probably a touchy subject

[dodecahedron]

I will endeavor to treat it as gently as possible.

Since I've recently joined the ranks of the unemployed I've been looking for work. Any kinds of legal work. I've encountered one or two employers in my area that require me to be Christian (they don't say it outright, they ask about 'your personal relationship with Jesus Christ) and give a statement of faith in addition to whatever church I attend.

Is this legal? How is any different from someone saying "Only white candidates will be considered"?

Anyway the only part where I lied on the application was the religious section. I'd like to consider that hiring an atheist would lend to their diversity nor would I be inclined to try and sway them from their own beliefs.

[Moose]

I think I've seen some (US based) rulings coming down against that practice in the past, but my memory on the subject is very vague, and it is likely to have been at the state level. And I'd have no idea which state(s), if any, were involved. It's simply been too long since I've seen those articles. You'd probably have to consult a lawyer in your state's bar association to be sure.

[kleindoofy]

Ahhh, a perfect example of "don't practice what you preach."

I think it's not only totally illegal and discriminating, but unless they're looking for a new pastor for their church, they should be ashamed of themselves.

Turn their other cheek with a lawsuit. :D

[Moose]

This should be obvious, of course, but this subject will need to be approached with some discretion. Please try to avoid making value judgments (explicit or implied) as to the merits of religion vs non-religion, and try to stick to the question as to whether or not this practice might be legal in certain areas.

[Fazor]

I think it has to depend on how much your religious beliefs are necessary for the particular job. I'm basing this 90% on pulling that out of my rear, and 10% on an article I vaguely remember about a teacher at a Catholic school.

That situation, it's certainly understandable that you wouldn't want an Islamic teacher teaching at your Catholic school, same was you wouldn't want a Catholic teaching at your Islamic school.

But if you're applying for a job say, flipping burgers, it'd probably be very wrong of McDonald's to require (or even ask about) a particular religious belief.

They gray area are jobs unrelated to religion, yet affiliated with them. For instance, there's a religion-based community center that was recently built up the road. Is it okay for them to require their janitor to be a member of their particular religion? Legally, I don't know.

[Swift]

Here (http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/discrimination/ethnicdisc.htm) is the US Department of Labor's webpage about Equal Employment Opportunity.

Executive Order 11246 prohibits covered federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, and requires affirmative action to ensure equal employment opportunity without regard to those factors. E.O. 11246 is enforced by the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP).

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination in hiring, promotion, discharge, pay, fringe benefits, job training, classification, referral, and other aspects of employment, on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin. This law is enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).


Here (http://www.eeoc.gov/) is the webpage of the EEOC.

Their webpage on religious discrimination (http://www.eeoc.gov/types/religion.html)
Employers may not treat employees or applicants more or less favorably because of their religious beliefs or practices - except to the extent a religious accommodation is warranted. For example, an employer may not refuse to hire individuals of a certain religion, may not impose stricter promotion requirements for persons of a certain religion, and may not impose more or different work requirements on an employee because of that employee's religious beliefs or practices.

Employees cannot be forced to participate -- or not participate -- in a religious activity as a condition of employment.

[redshifter]

I sure hope if any company that is 'requiring' some sort of religious faith for one to be considered for employment gets their rears sued off, unless religious faith is a necessary part of the job in question; e.g. pastor, instructor at a religious school, etc. Except for a few exceptions, this practice seems highly discriminatory to me.

[kleindoofy]

If I'm informed correctly, section 703(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it unlawful for an employer to

fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions or privileges or employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

I fail to read any ambiguity into that passage of federal law.

[edit] Oops, Swift was true to his handle.

[PetersCreek]

In addition to being a violation of federal law, the State of Colorado bars employment discrimination on the basis of religion as well, according to:
Advisory Bulletins and Resource Guide (http://www.coworkforce.com/lab/AB.pdf) from the Colorado Department of Labor & Employment.

I've interviewed prospective employees in the private sector and that's one of the things you don't even hint at during the hiring process...unless you like defending yourself against accusations of discrimination. I find the practices mentioned in the OP to be shockingly...um...indiscrete, to put it mildly.

[kleindoofy]

Further reading has shown me that the rights cited above only apply to employers with fifteen or more employees.

I guess that means that small businesses can get away with being despicable bigots, at least according to federal law. :mad:

<comments removed>

[edit:]
Ok, let me re-word that. What if a devote Christian were denied a position *because* of his faith? I doubt that would be accepted without protest.

[geonuc]

The law carves out exceptions for those jobs where religion, gender or national identification is reasonably part of the job qualification. Religion-funded/owned/controlled schools are also granted some exception.

[PetersCreek]

As Moose warned, keep the focus on employment law and off of any particular relgion. There is no need for inflammatory comments.

[Buttercup]

I dunno. :(

A former friend in Michigan said sometimes employers there would inquire about the amount of $$$ in one's savings and checking accounts! :mad:

The only exception to "religious requirements" would be if one were trying for a job in/for a religious bookstore/supplier [or school, etc.]. In that event I could understand they [whomever] preferring to hire "a true believer."

But if it's "just a regular job"...it's no one's business.

[samkent]

Ahh but if you leave that line on the application blank, I'll bet you get put at the bottom of the interview list.

[PetersCreek]

geonuc—such exceptions went through my mind but since I'm not a lawyer and don't play one on television, I wasn't sure if such exemptions applied at the organizational level or if they were only applied to the particular position. For instance, such an exemption makes sense for clergy but I can't envision how a legal position like the OP described would have a reasonable requirement for a particular faith.

[Swift]

A former friend in Michigan said sometimes employers there would inquire about the amount of $$$ in one's savings and checking accounts! :mad:

I'm not defending it, but it is quite common to do a credit check of applicants. I do not believe it is illegal either.

[Damburger]

Why would you want to work for such a control-freak employer anyway? You should walk out of the interview the moment they dare ask such a question.

[Fazor]

... but I can't envision how a legal position like the OP described would have a reasonable requirement for a particular faith.
:doh: When I read the OP, I read 'legal' as in, anything not illegal. :) Yes, in that type of work, I have a hard time picturing how religous belief could be an allowed part of the hiring process.

[Buttercup]

Anyway the only part where I lied on the application was the religious section. I'd like to consider that hiring an atheist would lend to their diversity

Sorry to say, they are very likely not keen on "diversity" [difference/disagreement].

nor would I be inclined to try and sway them from their own beliefs.

Likely they a] wouldn't trust that you wouldn't and b] wouldn't return the favor. If they're already this indirectly intrusive...

I do wish you the best in your job search, am sorry you're currently unemployed.

[Studioguy]

An employer shouldn't be restricted in who they choose to hire. If I was asked about my personal finances while interviewing for a job, I'd probably tell them it's none of their business...therefore I probably wouldn't get the job. Why would that mean I can sue that company? Isn't it their business whether they want to hire someone who will disclose personal finance information to an interviewer or not?

I'd be interested to know what sort of business this was that the OP was interviewing with. I know Colorado has a LOT of faith-based businesses, so perhaps it was one of those? I interviewed for a job with a famous radio host/financial councilor a few months ago and they were very open about it being a Christian organization and that my family and church affiliation would be scrutinized. I knew all that going in, so it wasn't a shock or surprise. I didn't get the job, but that was more due to my complete lack of qualifications. ;)

[Swift]

An employer shouldn't be restricted in who they choose to hire.
If they base their hiring based upon gender, race, age, religion, and several other factors, they are violating US law. Personally, I think that's a good law.

[PetersCreek]

:doh: When I read the OP, I read 'legal' as in, anything not illegal. :) Yes, in that type of work, I have a hard time picturing how religous belief could be an allowed part of the hiring process.

:doh: I read it as legal work (such as paralegal) rather than legal work.

[EricM407]

I think it has to depend on how much your religious beliefs are necessary for the particular job. I'm basing this 90% on pulling that out of my rear, and 10% on an article I vaguely remember about a teacher at a Catholic school.

That situation, it's certainly understandable that you wouldn't want an Islamic teacher teaching at your Catholic school, same was you wouldn't want a Catholic teaching at your Islamic school.


Well, the school probably wouldn't want somebody teaching something that was contrary to the school's religious doctrine. If we're talking about a math teacher, I don't see why their religion would be a factor. Math is math. If you don't want a Muslim teaching math just because they're a Muslim, that's plain old bigotry, isn't it?

My wife teaches at a Catholic school, and I can tell you that many Catholic schools have many teachers who aren't Catholic or even Christian. And no, they didn't have to lie about it to get hired.

[Fazor]

I'm guessing you're right PetersCreek ... I've just been having one of those days where I barely know where I am half the time. I mean, maybe he meant it the way I took it, but it does seem odd to specify that you're not looking for illegal work. Particularly because I don't imagine Chop-shops, dealers, or e-mail fraudsters hold open interviews for new-hires.

[chrissy]

I will endeavor to treat it as gently as possible.

Since I've recently joined the ranks of the unemployed I've been looking for work. Any kinds of legal work. I've encountered one or two employers in my area that require me to be Christian (they don't say it outright, they ask about 'your personal relationship with Jesus Christ) and give a statement of faith in addition to whatever church I attend.

Is this legal? How is any different from someone saying "Only white candidates will be considered"?

Anyway the only part where I lied on the application was the religious section. I'd like to consider that hiring an atheist would lend to their diversity nor would I be inclined to try and sway them from their own beliefs.

I can understand your frustration in what is asked from you, but you haven't stated what jobs you have applied for for them to request your religious beliefs?

[Fazor]

Well, the school probably wouldn't want somebody teaching something that was contrary to the school's religious doctrine. If we're talking about a math teacher, I don't see why their religion would be a factor. Math is math. If you don't want a Muslim teaching math just because they're a Muslim, that's plain old bigotry, isn't it?
Many religious schools incorporate thier respective religion into all their subjects, though. For instance, a [x-religion] science teacher is going to teach both science, and how that works into the scheme of [x-religion]. Thus, you'd probably want someone who believes in [x-religion].

I don't personally see a big problem with that. Now, if I'm a gardener and a member of [x-religion], then can I say I'm only going to hire you if you're [x-religion]? If it's as simple as that, then I'd say no, that should be illegal.

But what happens then, when my [x-religion] is part of my business identity? Say [x-religion] includes the belief that certian arraingments of certian plants are divine, and thus the lawn service is catered specifically to [x-religion]. Then, wouldn't it follow that if I'm advertising that we're [x-religion] gardening services, my employees should be [x-religion] aswell?

It's can be a tricky thing.


PS
I think I've decided that if I do ever start a band, I'm calling it [x-religion]. :)

[dodecahedron]

That situation, it's certainly understandable that you wouldn't want an Islamic teacher teaching at your Catholic school, same was you wouldn't want a Catholic teaching at your Islamic school.

I'm not there to proselytize, just work. If I was going to teach math at a Muslim school I don't see where Allah fits into that kind of equation. They want me to be a janitor, fine, I'll clean up and do the best darned job and keep my mouth shut.

I can understand your frustration in what is asked from you, but you haven't stated what jobs you have applied for for them to request your religious beliefs?

Field service rep, kinda like a social worker, for some Christian charity. I'm desperate and looking for anything and trying all possible leads. Any job can be my job. The other one was for an administrative assistant at Focus on the Family.

The only exception to "religious requirements" would be if one were trying for a job in/for a religious bookstore/supplier [or school, etc.]. In that event I could understand they [whomever] preferring to hire "a true believer."

I know this is probably an aspect of Godwin's law but replace "believer" and "religious" with race and skin color and reread your comment.
I'm not crying oppression, I don't care what people think of me as an atheist because I don't get in their face like Dawkins or Penn Jillette but it seems so gosh darned backwards and like it's skating along the very edge of what would be considered acceptable by the Department of Labor and I do sincerely agree they'd put my app at the bottom if I said I wasn't a Christian.

[Fazor]

I'm not there to proselytize, just work. If I was going to teach math at a Muslim school I don't see where Allah fits into that kind of equation. They want me to be a janitor, fine, I'll clean up and do the best darned job and keep my mouth shut.

Of course, and you're certianly entitled to that opinion. It's mine aswell. But the fact remains that if the school wants to be religious in all aspects of it's teachings, that should be allowed (solong as it's a school who's enrollment is voluntary). If you, as a math teacher, aren't willing to incorperate that wish into your teachings, you teach somewhere else.

[LaurelHS]

A former friend in Michigan said sometimes employers there would inquire about the amount of $$$ in one's savings and checking accounts! :mad:

I once filled out a job application that asked for my weight. The job didn't require a uniform or involve arduous physical labour, so I have no idea why they needed to know. :confused:

[Fazor]

I once filled out a job application that asked for my weight. The job didn't require a uniform or involve arduous physical labour, so I have no idea why they needed to know. :confused:

Health insurance.

[LaurelHS]

Oh. I've never been asked that on any other applications so I didn't know.

[geonuc]

geonuc—such exceptions went through my mind but since I'm not a lawyer and don't play one on television, I wasn't sure if such exemptions applied at the organizational level or if they were only applied to the particular position. For instance, such an exemption makes sense for clergy but I can't envision how a legal position like the OP described would have a reasonable requirement for a particular faith.
I am a lawyer, but I don't play one on TV. I don't know. I speculate that the courts are deferential to religious organizations in their interpretation of the law. And that law is quite subject to interpretation, don't you think?

[geonuc]

I can understand your frustration in what is asked from you, but you haven't stated what jobs you have applied for for them to request your religious beliefs?
Legal work. Although that makes me wonder why the question is being asked on an science-based internet forum rather than a legal forum.

[SeanF]

Legal work. Although that makes me wonder why the question is being asked on an science-based internet forum rather than a legal forum.
Not quite. :)

Field service rep, kinda like a social worker, for some Christian charity. I'm desperate and looking for anything and trying all possible leads. Any job can be my job. The other one was for an administrative assistant at Focus on the Family.
The original 1964 Civil Rights Act excepted religious organizations in hiring "ministerial" employees - and I certainly think a social worker would qualify under that. Regardless, the exception was expanded in the early 70s to include all employees of religious organizations. Both the original and expanded exceptions have been upheld in numerous court cases.

So, Dodecahedron, both of the organizations you applied with are well within their legal rights to not hire you if you're not a member of their respective religions.

[geonuc]

Not quite. :)
Oops. His OP said "any kind of legal work". I misread that, obviously. :doh:

And, without looking into it further, I agree with your interpretation of the law.

[chrissy]

Oops. His OP said "any kind of legal work". I misread that, obviously. :doh:

And, without looking into it further, I agree with your interpretation of the law.

My bold. :D

It is also like that when you apply for a job in a womans refuge, you have to be female, they are exempt from the sex discrimination act 1975.

Legal exceptions to the act

Genuine occupational qualification

Exceptions occur where being a man or a woman is a 'genuine occupational qualification' for a job. For example, a female care assistant at a women's refuge is an exception for reasons of decency or privacy, and an actor could be an exception for reasons of authenticity.
So SeanF is correct in what he says.

[geonuc]

My bold. :D
Moderator abuse!! ;)

[Buttercup]

I know this is probably an aspect of Godwin's law but replace "believer" and "religious" with race and skin color and reread your comment.

I know. :rolleyes:

I'm not justifying/condoning, I was simply trying to point out THEIR attitude.

The context of my comment should have been clear.

[geonuc]

I know this is probably an aspect of Godwin's law but replace "believer" and "religious" with race and skin color and reread your comment.
That would of course alter the legal question considerably.

[Sam5]

I will endeavor to treat it as gently as possible.

What type of companies did you apply at?

[Sam5]

Field service rep, kinda like a social worker, for some Christian charity.

Ok, I just found your answer. There's your trouble right there. Try applying for a job as a field service rep at some secular company or humanistic charity.

[Bearded One]

Times are adding an additional twist to these issues. Employee's are increasingly using their religious beliefs to justify non-performance in jobs. For example, pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions, teachers refusing to teach evolution and doctors and nurses refusing to provide complete counseling services concerning reproductive health. It's still somewhat open on how to handle such cases. Can a pharmacy refuse to hire a fundamentalist religious pharmacist because there would only be one on duty and they have a legal requirement to dispense all prescriptions?

Generally, you are protected from religious discrimination as long as your beliefs, or lack of, will not interfere with the performance of your duties. The above cases illustrate situations where the employee's beliefs directly affect their ability to do the job.

[kleindoofy]

Hmmm, so if I were to declare White Supremacy as my religion, I could turn the clock back >40 years, at least in my company or organisation? :wall:

[Chuck]

If a supermarket is operating in a small, highly religious town and the population has a history of boycotting businesses that hire known atheists, should the supermarket be required to go out of business rather that refuse to hire a known atheist? The law requires businesses to be fair but does not restrict the shopping choices of its customers.

[tdvance]

I will endeavor to treat it as gently as possible.

Since I've recently joined the ranks of the unemployed I've been looking for work. Any kinds of legal work. I've encountered one or two employers in my area that require me to be Christian (they don't say it outright, they ask about 'your personal relationship with Jesus Christ) and give a statement of faith in addition to whatever church I attend.

Is this legal? How is any different from someone saying "Only white candidates will be considered"?

Anyway the only part where I lied on the application was the religious section. I'd like to consider that hiring an atheist would lend to their diversity nor would I be inclined to try and sway them from their own beliefs.

I'm sure it depends on the job, but yeah, if you want to work for a church for example, you almost surely have to have the religion of the church. "preaching to the choir" isn't just an empty expression, after all!

[tdvance]

I'm not there to proselytize, just work. If I was going to teach math at a Muslim school I don't see where Allah fits into that kind of equation. They want me to be a janitor, fine, I'll clean up and do the best darned job and keep my mouth shut.



Field service rep, kinda like a social worker, for some Christian charity. I'm desperate and looking for anything and trying all possible leads. Any job can be my job. The other one was for an administrative assistant at Focus on the Family.



I know this is probably an aspect of Godwin's law but replace "believer" and "religious" with race and skin color and reread your comment.
I'm not crying oppression, I don't care what people think of me as an atheist because I don't get in their face like Dawkins or Penn Jillette but it seems so gosh darned backwards and like it's skating along the very edge of what would be considered acceptable by the Department of Labor and I do sincerely agree they'd put my app at the bottom if I said I wasn't a Christian.


I don't know the specific situation--and it might be very well illegal. My advice would be, if being religious is expected and you are not religious, you'd not be happy there very long. The best bet is to look elsewhere--yeah, I know, the economy is bad, but there are always alternatives (assuming you are willing to, for example, relocate--in some towns there may be no alternatives--e.g. I'd have a hard time being a mathematician in Moorefield, WV, as much as I love the town, so I live in the DC area.).

[Ara Pacis]

Get out of flyover country and move somewhere with a passing familiarity with the twenty-first century.

[EricM407]

If a supermarket is operating in a small, highly religious town and the population has a history of boycotting businesses that hire known atheists, should the supermarket be required to go out of business rather that refuse to hire a known atheist?

I'm not sure atheism is a protected class, since the absence of religion isn't necessarily a religion. If they refused to hire a [member of X religion], then the law is pretty clear. They're a supermarket, not a religious organization.

I don't think the theory that they'd be forced out of business is backed up by historical experience. Segregationists tried this argument, for example, by saying that white customers would shun any business that hired blacks. It didn't happen that way. That sort of thing is probably more likely to happen in the absence of anti-discrimination laws, if you think about it.

[SeanF]

Hmmm, so if I were to declare White Supremacy as my religion, I could turn the clock back >40 years, at least in my company or organisation? :wall:
I think it's been pretty much established that you can't get First Amendment religious protection by simply declaring any belief you want a "religion." Besides, it's theoretically possible for a non-white person to be a white supremacist, so you wouldn't be able to discriminate based on race by doing that anyway. :)

Get out of flyover country and move somewhere with a passing familiarity with the twenty-first century.
I do hope you're being sarcastic.

[Doodler]

A former friend in Michigan said sometimes employers there would inquire about the amount of $$$ in one's savings and checking accounts! :mad:


Security reasons. How likely is someone to sell sensitive info if they're in financial straits.

Police departments are hardcore about it.

[Cougar]

In addition to being a violation of federal law, the State of Colorado bars employment discrimination on the basis of religion as well....

Unfortunately, as far as I know anyway, this is very hard to prove in a court of law. Anecdotal evidence is likely not to clear the hurdle.

[Francisco]

Get out of flyover country and move somewhere with a passing familiarity with the twenty-first century.

I've lived in flyover areas on multiple occasions. The places where I lived seemed pretty modern. Abandon your regional bigotry and join us in the twenty-first century.

[One Skunk Todd]

Field service rep, kinda like a social worker, for some Christian charity. I'm desperate and looking for anything and trying all possible leads. Any job can be my job. The other one was for an administrative assistant at Focus on the Family.

Ugh. I'm sorry to hear that. I wish I could offer more than good thoughts. Good luck on finding something, hopefully not in places like you mentioned.

[Fazor]

Police departments are hardcore about it.
Yes, yes they are. I can only imagine FBI/CIA level.

[Studioguy]

I find it odd that the OP could possibly find any issue with the hiring practices of the organizations described. "Focus" is a Christian foundation. They hold prayer meetings with their staff and actively work outside their confines to help other churches deliver a message. If they hired an atheist for any position in their organization, they would be exposed to lawsuit over their active religious practices during the work day, accused of forcing it on an unwilling employee.

A Christian based charity sending people into the field for any sort of social work is always going to expect their representative to be a believer in the faith. The government can't support religion as such, so how would you feel if you were a person in need of a social worker and the government person pulled out a Bible? That's probably how you would feel if a Christian charity's representative showed up and refused to pray with you because they are a non-believer.

It's a slippery slope to protect the rights of a person to get a job while also allowing companies and organizations the freedom to choose their own makeup.

[Buttercup]

Security reasons. How likely is someone to sell sensitive info if they're in financial straits.

Police departments are hardcore about it.

Oh. :surprised

My ex-friend was trying for a job as a policeman [among others], but neglected to make that connection. :rolleyes:

Studioguy: It's a slippery slope to protect the rights of a person to get a job while also allowing companies and organizations the freedom to choose their own makeup.

Yep. :-\

[closetgeek]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
If a supermarket is operating in a small, highly religious town and the population has a history of boycotting businesses that hire known atheists, should the supermarket be required to go out of business rather that refuse to hire a known atheist?

I'm not sure atheism is a protected class, since the absence of religion isn't necessarily a religion. If they refused to hire a [member of X religion], then the law is pretty clear. They're a supermarket, not a religious organization.

Chuck, known atheist makes it sound criminal, like someone would have to register like a sex offender. If you are running a supermarket and looking for a cashier, religious affiliation should not be a question on the application. Now I would fire on the spot, any of my employees, theist, atheist, or other, picking spiritual debates with my customers because it's not the time or the place. That's the only logical way a customer would know what their beliefs are.

Eric, if I remember correctly, from my study of hate crimes, everyone is considered a protected class. A lack there-of is still considered religious affiliation. It is against the law to descriminate against anyone based on religion (barring the exceptions already covered).

[Nick Theodorakis]

I've lived in flyover areas on multiple occasions. The places where I lived seemed pretty modern. Abandon your regional bigotry and join us in the twenty-first century.

I'll second that. Geographic snobbery might be one of the last few remaining "acceptable" bigotries.

Right now my kids in Flyover Public High School are learning about evolution in biology class, without any hesitation or trace of religious indictrination. This same Flyover School also offers the acclaimed International Baccalaureate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Baccalaureate) program.

Nick

[PetersCreek]

Get out of flyover country and move somewhere with a passing familiarity with the twenty-first century.

I agree with others who have spoken up about this comment. It was unnecessary and insulting to those who live in so-called flyover country, myself included. The overall tone of this thread has been pretty good so far but if some people can't resist taking potshots at classes/groups of folks, this thread is heading for a lockdown.

[geonuc]

Heh. I have no comment on the comment, but I do have a comment on the notion that Peters Creek, Alaska meets the definition of "flyover country". I don't think the term was meant for those flying from Anchorage to Fairbanks over Denali National Park. ;)

ETA: Which is to say - I'd love to live in Peters Creek!

[Buttercup]

Some of the nicest people I've known/met are from "flyover country"...I should know, I'm one of them. :) And I'd move back in a heartbeat if my hubby were for it.

[Francisco]

Heh. I have no comment on the comment, but I do have a comment on the notion that Peters Creek, Alaska meets the definition of "flyover country". I don't think the term was meant for those flying from Anchorage to Fairbanks over Denali National Park. ;)

I'm not sure where exactly Peters Creek is, but if you fly from North America to East Asia, you could end up passing not too far away.

ETA: Which is to say - I'd love to live in Peters Creek!

Never been to Peters Creek (or even heard of it before), but I love Alaska!

[PetersCreek]

Heh. I have no comment on the comment, but I do have a comment on the notion that Peters Creek, Alaska meets the definition of "flyover country".

Well, to be accurate, there are two places named Peters Creek, Alaska. Entering the name in Google Maps (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Peters+Creek,+AK&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=52.947994,78.046875&ie=UTF8&ll=62.363627,-150.91095&spn=0.979736,2.438965&z=9&iwloc=addr) takes you to a place due west of Talkeetna. I live in another community 22 miles northeast of downtown Anchorage but still within the Municipality. By Alaskan standards the former would be flyover country while the latter would not...not really...even though we're small enough not to have our own post office.

But the state as a whole gets a lot of the same attitude that Lower 48 flyover country gets. I suppose it has something to do with our remoteness, our youth (we turned 50 last month), and/or the fact that the state's entire population barely tallies up to a medium size city. Some folks seem to think those traits somehow translate to ignorance, naïveté, and worse.

[Swift]

...our youth (we turned 50 last month),
And you know, you (the State of Alaska) don't look a day over 40! Must be all that fresh air. :p

[kleindoofy]

If the geography lesson is over, can we get back to the important things in life, like bigotry and hate? :whistle:

[geonuc]

Well, to be accurate, there are two places named Peters Creek, Alaska. Entering the name in Google Maps (http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Peters+Creek,+AK&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=52.947994,78.046875&ie=UTF8&ll=62.363627,-150.91095&spn=0.979736,2.438965&z=9&iwloc=addr) takes you to a place due west of Talkeetna. I live in another community 22 miles northeast of downtown Anchorage but still within the Municipality.
Google maps is where I went, for sure.

So, you don't live a couple of grizzly bear charges from Denali? Now I'm totally disappointed. ;)

[PetersCreek]

So, you don't live a couple of grizzly bear charges from Denali? Now I'm totally disappointed. ;)

No, but on a clear day, Denali is still quite a sight from 130 miles away.

If the geography lesson is over, can we get back to the important things in life, like bigotry and hate? :whistle:

I believe I addressed a little of that in the last sentence of my post. ;)
But you're right, it doesn't have anything to do with employment discrimination...not yet, anyway. Carry on.

[Swift]

If the geography lesson is over, can we get back to the important things in life, like bigotry and hate? :whistle:
Reminds me of the following quote by Tom Lehrer:
I know that there are people who do not love their fellow man, and I hate people like that! ;)

[Doodler]

Yes, yes they are. I can only imagine FBI/CIA level.


Background checks and polygraphs. Of course, this depends entirely on the level of clearance required.

[crosscountry]

I sure hope if any company that is 'requiring' some sort of religious faith for one to be considered for employment gets their rears sued off, unless religious faith is a necessary part of the job in question; e.g. pastor, instructor at a religious school, etc. Except for a few exceptions, this practice seems highly discriminatory to me.



Something about discrimination based on Creed. I think it's wrong.

[tdvance]

Yes, yes they are. I can only imagine FBI/CIA level.

There, they worry also about you having too much money or assets, and no explanation of how you acquired them.

[Sam5]

There, they worry also about you having too much money or assets, and no explanation of how you acquired them.

Hey, just tell them that's none of their business. Tell them that it's your Creed to keep such personal things to yourself.

[tdvance]

ah, but if you do that, you don't get a clearance. If you don't have a clearance, you're only qualified for a very small number of positions. And it doesn't break the law....it IS the law!!!

[RalofTyr]

When a prospective employer asks me about my savings, I get kind of worried, especially in commission only jobs.

Being Christian in a Christian charity organization is not a violation of the EEOC Act.

[Ara Pacis]

What makes y'all think I don't live in flyover country myself? Your provincial assumptions and ad homs aside, if someone wants a job, it behooves them to go where they are, which is less likely to be in the hinterland.

[parallaxicality]

What gets me is, what happens if you're Jewish? Or Hindu? Or, Heaven forfend, Muslim? do they make special dispensations if you believe in a god, rather than their God?

[geonuc]

What gets me is, what happens if you're Jewish? Or Hindu? Or, Heaven forfend, Muslim? do they make special dispensations if you believe in a god, rather than their God?
Who do you mean by 'they' and 'their'?

[parallaxicality]

I mean the people placing the ad.

[geonuc]

I mean the people placing the ad.
OK. I guess I don't understand why it 'gets' you that a christian organization would want to hire only christians to do their social work, and not, say, muslims.

[Buttercup]

Speaking of discrimination and bigotry [quoting words]...does the "Hooters" franchise fall into that category? I mean particularly as their waitresses go? Their waitresses are under 30 and slim/curvaceous.

I've wondered for years how "Hooters" gets away with such blatant discriminatory hiring. There won't be any over-40 or plus-sized waitresses there [nor waiters come to think of it], not even in this tough economy.

Of course they've gotten away with this super-discriminatory hiring for years, and it'll no doubt continue. If it were any other situation, it wouldn't happen.

[jokergirl]

Hooters have been picketed by feminist groups for a long time; however not even the women working in them seem to take them seriously.

;)

[SeanF]

What makes y'all think I don't live in flyover country myself?
I made no assumptions about where you live, because it doesn't matter. That's the equivalent of a "but some of my best friends are [whatever]" defense.

Your provincial assumptions and ad homs aside, if someone wants a job, it behooves them to go where they are, which is less likely to be in the hinterland.
You're complaining about someone else's ad homs? (And then you go and do it again - why do you presume that unemployment is higher in "the hinterland" than in "the foreland"? Is that a provincial assumption?)

Speaking of discrimination and bigotry [quoting words]...does the "Hooters" franchise fall into that category? I mean particularly as their waitresses go? Their waitresses are under 30 and slim/curvaceous.

I've wondered for years how "Hooters" gets away with such blatant discriminatory hiring. There won't be any over-40 or plus-sized waitresses there [nor waiters come to think of it], not even in this tough economy.

Of course they've gotten away with this super-discriminatory hiring for years, and it'll no doubt continue. If it were any other situation, it wouldn't happen.
Hooters settled a lawsuit about a decade ago, and a guy in Texas just filed suit against them just last month.

[Buttercup]

Hooters have been picketed by feminist groups for a long time; however not even the women working in them seem to take them seriously.

True.

However, it's the principle of the matter. Imagine a religion-themed restaurant franchise where only true believers are hired and must wear a specific uniform which emphasizes their religion, etc.

There'd be immediate and strident opposition.

Ah, but [the s-word] sells... And that's how Hooter's gets away with it. :rolleyes:

[Euniculus]

Can a pharmacy refuse to hire a fundamentalist religious pharmacist because there would only be one on duty and they have a legal requirement to dispense all prescriptions?



Yes, a pharmacy can refuse to hire someone who won't dispense certain drugs for religious regions, if dispensing such meds is a job function. Most chain stores require it. Independent stores can choose whether or not to stock these medications.

Also, pharmacists do not have a legal requirement to fill every prescription. Legally, I can refuse to fill any prescription for any reason.

[closetgeek]

Speaking of discrimination and bigotry [quoting words]...does the "Hooters" franchise fall into that category? I mean particularly as their waitresses go? Their waitresses are under 30 and slim/curvaceous.

I've wondered for years how "Hooters" gets away with such blatant discriminatory hiring. There won't be any over-40 or plus-sized waitresses there [nor waiters come to think of it], not even in this tough economy.

Of course they've gotten away with this super-discriminatory hiring for years, and it'll no doubt continue. If it were any other situation, it wouldn't happen.

I remember a few years back, two men sued to work at Hooter's, and won. Neither one were complimented by spandex. I've only been to Hooter's once and it was on a Tuesday afternoon. My experience tells me that they work sort of similar to a gentlemen's club where they schedule the eye candy for the more busy hours and the rest get scheduled on Tuesday afternoons. From my own personal point of view, it's not so much what they are getting away with, by way of discrimination but who's actually applying. There are some cage rattlers but the servers there make money on their appearance. Other than the few that are a bit delusional about how they look in spandex, I am guessing that the majority that apply there, do so because they are confident enough to wear the standard uniform.

[Buttercup]

Neither one were complimented by spandex...Other than the few that are a bit delusional about how they look in spandex

Lol! :)

I think another point to make in this discussion is it's not just Christians [as religion goes] who can be exclusive and discriminatory. I've been surprised at how highly unpleasant conservative folks of a stereotypically peaceful/enlightened religion can be [and no, I'm not referring to the Crescent/Star].

[SeanF]

Imagine a religion-themed restaurant franchise where only true believers are hired and must wear a specific uniform which emphasizes their religion, etc.
I'm pretty sure there are, in fact, kosher restaurants that restrict their kitchen staff to Jews.

There'd be immediate and strident opposition.
Haven't seen it. :)

[Swift]

I'm pretty sure there are, in fact, kosher restaurants that restrict their kitchen staff to Jews.

Maybe, I'm not sure. I don't believe that kosher dietary laws require the preparers to be Jewish, just that they follow the guidelines. I know of several kosher Chinese restaurants in the greater Cleveland area alone. I don't know, but I suspect that at least some of their staff is not Jewish. ;)

[Argos]

I prefer to work with people who abide by the Scientific Method, if you know what I mean. Those would have far greater chances with me.

[Sam5]

I prefer to work with people who abide by the Scientific Method, if you know what I mean. Those would have far greater chances with me.

Right, you mean you prefer to work with atheists.

[SeanF]

Maybe, I'm not sure. I don't believe that kosher dietary laws require the preparers to be Jewish, just that they follow the guidelines. I know of several kosher Chinese restaurants in the greater Cleveland area alone. I don't know, but I suspect that at least some of their staff is not Jewish. ;)
Well, I didn't say they all were, nor that kosher laws required them to be, just that I was pretty sure there were some. I'll admit I don't know of any specific examples, though, so I could certainly be wrong.

That being said, I do wonder if there'd be "immediate and strident opposition" in this case. :)

[Gillianren]

Yes, a pharmacy can refuse to hire someone who won't dispense certain drugs for religious regions, if dispensing such meds is a job function. Most chain stores require it. Independent stores can choose whether or not to stock these medications.

Also, pharmacists do not have a legal requirement to fill every prescription. Legally, I can refuse to fill any prescription for any reason.

I don't know if we passed it or not--I heard we had, then I heard we hadn't--but in Washington, we are/were working on a law that would, in fact, obligate pharmacists to dispense Plan B. There were parts of the state where you simply couldn't get the stuff without driving an hour or more, because pharmacists were refusing to fill it. I imagine that it will get challenged to the state Supreme Court on Constitutional grounds, but I haven't heard anything about that yet. Then again, I don't read the local paper; it isn't very good.

[Euniculus]

I don't know if we passed it or not--I heard we had, then I heard we hadn't--but in Washington, we are/were working on a law that would, in fact, obligate pharmacists to dispense Plan B. There were parts of the state where you simply couldn't get the stuff without driving an hour or more, because pharmacists were refusing to fill it. I imagine that it will get challenged to the state Supreme Court on Constitutional grounds, but I haven't heard anything about that yet. Then again, I don't read the local paper; it isn't very good.


I live in GA and the law allows me to refuse to fill any prescription for any reason. Refusing to fill a script based on moral principles is an extension of this right, at least this how the Georgia Board of Pharmacy interprets it.

Different pharmacies have different policies regarding the dispensing of Plan B. Most, as a condition of employment, require a pharmacist to fill for it, assuming there are no patient safety issues. A pharmacist with a moral objection has the choice to seek employment with a different pharmacy.

In addition, pharmacists are generally the last safety check before medication is dispensed. If a physician prescribes a contraindicated medication or wrong dosage, it is up to me to fix it. A call to the physician is usually sufficient. On the rare occasion when a doctor lets ego get in the way of patient safety, I utilize my right to refuse. Thankfully, it is a very rare occurence.

I cannot be bullied to fill anything because if something goes wrong, and a case ends up in court, my license is the one at risk.

[Gillianren]

In addition, pharmacists are generally the last safety check before medication is dispensed. If a physician prescribes a contraindicated medication or wrong dosage, it is up to me to fix it. A call to the physician is usually sufficient. On the rare occasion when a doctor lets ego get in the way of patient safety, I utilize my right to refuse. Thankfully, it is a very rare occurence.

Believe me, I'm grateful for that, speaking as someone on multiple meds myself. (Yay, alliteration!) I'm bipolar, which makes antidepressants sketchy for me to take, and I had a sleep doctor prescribe me one as a sleep aid. I wish someone had realized what a bad idea that was.

[Bearded One]

Yes, a pharmacy can refuse to hire someone who won't dispense certain drugs for religious regions, if dispensing such meds is a job function. Most chain stores require it. Independent stores can choose whether or not to stock these medications.

Also, pharmacists do not have a legal requirement to fill every prescription. Legally, I can refuse to fill any prescription for any reason.That's the way it used to be but recently the issue has come up again. One of Bush's last days orders was to allow medical workers to refuse to provide treatment/medicines that they have religious objections to. It's all a bit up in the air right now.

One of the few things I liked about the now ex-Governor of Illinois is he did sign an order requiring pharmacies to provide medicine regardless of their religious views. With Bush's executive order in force I'm not sure if that is still effective though.

[geonuc]

That's the way it used to be but recently the issue has come up again. One of Bush's last days orders was to allow medical workers to refuse to provide treatment/medicines that they have religious objections to. It's all a bit up in the air right now.
I was under the impression that such things are controlled largely by state law. Is that not so?

[Bearded One]

I was under the impression that such things are controlled largely by state law. Is that not so?Federal trumps state. I believe it was generally left up to the states, but if a law is passed at the federal level then that law takes precedence.
Abortion is an example, before Roe vs Wade there was a plethora of different state laws concerning abortion. Roe vs Wade invalidated many of them.

[geonuc]

Federal trumps state. I believe it was generally left up to the states, but if a law is passed at the federal level then that law takes precedence.
Abortion is an example, before Roe vs Wade there was a plethora of different state laws concerning abortion. Roe vs Wade invalidated many of them.
I guess I must have missed that in law school. What federal law is that trumps Euniculus's state law?

[Bearded One]

I guess I must have missed that in law school. What federal law is that trumps Euniculus's state law?Perhaps you missed the "if" in my post?

I'm not sure what force Bush's executive order has regarding state laws. It's not a "law" in that it did not originate in the legislative branch. They seem to have the force of law though.

[tdvance]

Speaking of discrimination and bigotry [quoting words]...does the "Hooters" franchise fall into that category? I mean particularly as their waitresses go? Their waitresses are under 30 and slim/curvaceous.

I've wondered for years how "Hooters" gets away with such blatant discriminatory hiring. There won't be any over-40 or plus-sized waitresses there [nor waiters come to think of it], not even in this tough economy.

Of course they've gotten away with this super-discriminatory hiring for years, and it'll no doubt continue. If it were any other situation, it wouldn't happen.

A man once tried to sue Hooters for not hiring him as a waitress. I didn't hear what happened, just radio announcers giving the story for laughs.

[Euniculus]

I was under the impression that such things are controlled largely by state law. Is that not so?

Pharmacy law is generally state law. Obviously federal does trump state, but to my knowledge, there's no federal policy on this matter.

The important thing to me is I can refuse to fill for any reason. This is necessary for patient safety and for legally covering my butt.

[Solfe]

I worked for a employer who balanced his workforce by religion, for purely scheduling reasons. He wanted to be open as many days as possible during the year. Your days of observance were off limits for work, you wouldn't even be asked to work. He paid overtime starting on Friday evening and Saturdays and Sundays because somebody observed those days.

The whole thing worked nicely from an employee perspective, but he ultimately went out of business. I wasn't there at the end, but I suspect that he didn't change a thing as his business went bust, which is really sad.

The asking isn't the bad part, what you do with the info is where you are going to have your trouble.

[Ara Pacis]

I made no assumptions about where you live, because it doesn't matter. That's the equivalent of a "but some of my best friends are [whatever]" defense.I think it does matter. It's more like being able to say word because you are a word. Do you really want to get into an argument with me over this?

Oh, and I wasn't pointing you out. I was responding to posts here (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/84557-probably-touchy-subject-2.html#post1431459) by Francisco implying I'm a bigot, here (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/84557-probably-touchy-subject-2.html#post1431502) by Nick Theodorakis implying I'm a bigot, and here (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/84557-probably-touchy-subject-2.html#post1431523) by PetersCreek implying I'm taking potshots.

You're complaining about someone else's ad homs? (And then you go and do it again - why do you presume that unemployment is higher in "the hinterland" than in "the foreland"? Is that a provincial assumption?)Yes, I do reserve the right to complain about ad homs. No, I didn't make an ad hom, nor did I make a previous ad hom. You also misinterpreted what I wrote: I spoke of jobs, not unemployment. There is no need for assumptions, provincial or not, since it can be empirically derived.

[geonuc]

Perhaps you missed the "if" in my post?

I'm not sure what force Bush's executive order has regarding state laws. It's not a "law" in that it did not originate in the legislative branch. They seem to have the force of law though.
I saw your if. I was prompting you clarify what you meant, and you did. Thanks.

'Law' comes in many flavors. Executive orders are law in that the president is directing an executive agency to regulate within the bounds prescribed by a legislative act (we hope). The president may also issue executive orders pursuant to constitutional powers. Those too are law.

But, until we know what executive order was issued or what regulations were affected by that order, you'll excuse me if I defer to Euniculus, who probably knows the law of her chosen profession better than either of us.

[SeanF]

I think it does matter. It's more like being able to say word because you are a word. Do you really want to get into an argument with me over this?
Only if you want to. :) It's not a matter of whether you're able to say a particular word. It's a matter of whether being a member of a particular group means making a blanket statement about that group is acceptable.

You also misinterpreted what I wrote: I spoke of jobs, not unemployment. There is no need for assumptions, provincial or not, since it can be empirically derived.
Jobs, not unemployment?

So, if - for example - community A has 1,000,000 jobs and 1,500,000 potential workers, whereas community B has 100,000 jobs and 90,000 potential workers, your advice to someone who's looking for a job would be to go to community A because there are more jobs there?

[PetersCreek]

...and here (http://www.bautforum.com/off-topic-babbling/84557-probably-touchy-subject-2.html#post1431523) by PetersCreek implying I'm taking potshots.

I wasn't referring to just your comments but they were certainly covered by my warning. Living in flyover country (or not) does not, on this forum, entitle one to denigrate the people that live there. If you'd stuck to suggesting that people should move where the jobs are, you'd have a legitimate point to argue. But tacking on the implication that people in flyover country don't have a passing familiarity with the 21st century is what prompted my warning. Comments like that are not necessary to the argument and are not in keeping with the rules of this board.

There is also no need to discuss the comment further in this thread. If need be, carry it over to PM, Forum Introductions and Feedback, or contact a moderator.

[Bearded One]

But, until we know what executive order was issued or what regulations were affected by that order, you'll excuse me if I defer to Euniculus, who probably knows the law of her chosen profession better than either of us.I've been trying to find the text of the order and it's current status but haven't been having much luck. To much noise in the data stream. I don't see it listed at the national archives or any other listing of executive orders so I'm wondering if the thing didn't just fall to the side and never got signed. This (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/18/america/18abort.php) site discusses the proposed law I have been referring to but it is from last year

[Euniculus]

I pulled out my federal pharmacy law book and according to it, there's really no rule at the federal level. Granted, the book's copyright is 2006.

Each state sets the rules, and it seems most states either have a conscience clause or no set policies. A few have some sort of rule requiring pharmacists to dispense it.

Bear in mind, the Plan B arguement has spawned a debate over birth control pills too. Some pharms even want to opt out of dispensing any sort of birth control, even non-hormonal options.