|
Attn: VivianC | by Ravenlock | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
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 |
...if someone wasn't already running the soup kitchen or whatever in that small town.
should habitat for humanity prohibit hindu's from helping to build a house? most people would see that as discrimination, which if you actually have read a bit of the christian bible you would know to be immoral.
That is insulting and cheap. However, having sat through enough Habitat for Humanity pitches at church, they are always hurting enough for labor (particularly skilled labor), that I doubt they would care. Habitat is becoming less a "religous" organization than a safe and PC one like the Red Cross, so that's not the best example to make.
IF the position to be hired for is entirely secular, and WILL be entirely secular, the point can be made on not considering religious affiliation or attitudes. My argument is that many of these small operations don't meet that standard, yet provide a lot of the charitable work to be done in this country.
|
|
[ Reply ] |
|
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 |
