Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC News)   "Okay, I see your resume is in order, and your references are excellent, so I guess I have only one more question: When exactly did you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior?"   (abcnews.go.com ) divider line 292
    More: Asinine, Savior, Jesus Christ, religious values, branch manager, Title VII, Bible study, Civil Rights Act  
•       •       •

24251 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Jun 2012 at 11:52 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



292 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-19 12:33:15 AM  

angrycrank: wademh: So the company claims the job went to someone with more lighting product experience.

Fine. Here's a lesson. Keep job interviews to relevant topics and there will be no confusion. I'm hoping it's an expensive lesson about staying on topic.

That. I've been involved in hiring in some academic departments, and we always kept the old guys away from the candidates (especially the female ones) so they wouldn't ask about irrelevant stuff. Nothing like the 148-year-old professor emeritus asking "and what does your husband do?" while we quickly usher the lesbian feminist theorist off to lunch...


Do you plan on having children any time soon?
 
2012-06-19 12:35:50 AM  

gravebayne2: i wouldn't apply for a job at ebony magazine. common sense tells me that its a magazine for black folk by black folk.


From Johnson Publishing's (Ebony magazine) careers webpage:

At JPC, it is our policy and intent to sustain a work environment that affords each employee the opportunity to grow, develop and contribute to our collective success without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, creed, gender, sexual orientation, age disability, citizenship status, veteran status, marital or another status protected by federal, state or local law.

So, you're pretty much wrong about everything.
 
2012-06-19 01:08:11 AM  
One of the things that kills me about this is that the dude IS Christian. He was, however, not the RIGHT KIND of Christian.

I hope he gets a decent little payout and they learn to not discriminate.
 
2012-06-19 01:12:31 AM  
What did Jesus have to say about tying commerce with religion?

homepage.mac.com

Oh yeah.
 
2012-06-19 01:51:00 AM  
This little light of mine
I'm gonna let it shine.
Let it shine.
Let it shine.
Let it shine!
 
2012-06-19 02:28:02 AM  

Hickory-smoked: gravebayne2: i wouldn't apply for a job at ebony magazine. common sense tells me that its a magazine for black folk by black folk.

From Johnson Publishing's (Ebony magazine) careers webpage:

At JPC, it is our policy and intent to sustain a work environment that affords each employee the opportunity to grow, develop and contribute to our collective success without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, creed, gender, sexual orientation, age disability, citizenship status, veteran status, marital or another status protected by federal, state or local law.

So, you're pretty much wrong about everything.


seriously?. i'm sure ebony mag. is teeming with white people who know so much about black culture.

The whitest thing on that page is the background, the cops, and the gay people.

your argument is invalid. try again.
 
2012-06-19 02:46:30 AM  
You like your religion fine. Unless you sell religious/holy books or items that your faith uses keep religion out of the workplace, its just that simple.
 
2012-06-19 06:18:32 AM  
"The individual hired by Voss had more lighting product experience and was more qualified."

Even if that is true, they still should not have asked him about his religious practices. I say that as one who considers himself to be a Christian, just not one who's a jerk to non-Christians.
 
2012-06-19 06:55:33 AM  

FlashHarry: now just imagine if it were a company run by fundamentalist muslims.


They only hire family in the first place, so it's moot. And when you're having fifteen kids to a couple, they can easily fill a decent sized company pretty easily, too.
 
2012-06-19 08:08:24 AM  

Phinn: Can the almighty State of Infinite Benevolence and Grace also tell me who I can and can't marry? Be friends with? Or will that be the subject of federal legislation, too?


Nope. You know why? Because you are a person, with all the rights that the Constitution confers thereupon.

You know what isn't a person, idiotic court decisions notwithstanding? A company or corporation that opens its doors to the public. The second part is very important. You can form a group, club, corporation or whathaveyou and discriminate like farking crazy, but in order to do so, you must put someone at the door that says, "We only allow access to our property and products a select group of people. Fill out an application and we'll let you know if you can come in." This is how groups like the Fraternal Order of Moose are able to say on their applications that you must believe in an all-powerful lord.

If you want to let the public in or sell to the public, you have to let all of them in or sell to everyone. That is what you agreed to by applying for a business license and opening those doors.

Long/Short of it? You, as a person, have unlimited freedom of association, but your company has restrictions. Because it isn't a person.
 
2012-06-19 08:18:03 AM  

NephilimNexus: FlashHarry: now just imagine if it were a company run by fundamentalist muslims.

They only hire family in the first place, so it's moot. And when you're having fifteen kids to a couple, they can easily fill a decent sized company pretty easily, too.


That's either trolltastic or incredibly racist.

Either way: 8/10
 
2012-06-19 08:29:07 AM  

Cats_Lie: It's important for an employee to fit into the corporate culture. Why don't employers have rights too? If you don't like it, you can start your own company.


You tell 'em.

www.sezin.org
 
2012-06-19 08:38:57 AM  

gravebayne2: seriously?. i'm sure ebony mag. is teeming with white people who know so much about black culture.

The whitest thing on that page is the background, the cops, and the gay people.

your argument is invalid. try again.


His argument is invalid because your brain made a sarcastic observation?

Ebony magazine writes primarily about black people and black culture. If you think you'd be useful to them as a writer, go ahead and apply. They'll probably want to see some work. You'll notice on the TeamEbony page of their site, most of the people listed under that particular part of the publication have journalism-related degrees.

You know, unless you were looking to be an unqualified affirmative action hire.
 
2012-06-19 08:54:40 AM  
kingoomieiii [TotalFark]

*
* Smartest
*
* Funniest
*

2012-06-18 11:08:39 AM


Can Fark legal expert tell me if they're even allowed to ask? Because according to the article, "In the interview, Wolfe claims he was told most employees at Voss were Southern Baptist, but employees could go to any church, as long as they were "born again."

//

It's illegal.
 
2012-06-19 09:05:20 AM  

loonatic112358: trivial use of my dark powers: I was at a job interview and the interviewer asked me, "So why do you want to work instead of getting pregnant and going on welfare?"

/sigh.
//should've exclaimed, "Holy shiat! That's an option?"
///ended up somewhere else. Yeesh.

why the hell did that even come out of that dumb asses mouth


We'd have to ask the Voss Lighting Company, cuz only God knows.
 
2012-06-19 09:32:26 AM  

eldritch2k4: NephilimNexus: FlashHarry: now just imagine if it were a company run by fundamentalist muslims.

They only hire family in the first place, so it's moot. And when you're having fifteen kids to a couple, they can easily fill a decent sized company pretty easily, too.

That's either trolltastic or incredibly racist.

Either way: 8/10


islam isn't a race
 
2012-06-19 09:34:17 AM  

eldritch2k4: If you want to let the public in or sell to the public, you have to let all of them in or sell to everyone. That is what you agreed to by applying for a business license and opening those doors.


So? Where does this power come from? The power to license or control everyone's property exchanges? Those are private, too.

By your rationale (i.e., unilateral assertion of "licensing" power over everything), the Almighty State of Infinite Power and Righteousness could legitimately assert that you must apply for a license to walk outside your doors, or to speak to anyone you like, or to have sex, or to have friends. Those could be considered just as "public" as any exchange of goods and services to willing customers.

By deciding to do any of these things, by your rationale, the State could legitimately declare that you have agreed to abide by the State's rules as to who you will and will not fark, or be friends with, and further decree that you may not legally decide not to marry or be friends with someone if doing so was racially discriminatory. Subject to fines (and jail if you don't pay the fines).

After all, you say, if you decide to go out in "public," and the State controls EVERY FARKING THING that it arbitrarily says is "public," then you'd better get with the program, citizen.

"Public" is a magic word, don't you see? It's a Do-Whatever-the-State-Wants-and-Get-Away-with-It badge.

How's your racial friendship quota, by the way? Are you in compliance with the federal government's edicts as to the proper racial ratio in your personal and intimate relationships? Those aren't private, you know.
 
2012-06-19 09:56:14 AM  

gravebayne2: Hickory-smoked: gravebayne2: i wouldn't apply for a job at ebony magazine. common sense tells me that its a magazine for black folk by black folk.

From Johnson Publishing's (Ebony magazine) careers webpage:

At JPC, it is our policy and intent to sustain a work environment that affords each employee the opportunity to grow, develop and contribute to our collective success without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, creed, gender, sexual orientation, age disability, citizenship status, veteran status, marital or another status protected by federal, state or local law.

So, you're pretty much wrong about everything.

seriously?. i'm sure ebony mag. is teeming with white people who know so much about black culture.

The whitest thing on that page is the background, the cops, and the gay people.


Caucasians can sell advertising space and edit copy as well as anyone else.

your argument is invalid. try again.

You claimed Ebony only hires black people. I showed you that they specifically boast about a "diverse workforce" and compliance with anti-discrimination laws, and your only reply is "no they don't"?

The reason you can't get a job there is because you don't know how to use a shift key, not your skin color.
 
2012-06-19 10:09:46 AM  

Hickory-smoked: You claimed Ebony only hires black people. I showed you that they specifically boast about a "diverse workforce" and compliance with anti-discrimination laws, and your only reply is "no they don't"?


Right, because everyone does whatever their stated policies are, all the time.
 
2012-06-19 10:16:14 AM  

Phinn: eldritch2k4: If you want to let the public in or sell to the public, you have to let all of them in or sell to everyone. That is what you agreed to by applying for a business license and opening those doors.

So? Where does this power come from?


Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of The United States Constitution. It states that Congress has the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."

By your rationale (i.e., unilateral assertion of "licensing" power over everything),

Actually, I think if you read something other than Free Republic, you'll find that the Necessary and Proper Clause means that even under the Marshall Court, the regulatory jurisdiction has always been well short of "everything."

But while we're on the subject, aren't you one of the conservatives who claims that the Republicans always supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that MLK was one of you, and that only rotten Democrats like Grand Wizard Robert Byrd were in the KKK? I could have sworn we had that conversation here before.
 
2012-06-19 10:21:27 AM  

Phinn: eldritch2k4: If you want to let the public in or sell to the public, you have to let all of them in or sell to everyone. That is what you agreed to by applying for a business license and opening those doors.

So? Where does this power come from? The power to license or control everyone's property exchanges? Those are private, too.

By your rationale (i.e., unilateral assertion of "licensing" power over everything), the Almighty State of Infinite Power and Righteousness could legitimately assert that you must apply for a license to walk outside your doors, or to speak to anyone you like, or to have sex, or to have friends. Those could be considered just as "public" as any exchange of goods and services to willing customers.

By deciding to do any of these things, by your rationale, the State could legitimately declare that you have agreed to abide by the State's rules as to who you will and will not fark, or be friends with, and further decree that you may not legally decide not to marry or be friends with someone if doing so was racially discriminatory. Subject to fines (and jail if you don't pay the fines).

After all, you say, if you decide to go out in "public," and the State controls EVERY FARKING THING that it arbitrarily says is "public," then you'd better get with the program, citizen.

"Public" is a magic word, don't you see? It's a Do-Whatever-the-State-Wants-and-Get-Away-with-It badge.

How's your racial friendship quota, by the way? Are you in compliance with the federal government's edicts as to the proper racial ratio in your personal and intimate relationships? Those aren't private, you know.


You know how I know You've spent zero effort actually understanding how government and societies work, or the history of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution
 
2012-06-19 10:25:33 AM  

Girion47: islam isn't a race


Creedist then.

Phinn: So? Where does this power come from? The power to license or control everyone's property exchanges? Those are private, too.


Regarding interstate commerce, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States. Regarding commerce within a given state, the respective constitutions of those states per the 10th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Phinn: By your rationale (i.e., unilateral assertion of "licensing" power over everything), the Almighty State of Infinite Power and Righteousness could legitimately assert that you must apply for a license to walk outside your doors, or to speak to anyone you like, or to have sex, or to have friends. Those could be considered just as "public" as any exchange of goods and services to willing customers.


The licensing power isn't unilateral, see above. Also, no they couldn't because I'm an individual with rights granted to me by the Constitution of the United States. My business isn't, but last I checked, my business wasn't walking anywhere, speaking to anyone, having sex or making friends.

Phinn: By deciding to do any of these things, by your rationale, the State could legitimately declare that you have agreed to abide by the State's rules as to who you will and will not fark, or be friends with, and further decree that you may not legally decide not to marry or be friends with someone if doing so was racially discriminatory. Subject to fines (and jail if you don't pay the fines).


No, they couldn't because, again, I'm a person who is protected from those exact things by the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Phinn: "Public" is a magic word, don't you see? It's a Do-Whatever-the-State-Wants-and-Get-Away-with-It badge.


No, it isn't and, no, it isn't. Try again.

Phinn: How's your racial friendship quota, by the way? Are you in compliance with the federal government's edicts as to the proper racial ratio in your personal and intimate relationships? Those aren't private, you know.


*facepalm* Again, I'm protected from these. I'm a person. Please stop equating a publicly operated business with a human being. They are not equal.
 
2012-06-19 10:29:56 AM  

Phinn: Hickory-smoked: You claimed Ebony only hires black people. I showed you that they specifically boast about a "diverse workforce" and compliance with anti-discrimination laws, and your only reply is "no they don't"?

Right, because everyone does whatever their stated policies are, all the time.


When you run a medium or large business covered by Federal law, non-discrimination policies are frequently verified by outside agencies.

But, if you have some reason to suspect that they don't do what say they do, the contact information is there on the site. By all means, call them up and ask. Go visit their office. Do your own journalistic investigation. You and James O'Keefe can dress up like prostitutes for all I care, just stop being a paranoid git arguing through blind assertion.
 
2012-06-19 10:44:49 AM  

Phinn: blah blitty blah blah blah


By the way, your troll-fu is masterful.
 
2012-06-19 10:46:48 AM  

Hickory-smoked: Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of The United States Constitution. It states that Congress has the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."


I've heard of that. It's the basis of another one of those "idiotic" series of court decisions that held that the power to control interstate commerce means the power to control anything that touches or affects interstate commerce.

Conveniently, since everything in an economy affects everything else, being a system and all, the "power" to control anything that touches or affects the system is a euphemism for the power to control every economic action anywhere.

But, hey, go figure -- a state court rubber-stamping the power of the state. How surprising.

Friendships affect the economy, too. The entire industry called "social media" is based on personal relationships. And, of course, marriage is a huge industry. It has a major economic component.

I guess that means that friendships and marriage are subject to the Commerce Clause, too, then.

If there's no right to free association in exchanges of property, then there's no free association in friendships and marriage.

Just admit it, fascist.

Hickory-smoked: But while we're on the subject, aren't you one of the conservatives who claims that the Republicans always supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that MLK was one of you, and that only rotten Democrats like Grand Wizard Robert Byrd were in the KKK? I could have sworn we had that conversation here before.


Not me, I don't think. Doesn't sound like me.

I might have been the one to mention that racial discrimination was state-mandated right before it was state-prohibited. That in the U.S., the state's rules and edicts never went through a substantial period where they weren't controlling private relationships in terms of race, one way or the other.

I might have mentioned that the long history of invidious discrimination that supposedly justified the exertion of power over public accommodations (and then businesses of every kind, the way state power invariably grows) can be attributed to the very same state that spent decades or centuries prohibiting certain relationships based on race. That's like me breaking your leg, then justifying my take-over of your life because your leg is broken.

This is the state that is supposed to be the great redeemer, this supposed benefactor of racial justice. It seems that the state's many rules on race are actually the cause of these complex social problems in the first place.

Maybe the state should leave well enough alone, and let people be free in their associations (i.e., social relationships), as the Constitution says.

Or, maybe you're one of those people who picks and chooses which part of the Constitution you prefer to follow on any given day.
 
2012-06-19 11:08:21 AM  

Phinn: Just admit it, fascist.


You had a 9/10 going, but you're losing points for the "fascist". It just wasn't believable at that point.

7/10
 
2012-06-19 11:24:23 AM  

eldritch2k4: The licensing power isn't unilateral, see above. Also, no they couldn't because I'm an individual with rights granted to me by the Constitution of the United States. My business isn't, but last I checked, my business wasn't walking anywhere, speaking to anyone, having sex or making friends.


This is complete nonsense. Businesses are persons. Organizational forms are just abstractions. It pains me to have to explain this to you, but people doing business are still people.

Also, a lot of businesses are operated without any corporate form whatsoever, and they are still supposedly subjected to these rules about racial discrimination.

By your rationale, people have rights and privacy and such, but if they dare to organize themselves into a certain type of relationship as to each other, they lose those rights. That's like saying you are free to do whatever you want in bed with your wife so long as she sleeps on the left side of the bed and you on the right, but if you have decide to organize yourselves in a particular way (wife on right, husband on left), then you two are magically subjected to the all-encompassing power of the State, along with whatever rules it deems necessary and proper to the just administration of the marriage.

You make no sense. You have still not articulated a sound principle for the legitimate assertion of state power over relationships involving the exchange of property (i.e., commerce), but which excludes the same type of state power over relationships involving friends and sex. Everything you have asserted (other than meaningless appeals to authority) equally justifies federal legislation mandating, for example, that white people must have black friends in equal proportion to the general population, and that these black friends must be given birthday presents that are equal in value to the gifts you give to non-black friends. Maybe we can be forced to fill out a form reporting our friendships and send into the EFOC (the Equal Friendship Opportunity Commission).

And you'd best be in compliance as to religion and national origin, too, buddy, or the penalties will be severe.
 
2012-06-19 11:32:37 AM  

eldritch2k4: You had a 9/10 going, but you're losing points for the "fascist". It just wasn't believable at that point.


That's a convenient dodge/defense mechanism for refusing to answer the question.

I'll assume it means you can't provide a reasoned explanation for why there ought to be a right of free association in friendships and marriage but not in exchanges of property.

As I said, "friendships affect the economy, too. The entire industry called "social media" is based on personal relationships. And, of course, marriage is a huge industry. It has a major economic component. That means that friendships and marriage are subject to the Commerce Clause, too."

If you can't articulate a reason to distinguish between these two assertions of power, other than "because the government says so," then just admit it.
 
2012-06-19 11:34:39 AM  

eldritch2k4: Phinn: Just admit it, fascist.

You had a 9/10 going, but you're losing points for the "fascist". It just wasn't believable at that point.

7/10


Oh, I don't know. I've met plenty of younger guys with militant, irrational ideas about society and government, where every single rule or regulation is the brutal totalitarianism of an all-powerful regime.

So there's every possibility that Phinn is being sincere, but no reason that it would matter.
 
2012-06-19 11:41:42 AM  

Hickory-smoked: Oh, I don't know. I've met plenty of younger guys with militant, irrational ideas about society and government, where every single rule or regulation is the brutal totalitarianism of an all-powerful regime.


If your position were rational, then you could explain why, for example, the Commerce Clause applies to people when they employ others to sell toasters (since toasters touch and affect interstate commerce), but does not apply to people when they decide who they will engage in friendships and marriages (which also touches and affects interstate commerce).

You haven't articulated a reason for your assertions, so it's clear your assertions are not based on reason.
 
2012-06-19 12:17:18 PM  

Phinn: If your position were rational, then you could explain why, for example, the Commerce Clause applies to people when they employ others to sell toasters (since toasters touch and affect interstate commerce), but does not apply to people when they decide who they will engage in friendships and marriages (which also touches and affects interstate commerce).


Because personal friendships and marriages are not economic activities between nations or states. Your argument is silly, as you well know.
 
2012-06-19 12:35:55 PM  

Hickory-smoked: Because personal friendships and marriages are not economic activities between nations or states. Your argument is silly, as you well know.


Friendships affect interstate commerce. Ever hear of Facebook? The people you choose to be friends with (or not to befriend, you racist) affects, well, everything.

Marriages, too. The wedding cake industry alone requires the use of wheat, and my guess is that people who bake wedding cakes don't grow their own wheat, too. (But then again, even growing your own wheat affects interstate commerce, because it displaced wheat that one might have bought in interstate commerce, right? That's not just my opinion. That's the Supreme Court's.)

Want to try again?
 
2012-06-19 12:51:41 PM  

Phinn: Hickory-smoked: Because personal friendships and marriages are not economic activities between nations or states. Your argument is silly, as you well know.

Friendships affect interstate commerce. Ever hear of Facebook?


Facebook.com must comply with Federal commerce regulations.

Marriages, too. The wedding cake industry alone requires the use of wheat, and my guess is that people who bake wedding cakes don't grow their own wheat, too.

Bakeries with more than 15 employees must comply with Federal commerce regulations.

Want to try again?

Nah, I'm good.
 
2012-06-19 01:10:05 PM  

Hickory-smoked: Facebook.com must comply with Federal commerce regulations. ... Bakeries with more than 15 employees must comply with Federal commerce regulations.


Yes, they are. That's not the question.

The question is: by what principle do you assert that people should be subjected to racial identity requirements when exchanging property with willing customers, but people should not be subjected to the same kind of racial requirements in their friendships and marriages?

It's not because the former is "affecting interstate commerce," because friendships and marriages affect interstate commerce, too.

Pretty soon, you'll be resorting to a "might makes right" assertion, but for now, I'll just assume you can't answer the question.
 
2012-06-19 01:29:14 PM  

gravebayne2: Hickory-smoked: gravebayne2: i wouldn't apply for a job at ebony magazine. common sense tells me that its a magazine for black folk by black folk.

From Johnson Publishing's (Ebony magazine) careers webpage:

At JPC, it is our policy and intent to sustain a work environment that affords each employee the opportunity to grow, develop and contribute to our collective success without regard to race, color, religion, national origin, creed, gender, sexual orientation, age disability, citizenship status, veteran status, marital or another status protected by federal, state or local law.

So, you're pretty much wrong about everything.

seriously?. i'm sure ebony mag. is teeming with white people who know so much about black culture.

The whitest thing on that page is the background, the cops, and the gay people.

your argument is invalid. try again.


BET refutes anything close to a point you might make. Note about BET: it isn't African-American owned or ran (well, not strictly African American run).

It guess common sensible people are too retarded to realize the difference between marketing to a specific demographic and serving only one (the monthly viewership of BET and the monthly readership of Ebony is actually far more racially diversified than what Trolly McGee here implies).
 
2012-06-19 04:47:51 PM  

Phinn: Hickory-smoked: Facebook.com must comply with Federal commerce regulations. ... Bakeries with more than 15 employees must comply with Federal commerce regulations.

Yes, they are. That's not the question.

The question is: by what principle do you assert that people should be subjected to racial identity requirements when exchanging property with willing customers, but people should not be subjected to the same kind of racial requirements in their friendships and marriages?

It's not because the former is "affecting interstate commerce," because friendships and marriages affect interstate commerce, too.


Commercial employment does not "affect" interstate commerce, it IS interstate commerce. If you want to argue that the Constitution should be amended so commercial transactions are no longer regulated, you can take it up with your congressman, but meanwhile you should drop the reductio ad absurdum fallacy.

By the way, have you phoned up Ebony's offices yet?
 
2012-06-19 05:19:00 PM  

Hickory-smoked: Commercial employment does not "affect" interstate commerce, it IS interstate commerce.


First, that's not the Supreme Court of Infinite Wisdom's interpretation of the text. They say that the power to control interstate commerce means the power to control anything that affects interstate commerce.

Second, most businesses consist of many different activities (buying, selling, marketing, managing, accounting, employing, etc.) The government claims that its authority to "regulate" an enterprise is not limited to the activities that actually consist of, or even affect, interstate commerce, but rather to every aspect of the commercial enterprise if any part of it affects interstate commerce (which is everything, which is why this so-called "standard" was adopted in the first place).

Third, hiring someone is usually not interstate commerce. Most people are employed locally, which means that neither the employee's services nor the corresponding good (money) ever crosses a state line. The exception is when an employer is located in one state but hires an employee in another state, and goods (money) or the employee's services are transmitted over that border. There's no limitation in the federal government's claim to control only employment that is truly interstate in character. Furthermore, even when interstate employment does occur, the only interstate part of the transaction is the actual transmittal of goods and services over state lines, but the US government claims the power to control every (otherwise local) aspect of the employer and employee's relationship and conduct.
 
2012-06-19 08:07:01 PM  

kingoomieiii: Can Fark legal expert tell me if they're even allowed to ask?


Absolutely.
You can ask any question you want in an interview. Anything at all.

The legal issue is that you can't make a hiring decision based on the answers to some questions.

The reason HR tells people not to ask is because it may be difficult to prove that you didn't make the hiring decision based on the answer, although technically the burden of proof is for the accuser to prove that you did.

You can have an innocent question asked like "did you have a good Easter" with the intent of just making small talk or with the intent of determining a person's religious convictions.

If the person they hired has a better resume and more experience as TFA claims, there is no case here.
 
2012-06-20 01:31:36 AM  

Phinn: You have still not articulated a sound principle for the legitimate assertion of state power over relationships involving the exchange of property (i.e., commerce), but which excludes the same type of state power over relationships involving friends and sex.


Businesses are not people. They are made up of and by people. People have rights, abstract concepts and organizations do not. The congregation of people do not lose their individual rights when they congregate, but their individual rights end at the tips of their fingers. They do not all extend to the group itself. As a business owner, you do not lose your right to freedom of association; you are free to associate yourself with the public or you can take your ball and go home.

So, here's my sound principle for this assertion: when this society was founded, way back in 1789, the leaders of our society decided that relationships not directly involving the exchange of money be protected from state intrusion, but ones directly involving the exchange of money were subject to state regulation for the betterment of that society. We abide these regulations because we were born into or decided to join this society and the "social contract" that all people abide by every day dictates that sometimes you have to deal with things you don't like to receive the things you do like.

For example, you deal with regulations on your business so that you may enjoy the benefits of the state; like police to protect your business, roads to get your customers to your business, an easy to use currency to facilitate your transactions and financial protections should something go horribly wrong.

Have there been times when the state overstepped its bounds? Yes, but the Civil Rights Act and Americans with Disabilities Act are not examples of those times. Society is a two way street. You give what you get and you get quite a lot.
 
2012-06-20 08:54:29 AM  

eldritch2k4: Businesses are not people. They are made up of and by people. People have rights, abstract concepts and organizations do not. The congregation of people do not lose their individual rights when they congregate, but their individual rights end at the tips of their fingers. They do not all extend to the group itself. As a business owner, you do not lose your right to freedom of association; you are free to associate yourself with the public or you can take your ball and go home.


Businesses are people. They are modes of human organization. They are people associating with one another.

Which everyone ought to be able to do freely -- to associate with whomever they want, or not, as they choose, which means it's none of your farking business how anyone goes about associating or not associating with others, for the same reason that you have no legitimate interest in telling anyone who he should or shouldn't marry or be friends with.

The fact that you are stuck on stupid on this point is mind-boggling, even for Fark.

You've built up a convenient series of psychological defense mechanisms and abstractions to convince yourself that your control-freak impulses are good instead of the unmitigated shiat they actually are. There's no way to achieve the "betterment of society" than by respecting other people's freedom, which you have convinced yourself you don't have to do.
 
2012-06-20 04:45:17 PM  

Phinn: eldritch2k4: Businesses are not people. They are made up of and by people. People have rights, abstract concepts and organizations do not. The congregation of people do not lose their individual rights when they congregate, but their individual rights end at the tips of their fingers. They do not all extend to the group itself. As a business owner, you do not lose your right to freedom of association; you are free to associate yourself with the public or you can take your ball and go home.

Businesses are people. They are modes of human organization. They are people associating with one another.

Which everyone ought to be able to do freely -- to associate with whomever they want, or not, as they choose, which means it's none of your farking business how anyone goes about associating or not associating with others, for the same reason that you have no legitimate interest in telling anyone who he should or shouldn't marry or be friends with.

The fact that you are stuck on stupid on this point is mind-boggling, even for Fark.

You've built up a convenient series of psychological defense mechanisms and abstractions to convince yourself that your control-freak impulses are good instead of the unmitigated shiat they actually are. There's no way to achieve the "betterment of society" than by respecting other people's freedom, which you have convinced yourself you don't have to do.


We have a fundamental difference in opinion as to what a person is or is not that will continue to block any attempts at seeing eye-to-eye and you've taken to ad hominem attack. As such I take my leave of you. Good day, sir.
 
2012-06-21 08:54:15 AM  

eldritch2k4: We have a fundamental difference in opinion as to what a person is or is not that will continue to block any attempts at seeing eye-to-eye


It's obvious what a person is. It's a sack of meat with a mind of its own. I'm sure you're familiar with the concept.

Defining the term "person" is not what this is all about. What you are saying (whether you want to admit it or not) is that people should have no rights of free association when they are engaged in business.

For some reason, the government's total disregard of the basic human right of free association offends you when a person is engaged in other voluntary activities with willing participants, like marriage and friendships, but when those very same people dare to exchange property, you think you're entitled to a piece of the action. You think that the trading of money, property and services means that armed agents of the state, working for you, can legitimately tell others what's what and how to do things.

Like I said, you're a control freak. Or just greedy. Take your pick.

eldritch2k4: you've taken to ad hominem attack. As such I take my leave of you. Good day, sir.


Gee, you're awfully sensitive. Just a little while ago you were accusing me of being a troll.

eldritch2k4: By the way, your troll-fu is masterful.


I guess you can dish it out but can't take it. Either that, or this conversation has exposed an indefensible flaw in your thinking, and the cognitive dissonance is too much for you to handle, so you want to shut the whole conversation down.

Typical.
 
Displayed 42 of 292 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report