• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Isn't this illegal?

ponderingturtle said:
Or much point to a jew being a doctor if all the hospitals are christian.

If the jobs duties are religious then religion should be a requirement, if the persons job is not religious it should still be illegal to discriminate. Say a mega evangelical church hiring a catholic as a janitor.
Click to expand...

Synagogues hire Christian janitors routinely, because someone has to turn the lights on and off on Shabbos, and it's a no-no for Jews.
 
joobz said:
I agree that they can hire anyone they want on religious grounds, but that means that the creation museum is, IN FACT, a religious building and not a science building. It's facade and presentation attempt to give it a look like a scientific museum, which is (in my mind dishonest).

SHouldn't it be clearly labeled that it's a place of religious worship and not a place of scientific education?
Click to expand...

Actually I don't think they make any secret of the fact that it's meant to be a ministry and thus inherently a religious organization. Hell, even Hovind put it right in the title of his sham organization, "Creation Science Evangelism".
 
This was discussed a little earlier, but in this case religion has a bearing on the ability to do the job. They need people to offer information on creationism, if they hired me I would never stop talking **** on their silly "museam."

Their business depends on filling their halls with lizard-brained choir boys (uh oh, Kirk, you better make sure that's not a transitional species).
 
minorwork said:
If the organization received federal funds then maybe part of that funding would demand some accountability.
Click to expand...

You would think, but that's a promise Obama made that he failed to come through on. In the Faith Based Initiatives program, Obama promised he'd reverse Bush's executive order that lets these recipients of federal money to continue discriminatory hiring practices.

One of his people announced that rather than reversing the order, they'll be handled on a case-by-case basis.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
You would think, but that's a promise Obama made that he failed to come through on. In the Faith Based Initiatives program, Obama promised he'd reverse Bush's executive order that lets these recipients of federal money to continue discriminatory hiring practices.

One of his people announced that rather than reversing the order, they'll be handled on a case-by-case basis.
Click to expand...
Yeah. Oh well. I figure if you got a zoo, you need zoo keepers and not carpenters. And a circus needs clowns. Seems like the Creation Museum is just following suit.
 
Last edited:
minorwork said:
Yeah. Oh well. I figure if you got a zoo, you need zoo keepers and not carpenters. And a circus needs clowns. Seems like the Creation Museum is just following suit.
Click to expand...

But why does it matter if their accountant is a creationist? Their tour guides sure, but other staff?
 
ponderingturtle said:
But why does it matter if their accountant is a creationist? Their tour guides sure, but other staff?
Click to expand...
You got me. I'll apply my abduction skills to the problem. :idea:The employers fantasy that creationists' assumed attitude of giving up their will for the greater good makes for trouble free employees over an atheist troublemaker that will cost the employer in excessive debate that he will pursue, or his co-workers' trying to convert him in the work place.

You might have seen in the sky those little birds flying after the big slow bird, all the while dive bombing, pecking, and harassing the slower one. It happens in a diverse work place too. Not to say it can't happen if all are the same order Baptists or whatever. But if all the worker's kids are on the same little league baseball team there is less chance of conflict over baseball at the work place.

I'm no labor expert. There is a sci-fi book called Destination: Void written by Frank Herbert the author of Dune that discusses, in a stylized form, the problems of choosing a team and, of all things, they decided to use clones for a rather proprietary reason.

Wiki said:
The clones have been bred and carefully selected for psychological purposes to reinforce each other, as well as to provide various specialized skills that will give them the best chance of success. The crew includes a chaplain-psychiatrist, Raja Flattery, who knows their real purpose, and that the breakdown of the "OMC"s were planned. He's aware that several ships have gone out before theirs, each one failing. He understands the nature of the test: create a high pressure environment in which brilliance may break through out of necessity, and create in the safety of the void what humans couldn't safely create on Earth.
Click to expand...

And I'll abduct that it must have been studied by NASA, sports teams, and marriage counselors, but certainly not married men.:D

Bachelors know more about women than married men; if they didn't they'd be married too. ~ H.L. Mencken ;)
 
TraneWreck said:
This was discussed a little earlier, but in this case religion has a bearing on the ability to do the job. They need people to offer information on creationism, if they hired me I would never stop talking **** on their silly "museam."

Their business depends on filling their halls with lizard-brained choir boys (uh oh, Kirk, you better make sure that's not a transitional species).
Click to expand...

This wouldn't matter for the religious exception. A RO can discriminate at will, even for non-religious positions.

In Feldstein v. christian science monitor, the CSM refused to hire a reporter for the secular newspaper because he was Jewish. The church won.

In Amos v. Mormon church, Amos was fired as church janitor for not keeping up with his religion. He lost.
 
ponderingturtle said:
But why does it matter if their accountant is a creationist? Their tour guides sure, but other staff?
Click to expand...

If the employer wasn't a religious organization, then it would likely be illegal to select anyone because of their religion. The employer would have to show that people of a certain religion cannot do the job because of their religion, which for most jobs would be hard to do.
 
bpesta22 said:
This wouldn't matter for the religious exception. A RO can discriminate at will, even for non-religious positions.

In Feldstein v. christian science monitor, the CSM refused to hire a reporter for the secular newspaper because he was Jewish. The church won.

In Amos v. Mormon church, Amos was fired as church janitor for not keeping up with his religion. He lost.
Click to expand...

Good to know the religious discrimination is so tolerated.
 
bpesta22 said:
If the employer wasn't a religious organization, then it would likely be illegal to select anyone because of their religion. The employer would have to show that people of a certain religion cannot do the job because of their religion, which for most jobs would be hard to do.
Click to expand...

Good to see employment laws don't apply to religion. Next they need to get premission to ignore OSHA.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Good to see employment laws don't apply to religion. Next they need to get premission to ignore OSHA.
Click to expand...

Well, we can make sure that religion or lack thereof can never be considered, regardless of the organization or mission. Then of course, we can look forward to all of the fundamentalists applying for the JREF and tying up the organization for years in litigation for either failing to hire them or for firing them later -- regardless of the real reason.
 
ponderingturtle said:
But why does it matter if their accountant is a creationist? Their tour guides sure, but other staff?
Click to expand...

I did some temp work at the SBC Annuity Board and they required employees to be Baptists. I guess they didn't vett temp workers though.

NoZed Avenger said:
Well, we can make sure that religion or lack thereof can never be considered, regardless of the organization or mission. Then of course, we can look forward to all of the fundamentalists applying for the JREF and tying up the organization for years in litigation for either failing to hire them or for firing them later -- regardless of the real reason.
Click to expand...

Or a ranch owner trying to get on the board of PETA or an Amish trying to get hired by Microsoft etc. etc.
 
NoZed Avenger said:
Well, we can make sure that religion or lack thereof can never be considered, regardless of the organization or mission. Then of course, we can look forward to all of the fundamentalists applying for the JREF and tying up the organization for years in litigation for either failing to hire them or for firing them later -- regardless of the real reason.
Click to expand...

I think the religious exemption is not unreasonable. Private clubs are exempt too (which is why Augusta makes the news every now and then because females can't become members of the club).

The Jref is not a religious organization (?) so it would be illegal for them to base employment decisions on religion.

Could the JREF win a lawsuit where it didn't hire a fundie? Claiming they didn't hire x because of his religion would be illegal. Claiming they didn't hire x because he wasn't a skeptic could be legal, but could be a pretext for intentional discrimination based on religion?

Interesting question! (although I suspect the JREF doesn't have 15 employees and so only whatever florida law exists would cover this)
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
I did some temp work at the SBC Annuity Board and they required employees to be Baptists. I guess they didn't vett temp workers though.



Or a ranch owner trying to get on the board of PETA or an Amish trying to get hired by Microsoft etc. etc.
Click to expand...

Ranch owner wouldn't be a protected class, so it would be perfectly ok to tell that applicant to pound salt.

Amish has to be covered. But, MS could still legally reject them if they focused on lack of job skills versus amishness per se.
 
bpesta22 said:
Ranch owner wouldn't be a protected class, so it would be perfectly ok to tell that applicant to pound salt.

Amish has to be covered. But, MS could still legally reject them if they focused on lack of job skills versus amishness per se.
Click to expand...

Point taken, but there are organizations that are able to discriminate based on requirements or philosophies that aren't protected by the 1st Amendment or the CRA (military and gays, and universities getting rid of R.O.T.C. because of the military policy on gays) and even some that are (military and communists which should be protected under the 1st).
 
USA

Interesting.

I learned only this year that the civil rights act specifically excludes communists from protection under this law. So, it's perfectly ok to fire or not hire a commie.
 
The government should not interfere in any voluntary contracts made by individuals over anything, including employment, marriage, etc.

Your worship of arbitrary laws is disturbing. If a law told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom