By your agrument here, it would seem that since Christians as a whole are not are not oppressed in this country, then when we do catch crap, we should sit and take it without a reasoned response? I don't think so.

Did I say something inaccurate? Apparently you don't think so since you think religious discrimination is ok since it's Christians now.

You can do whatever you want, and so can everybody else. I merely pointed out that they were doing it.

r/

Steve

Reasoned response and Christian? How oxymoronic. My point is that it's very trendy of late for the poor Christians to bemoan every perceived "assault" on Christianity. "Ohh no, the war on Christmas...Oh no, they made us take down the 10 commandments from the courthouse...Ohh no, they won't let us mandate prayer in public schools, etc, etc. Like I said, get over it. Nobody in this country is preventing you from practicing your faith, and just like free speech, your ability to do so freely ends at the point where you start ramming it down everyone else's throat. You've enjoyed a majority status in this country since it's inception - stop whining about it.

Brett