Chick Fil A, Gay Marriage & The Bloggers...

If a company says. "I will pay you x dollars per hour to walk around with a t-shirt that says 'I'm an Ass Clown'" & you take them up on their offer I don't have a problem with it. Same applies to Covenant. You know what you are getting into at the time of employ. If you don't want to drive a truck with their message, drive for another company. Nobody forces Kobe Bryant to wear Nike shoes....but given that he took their money he better...but he had a choice. Originally Posted by atlcomedy

The problem with this argument is that discriminating of the basis of being an Ass Clown or on what brand of shoes you wear doesn't violate the Civil Rights Act. See my response to Rud above.

A business cannot have a policy in which they hire only Christians or Muslims or Jews or Buddhists, etc. (Lets leave aside non-profit religious organizations for the moment). However, if I do take a job with Covenant then I better be ready to drive a truck with their signage on it. Originally Posted by discreetgent

OK, let's take this argument and switch around the facts a little.

Instead of Covenant we have Back-of-Bus-Trucking, Inc. BBT was founded by a segregationist and calls itself a segregationist-based company. It holds company meetings where management talks about why the races should be separate. It prints and distributes literature to its employees that carry the segregationist message. All of its trucks carry the slogan "Segregation Now, Segregation Tomorrow, Segregation Forever!"

BBT, however, insists that it's not breaking the law against race discrimination (the same law that forbids religious discrimination) because it has an open policy that it does not base hiring decisions on race and that the message on the trucks is a political one protected by free speech.

Do you really believe that BBT isn't breaking the law?

Cheers,
Mazo.

Talk about twisting it...Jeez. If the law isn't running the world exactly as you think it should be being run...then the obvious conclusion is that they are despots and there is a lack of will to uphold your...uh, the...law. And they sign the arbitration agreements for the sole purpose of thumbing their nose at Mazo's rule of law.

Yep, we can all see how fair minded you are. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

Rud, it's not my law, the the law of the United States.

You're just being silly now. The law is on the books. I didn't make it up. It was out there before I was even born.

Although I appreciate your belief that I somehow have the power to enact legislation on my own I think you'll find that it was the US Congress who came up with this one and the Justice Department who have been putting it into effect.

Like I said, if you don't like the law call up your legislator and ask them to overturn the Civil Rights Act. In the mean time expect to be punished when you violate it. It's as simple as that.

Arguing that this is just my concoction of the law is desperate and below you. You've got more brains than that.

Cheers,
Mazo.

The problem with this argument is that discriminating of the basis of being an Ass Clown or on what brand of shoes you wear doesn't violate the Civil Rights Act. See my response to Rud above.



OK, let's take this argument and switch around the facts a little.

Instead of Covenant we have Back-of-Bus-Trucking, Inc. BBT was founded by a segregationist and calls itself a segregationist-based company. It holds company meetings where management talks about why the races should be separate. It prints and distributes literature to its employees that carry the segregationist message. All of its trucks carry the slogan "Segregation Now, Segregation Tomorrow, Segregation Forever!"

BBT, however, insists that it's not breaking the law against race discrimination (the same law that forbids religious discrimination) because it has an open policy that it does not base hiring decisions on race and that the message on the trucks is a political one protected by free speech.

Do you really believe that BBT isn't breaking the law?

Cheers,
Mazo. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Sounds like the public school system in Lancaster, PA.

http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/29/pu...gregation-retu

I support gay marriage, but for the corporate media to go apeshit about this is just plain pathetic.

Sounds like the public school system in Lancaster, PA.

http://reason.com/blog/2011/01/29/pu...gregation-retu Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Wow. That's an interesting situation. I'll have to watch that to see if it works.

Thanks,
Mazo.

Wow. That's an interesting situation. I'll have to watch that to see if it works.

Thanks,
Mazo. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

No hay problema.

Rud, it's not my law, the the law of the United States.

You're just being silly now. The law is on the books. I didn't make it up. It was out there before I was even born. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

It's sounding like you are the silly one. Because no legitimate authority has stepped up and imposed "your" interpretation of the "real" law...then it is a failure of the system. What a joke.

OK, let's take this argument and switch around the facts a little.

Instead of Covenant we have Back-of-Bus-Trucking, Inc. BBT was founded by a segregationist and calls itself a segregationist-based company. It holds company meetings where management talks about why the races should be separate. It prints and distributes literature to its employees that carry the segregationist message. All of its trucks carry the slogan "Segregation Now, Segregation Tomorrow, Segregation Forever!"

BBT, however, insists that it's not breaking the law against race discrimination (the same law that forbids religious discrimination) because it has an open policy that it does not base hiring decisions on race and that the message on the trucks is a political one protected by free speech.

Do you really believe that BBT isn't breaking the law?

Cheers,
Mazo. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Sounds a lot like the NAACP, or LULAC, or BET, or any number of organizations that support one race over another. No, I would not want such an organization anywhere close to my world...but if they operated within the law (you know...that real law...not Mazo's law) then I'm sure they could continue to operate.

RK,

There is a difference between a group that works against discrimination than one that supports one race over another. I'm sure you'll argue that NAACP does the latter rather than the former but to remotely equate them with the hypothetical BBT .... even Atilla the Hun's right wing opposition would have objected to that.

As far as hiring based on religion, I am puzzled how companies can legally do this. My understanding is that under the anti-discrimnation act "it is illegal to discriminate in any aspect of employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age." I guess you could give preference to one group, but that straddles a line and I am surprised no one has sued over it.

I love me some Chick-Fillet.

I bet chickens are more opposed to that Franchise than gays!


Hey maybe they don't serve gay chickens either, I'm just cracking myself up now

Sounds a lot like the NAACP, or LULAC, or BET, or any number of organizations that support one race over another. Originally Posted by Rudyard K

The NAACP was founded by a bunch of white people.

BET is owned by VIACOM, which happens to have an all-white board and a nearly all-white upper management.

Yeah, clearly racist organizations. VIACOM is working hard to tear down the world of the old white man. You can just see all of that white hatred oozing out in channels like Nickelodeon and Country Music Television. Sorry, your angry-white-guy Eric Cartman impersonation is just as far off the mark as it usually is.

However, despite your misguided rant, the earth is about to spin off its axis again because I absolutely agree with you on this point in general.

As I have repeated several times in this thread, I don't care if the organization is Christian, Muslim, Hindu, black, white, green, or polka dot Harikrishna. If they discriminate in any way that violates the law they deserve to be punished for it. While I clearly don't believe that the organizations you named are racist, there are others that clearly are and should be held accountable for it.

Johnson Publishing - the publishers of Ebony and Jet - are among the worst offenders out there. They make it perfectly clear in their hiring practices that whites aren't welcome. Like Covenant, they skirt the law by insisting that job candidates have "significant background" in the "lifestyles of African-Americans" rather than just saying that they only hire blacks. They also make it an overt point that the magazine is "African-American-owned-and-operated". There's no question given their public statements who they are looking to hire. They're one of the big offenders and they should be penalized for it.

So why doesn't it happen? Because, like Covenant, Johnson bases itself in a part of the country (Chicago) where its political power base lies. Nobody is going to take on Ebony magazine in Chicago just as nobody is going to take on Covenant in Tennessee. It's politics, plain and simple. Meanwhile the feds are happy to run around busting mid-sized manufacturing companies owned by Koreans who only hire Koreans.

So no, Rud, I'm not a reverse-racist or a radical race-baiter or any of the other things I'm sure you'll try to make me out to be. I'm a person who believes that the Civil Rights Act is a damn good law and that it needs to be applied evenly and fairly to everybody - including Christian trucking companies.

Cheers,
Mazo.

As far as hiring based on religion, I am puzzled how companies can legally do this. My understanding is that under the anti-discrimnation act "it is illegal to discriminate in any aspect of employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age." I guess you could give preference to one group, but that straddles a line and I am surprised no one has sued over it. Originally Posted by discreetgent

The Civil Rights Act protected churches and faith-based schools from such lawsuits by legally exempting them from most requirements of the law.

US Code, Title 42, Chapter 21, Subchapter VI, § 2000e–2:

(e) Businesses or enterprises with personnel qualified on basis of religion, sex, or national origin; educational institutions with personnel of particular religion

Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter,

(1) it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to hire and employ employees, for an employment agency to classify, or refer for employment any individual, for a labor organization to classify its membership or to classify or refer for employment any individual, or for an employer, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining programs to admit or employ any individual in any such program, on the basis of his religion, sex, or national origin in those certain instances where religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise, and

(2) it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for a school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning to hire and employ employees of a particular religion if such school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning is, in whole or in substantial part, owned, supported, controlled, or managed by a particular religion or by a particular religious corporation, association, or society, or if the curriculum of such school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning is directed toward the propagation of a particular religion.

Note that race is not exempted under these provisions - and rightly so.

Cheers,
Mazo.

or polka dot Harikrishna. Originally Posted by Mazomaniac

Don't you kinda miss them panhandling at the airports?

Don't you kinda miss them panhandling at the airports? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

LOL.....I prefer them to TSA

LOL.....I prefer them to TSA Originally Posted by WTF

Manhandling vs panhandling

There is a difference between a group that works against discrimination than one that supports one race over another. I'm sure you'll argue that NAACP does the latter rather than the former but to remotely equate them with the hypothetical BBT .... even Atilla the Hun's right wing opposition would have objected to that. Originally Posted by discreetgent

It is hard to be consistant in degrees DG. The white supremist organizations clearly discriminate against other races (and religions)...they do so open and in your face sometimes. But the other organizations do the same...just with a little more class. If you want to hold the banner for non-discrimination, you must hold the banner against all discriminating organizations. Otherwise, you lose credibility...at least with me.

As far as hiring based on religion, I am puzzled how companies can legally do this. My understanding is that under the anti-discrimnation act "it is illegal to discriminate in any aspect of employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, or age." I guess you could give preference to one group, but that straddles a line and I am surprised no one has sued over it. Originally Posted by discreetgent

It is the problem we have had since we started to expand the definition of "religion". When you think of "religion" as a belief system...i.e. christianlty, muslim, hindu, buddist, judism...even atheism and agnostics...it is much more easily defined. And the concept was that none of those "religions" will be crammed down everyones throat by the Federal Government.

But when you start trying to legislate against the motivation that manifests a certain outcome?...well, now you have a whole bag of worms. Is it OK to favor, or oppose, abortion if you do so based on a non-christian, of non-jewish, or non-hindu, etc. thought process? Is it OK to favor, or oppose, same sex marriages if you do so based on a non-religious thought process? Is it OK to favor, or oppose, sex being taught in schools as long as it is based on a non-religious thought process?

People of a religious persuasion are getting tired of having the outcomes crammed down their throats of all kinds of different social issues, and then having the left throw up "separation of church and state" every time they oppose such outcome. The atheists or agnostics can push any number of social reforms simply because they manifest themsleves based on a non-religious source...but a religious person manifesting an opinion based on religoius sources, is an outcast.

Like it or not, we all get some sense of our right and wrong based on some religious foundation. Without such a foundation, then why is theft wrong, or killing, or any number of things that I think most all of would agree are wrong. Otherwise, "If it feels good, do it" rules the earth. And there are a lot of things I might do that many of you folks might not like.