| Attn: VivianC |
by Ravenlock |
2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
Regarding this and the subsequent discussion, your example was thought-provoking but there are some angles that don't parallel your original suggestion.
Your original suggestion, to clarify, was that a person who was obviously pro-life (identifying themselves as such by their clothes) walking into an abortion clinic asking for a job would be met with hostility regardless of that place's hiring policies.
When asked to show some evidence of this, you linked an article wherein a person was put on probation (and subsequently fired) for testifying against certain practices at a hospital where she worked.
When BloodyViking pointed out that she was fired for her actions, not her beliefs, you replied in effect that this made no difference.
I currently work for a weather company. I expect they don't much care what I actually believe about the weather or even how well we predict it. If I went around, however, claiming that our business is a fraud (which I don't believe, but for example), I fully expect that I would be let go, and rightfully so. If you behave in a manner specifically hostile to your employer, your employer is very likely to take umbrage with your continued employment.
I agree her particular case is a little prickly, specifically because it appears she was continuing to do her job, but then protesting it outside of work. If for example she had refused to take part in the practices she was condemning, there would be no issue whatsoever - you lose the right to your job when you stop doing it, for whatever reason. Since she actually was still doing the job, it's trickier.
However, none of this has anything to do with your original suggestion - that asking for an application while wearing the wrong shirt will get you booted out the door of <insert x place> instead of the chance to apply. Again, if you have any evidence that this is the case, present it and I'm sure most of us will happily join with you in condemning said business. Otherwise, BloodyViking's assertion that a business receiving federal funding (such as the Salvation Army) should abide by federal hiring guidelines stands.
You also didn't answer his question:
If, as they claim, religion is Not a part of the function of the social services, then what does the religion of the worker matter? Why should they care? If, on the other hand, religion Is part of the social services, then the government has no business funding them in the first place.
It's a good one. |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
I believe I answered that... | by esbita | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
sort of. | by unjust | 2005-10-06 09:34:19 |
|
But Uncle Sam wouldn't be distributing the soup... | by esbita | 2005-10-06 09:48:00 |
|
so here is the question: | by unjust | 2005-10-06 09:59:47 |
|
It's so they can do more. | by esbita | 2005-10-06 10:45:56 |
|
no. you entirely missed my point | by unjust | 2005-10-06 13:39:09 |
|
The legality has already been covered before. | by esbita | 2005-10-06 13:46:16 |
|
you still miss my point. | by unjust | 2005-10-06 14:14:43 |
|
The main focus of the article I posted... | by esbita | 2005-10-06 14:22:29 |
|
no, personally i think afirmative action | by unjust | 2005-10-06 14:38:58 |
|
You've been taking an absolutist position... | by esbita | 2005-10-06 14:47:09 |
|
you misconstrue my point | by unjust | 2005-10-06 15:06:50 |
|
A note on the legality issue. | by BloodyViking | 2005-10-06 14:24:41 |
|
actually i was arguing wether | by unjust | 2005-10-06 14:45:30 |
|
A point of agreement: | by BloodyViking | 2005-10-06 10:35:21 |
|
Yes, but consider what the current laws say. | by esbita | 2005-10-06 10:49:11 |
|
True. It doesn't mean the judge was right | by BloodyViking | 2005-10-06 10:56:31 |
|
Just heading off at the pass. | by esbita | 2005-10-06 11:00:47 |
|
actually | by unjust | 2005-10-06 14:21:58 |
|
Internal functions? | by esbita | 2005-10-06 14:25:44 |
|
you're confusing my arguments | by unjust | 2005-10-06 14:41:51 |
|
unjust made some good... | by Ravenlock | 2005-10-06 09:55:59 |
|
s/"in necessary"/"is necessary" (n/t) | by Ravenlock | 2005-10-06 10:00:18 |
|
it is highly suspect. of course so is | by unjust | 2005-10-06 10:21:19 |
|
My ex is catholic and works in a Synagogue school | by Havoc | 2005-10-06 10:46:46 |
|
Agreed with you, with caution. | by esbita | 2005-10-06 10:57:30 |
|
Understood. :) | by Ravenlock | 2005-10-06 12:43:13 |
|
Not a cop out, a recognition of boundaries. | by BloodyViking | 2005-10-06 10:31:44 |
|
There's no "partially equal opportunity" though. | by esbita | 2005-10-06 11:19:44 |
|
Close Enough | by VivianC | 2005-10-06 09:58:54 |
|
I think he was well deserving of the damages... | by Ravenlock | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
There was wrong-doing on both sides. | by BloodyViking | 2005-10-06 10:45:07 |
|
They should have called the police immediately. | by Havoc | 2005-10-06 10:49:53 |
|
Fair 'nuf. | by Ravenlock | 2005-10-06 12:46:56 |
|
More arguing at the extremes. | by esbita | 2005-10-06 11:51:30 |
|
You have a good point there. | by Ravenlock | 2005-10-06 13:04:09 |
|
Nor did I mean it to. | by esbita | 2005-10-06 13:08:00 |
|
invalid argument | by unjust | 2005-10-06 13:16:10 |
|
Bull pucky, invalid argument. | by esbita | 2005-10-06 13:23:42 |
|
no it is invalid in this case | by unjust | 2005-10-06 13:45:36 |
|
Gag me with a spoon. | by esbita | 2005-10-06 13:57:03 |
|
still doesn't make it vaild in reguard to the | by unjust | 2005-10-06 14:10:13 |
|
Now I wonder | by bara | 2005-10-06 13:59:40 |
|
Did any ever apply? | by BloodyViking | 2005-10-06 14:11:36 |
|
While lip service is given to counseling... | by esbita | 2005-10-06 14:15:50 |
|
Do you know that for a fact, | by BloodyViking | 2005-10-06 14:18:54 |
|
Anecdotal, sadly. | by esbita | 2005-10-06 14:28:18 |
|
Having been told By Who exactly? (n/t) | by BloodyViking | 2005-10-06 14:36:00 |
|
Pro-abortion orgs. | by esbita | 2005-10-06 14:40:02 |
|
You mean like for | by BloodyViking | 2005-10-06 15:08:35 |
|
Gah. | by esbita | 2005-10-06 15:18:51 |
|
I hope you noticed the smiley. | by BloodyViking | 2005-10-06 15:21:58 |
|
Yeah, it's a sensitive point, though. | by esbita | 2005-10-06 15:25:46 |
|
most recent reply so i'm saying ta ta here | by unjust | 2005-10-06 15:21:59 |
|
Not close enough. | by BloodyViking | 2005-10-06 10:15:52 |
|
unrelated. please discuss the topic at hand. | by unjust | 2005-10-06 10:27:23 |
|
Or that he asked for a job application. | by mortaine | 2005-10-06 10:48:05 |
|
I have no idea of the parameters anymore | by VivianC | 2005-10-06 11:28:39 |
|
Well, you clearly have some idea... | by Ravenlock | 2005-10-06 12:56:36 |
|
I really more for freedom of association. | by VivianC | 2005-10-06 14:46:03 |
|
Now, that's just snarky. | by Ravenlock | 2005-10-06 15:17:48 |
|
Wrong. | by BloodyViking | 2005-10-06 13:05:44 |
|
You have to acknowledge, though... | by esbita | 2005-10-06 13:11:17 |
|
nor any repuatable news agency | by unjust | 2005-10-06 13:20:38 |
|
Internal HR decision, huh? | by esbita | 2005-10-06 13:27:07 |
|
policy != decision on one person. | by unjust | 2005-10-06 13:50:20 |
|
So if they do that to 100 pro-lifers it would be | by bara | 2005-10-06 14:23:08 |
|
they don't that has been shown | by unjust | 2005-10-06 14:30:20 |
|
Trolling? | by bara | 2005-10-06 14:53:13 |
|
No. Making it policy makes it policy. | by BloodyViking | 2005-10-06 14:31:46 |
|
Under that assumption | by bara | 2005-10-06 14:46:33 |
|
no. | by unjust | 2005-10-06 14:51:45 |
|
Way to avoid the subject at hand | by bara | 2005-10-06 14:57:30 |
|
??? what kind of crack???? | by unjust | 2005-10-06 15:01:56 |
|
No. The policy is the policy. The Behavior | by BloodyViking | 2005-10-06 15:06:25 |
|
That kind of depends on | by BloodyViking | 2005-10-06 13:39:21 |
|
Is "abortuary" even a word? | by OsteSpiser | 2005-10-06 10:28:32 |
|
doesn't matter, viv didn't even acknowledge the | by unjust | 2005-10-06 10:33:12 |
