Conservatives

[Norseman]

Not really, no. If her political leanings are not the same as his, being a politician and her working for a politician, he should have never hired her. If I'm running for an office, and I'm pro-choice and anti-gay hate, I'm not going to have someone on my staff who is antichoice and pro gay hate. That just makes no sense.

Unless you were in a state which was very anti-choice and pro gay hate and the last governor was voted out of office early. Then there might be good reason to try to appease the populace once you get elected.

 

[Henaynei]

If you're talking about finding people for clergy, that's a little different as I'm sure you're intelligent enough to understand than hiring people for the positon we're talking about this woman holding.

If you're talking about hiring support staff for a ministry, such as "paper pushers" etc. then no, you still can't ask those kind of questions. Even Christians have to follow the law, my dear.

yes, but the law does not require that they violate their faith - in situations related to their churches or ministry; teachers for Christian Schools, church staff, etc...... in the business world they are required to violate their faith, that is true ....

 

[Spinrad]

Is she considered a "hire" or an "appointee"? I think appointees are not subject to fair hiring practices...but I am probably wrong. I just never heard of a lawsuit against someone in a political position for not "appointing" the most qualified candidate for a position.

Anyway, this isn't about that. It's about telling the weak minds to shove off.

 

[Henaynei]

Ok, since you just edited your post, I guess I'll answer this one too...

Teachers for Christian Schools do not have to be Christian and as a school you have to follow fair hiring practices. Same holds true for church staff. In neither circumstance can you ask an applicant if they are Christian and decide to hire or fire based on that set of criteria. The job is for civilian persons, that means that employers are required to follow fair employment laws.

I'm in the early childhood program at college, and we are assigned places for doing case studies, practicing lesson plans, and observations with children. I was, through dumb luck, assigned to a Christian daycare. I'm Wiccan. Ironically, there is already a Wiccan employee there. Why? The employer can't ask if the applicants are Christian. It is ILLEGAL.

I say again, even Christian business owners have to follow the law.

because the owner is Christian does not make it a "Christian School" - a school under the ministry of a particular denomination , one whose cirruculum includes teaching the truths of scripture, is also permittied to not hire those whose lifestyle violates those scriptures - no, they can't include in their application frank questions about whether the applicant is an adulterer or homosexual, for example - but if such activity comes to light then they can dismiss that person.

Even non-Christian organizations, like the Boy Scouts, are permitted to refuse to hire openly homosexual individuals - they have to forgo federal funding, true, but the law does NOT require them to hire homosexuals....

 

[Henaynei]

You keep changing your story and making false accusations and assumptions.

1. The school that I am hired at is a Christian School where they teach about the scripture, read the Bible at the end of the day, and have Bible themed events. I am Wiccan, another teacher there is Wiccan. The school is aware of our affiliations and is also aware that if either one of us is dismissed for that reason, they're breaking the law. They could not ask us things like that before we were hired. That is against the law. They can fire us if we don't do our job, ie refuse to teach the scripture or read the Bible, but they can't fire us for simply being Wiccan. It is... say it with me... Illegal. All businesses have to adhere to fair employment practices, Christian, Jewish, Wiccan, or otherwise.

2. Just as I as a Wiccan can't refuse to hire people for my business because they're not Wiccan, Christian employers cannot refuse to hire people who don't follow their beliefs. If that's a job that is paid, open to the public, then they have to follow fair employment practices like everybody else.



Boy Scouts is a private organization who chooses to refuse to accept volunteers who are homosexual. A Boy Scout leader is not an employee, they are a volunteer. Again, you're comparing two different animals here. As we all know, private organizations can choose to allow or not allow people as they want because they are not a business and not subject to fair employment practices.

you are in error, but further discussion of this will obviously bring light to neither of us. G-d bless you and grant you His Shalom.

b'Shalom
Henaynei

 

[Rae]

there are zero legal circumstances where one can ask.

--Untrue. In my town until 1998, there was no protection of gay people from housing or employment discrimination. Until we passed a local ordinance forbidding such discrimination, gay people had one (1) realty company they could go to in order to find housing locally. To my knowledge, there is no state-mandated protection from said discrimination where I live.

 

[SimplyMe]

Ok, since you just edited your post, I guess I'll answer this one too...

Teachers for Christian Schools do not have to be Christian and as a school you have to follow fair hiring practices. Same holds true for church staff. In neither circumstance can you ask an applicant if they are Christian and decide to hire or fire based on that set of criteria. The job is for civilian persons, that means that employers are required to follow fair employment laws.

I'm in the early childhood program at college, and we are assigned places for doing case studies, practicing lesson plans, and observations with children. I was, through dumb luck, assigned to a Christian daycare. I'm Wiccan. Ironically, there is already a Wiccan employee there. Why? The employer can't ask if the applicants are Christian. It is ILLEGAL.

I say again, even Christian business owners have to follow the law.

I'm sorry, you are wrong about churches, as they are fully able to discriminate based on religion.

When the Civil Rights act was passed in 1964, religions were only allowed the exceptions for "religious activities". From the American Bar Association:

It was clear that the prohibition on religious discrimination and the application of nondiscrimination principles to religious entities presented special issues. As originally drafted, the Act afforded a sweeping exemption for religious entities. By the time Congress completed its work on Title VII, however, that exemption was significantly narrower. Pursuant to section 702, religious entities were exempted from the provisions prohibiting hiring based on religion. In addition, section 703(e)(2) provided an exemption that allowed religious educational institutions to hire and employ employees of a particular religion. Yet like all other employers, they were subject to Title VII’s prohibition on discrimination on the basis of race, color, sex, and national origin. The exemption was limited, moreover, to employee positions “connected with the carrying on . . . of [the entities’] religious activities.”

In 1972, the Civil Rights Act was amended, quoting again from the ABA:

At the same time, Congress amended section 702 to conform with section 703(e)(2) to broaden the religious discrimination exemption, allowing religious organizations to make hiring decisions on the basis of religion with respect to all employee positions, not just with respect to work connected with “religious activities.” As Professor Melissa Rogers has shown in her recent examination of the legislative history leading up to enactment of this latter amendment, the sponsoring senators—Sam Ervin (D-NC) and James Allen (D-AL)—“considered an institution-wide exemption for religious organizations from Title VII to be crucial to religious autonomy and freedom.”

If a religious organization runs a school they are free to hire only people of their religion, if that is what they choose.

 

[invisible trousers]

flip 'em the bird!

 

[Brennin]

I think we should replace Arnold with Tom McClintock (whom I voted for in the recall); Arnold's chief of staff would then be moot.

 

[Texas Lynn]

If she supports the radicals who attack the Boy Scouts of America, sue to drive the Christian faith out of the public square, mock Catholics by lewd displays on the steps of their Cathedrals, force gay propaganda on other people's children in public schools in the name of "tolerance"; if she is in favor of radical equalitarianism, situational ethics and moral relativism, fire her for her political beliefs.

Mr. Schwarzenegger does not truck with extremists who believe someone should be fired for such ridiculous charges so it's not going to happen. Besides, he needs her more than he needs the extremists.

 

[Texas Lynn]

I don't understand what ethics have to do with lesbians? To be lesbian is personal choice which do not affect others.

You are wrong. Sexual orientation has zero to do with choice. The ethical matter is treating others with dignity and worth. A firing in such a case would be entirely unethical.

 

[maniaco]

i say keep her on, it would be ridiculous to fire her for being gay...if she does a good job thats all that matters.

 

[noobsaibot]

You are wrong. Sexual orientation has zero to do with choice. The ethical matter is treating others with dignity and worth. A firing in such a case would be entirely unethical.

Moreover even if it were "just a choice" there is precedent for extending firing/hiring protections to people who have simply made a choice. Religion is "just a lifestyle choice".

 

[ChristianCenturion]

Conservative Republicans in California are threatening to withold their endorsement of Governor Schwarzenegger if he does not fire his lesbian Chief of Staff (story). What is the ethical thing to do?

I'm sure some feel that it is satisfying to go to a Christian Forum and link sites that have banner ads for Valentines Day in the form of a guy with his drawers down around his ankles, but I guess that is to be expected from a gay advocate website.

Here's an excerpt from your link~
"The governor hired Kennedy in November (story) in an attempt to show a moderate image as he prepares for November's election."

It must be so easy on the brain to support the ideology that hires people based on who they have sex with or want to have sex with rather than having to decide which of the candidates are best qualified for the position, but I'll have to pass on the bliss.

If this is the representation, California shouldn't be surprised about not resolving any if not most of their problems.

 

[TeddyKGB]

indeed they do - but that is not based on scripture I would not knowingly hire a liar, a thief, a murder, an adulterer, etc.... I consider the active participation in the homosexual lifestyle no more or less than these....

In other words, you wouldn't hire anyone who sins.

You might be able to get bonobo chimps to do your packing and shipping, but I wouldn't leave them alone in the mail room.

 

[MethodMan]

To the OP,

How do you make a connection between the thread title and the content of the first post or poll?

 

[TeddyKGB]

Here's an excerpt from your link~
"The governor hired Kennedy in November (story) in an attempt to show a moderate image as he prepares for November's election."

It must be so easy on the brain to support the ideology that hires people based on who they have sex with or want to have sex with rather than having to decide which of the candidates are best qualified for the position, but I'll have to pass on the bliss.

You don't think that article is taking some liberties speculating on why the Governator hired a lesbian? How do you know she wasn't also the most qualified?

 

[outlaw]

The resolution itself is a joke:

Susan Kennedy Resolution
WHEREAS, Republican Governor and leader of our California Republican Party, Arnold Schwarzenegger has chosen to appoint lifelong democratic activist Susan Kennedy as his chief of staff and the most powerful person in his governor’s office, and
WHEREAS, said Susan Kennedy, former Executive Director of the California Democratic Party, former President of the California Abortion Rights Action League, former Cabinet Secretary, chief fundraiser and enforcer for impeached governor Grey Davis has spent most of her adult life pursuing a partisan Democratic agenda for higher taxes, greater government spending, gay rights, abortion rights, organized labor domination of business, and other anti- republican policy issues, and
WHEREAS, said Susan Kennedy has assumed office, re-established all of her contacts with special democratic interest groups, democratic lobbyists, and is actively pursuing a democratic agenda for the state of California in policy matters, appointment of judges, and dealings with counties, cities, labor unions, trial lawyers, and democratic elected officials, and
WHEREAS, the appointment of said Susan Kennedy has made it impossible to plan Republican election strategy, political goals, politics on a statewide or county wide level , including meetings of the California Republican Party Board of Directors, with the Governor’s office without a fear of compromise, and
WHEREAS, the appointment of said Susan Kennedy has damaged Republican morale and sent a strong message to Republican Party volunteers and members throughout the state that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger does not value the principals of the Republican party, the ability of its members to govern, the years of service all Republicans have given to the Republican cause, and has especially damaged other Republicans running on the down ticket in the general election.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that on March 15, 2006, the pre-primary endorsement of the California Republican Party of Governor Schwarzenegger is withdrawn.
http://www.capoliticalnews.com/susan_kennedy_resolution.php

I would suspect that this is more of a ploy to get out of endorsing Schwarzenegger for his reelection bid and put someone else on the ballot. Arnie is after all unpopular, rather corrupt and not very likely to win in November.

 

[noobsaibot]

I'm sure some feel that it is satisfying to go to a Christian Forum and link sites that have banner ads for Valentines Day in the form of a guy with his drawers down around his ankles, but I guess that is to be expected from a gay advocate website.

No worse than the typical bimbos in bras that get trotted out...every day on "straight advocate websites". Besides your comment is deliberately misleading. There is no nudity on that site. Though I'm sure you've thoroughly checked it.

Here's an excerpt from your link~
"The governor hired Kennedy in November (story) in an attempt to show a moderate image as he prepares for November's election."

It must be so easy on the brain to support the ideology that hires people based on who they have sex with or want to have sex with rather than having to decide which of the candidates are best qualified for the position, but I'll have to pass on the bliss.

That might have been the original intent of Governor Schwarzenegger; sort of a "throw em a bone and hope they'll shutup tactic". But apparently Arnold got more than he bargained for when he hired Kennedy because he got and excellent chief of staff.

For his part, the governor is showing no signs of ditching Kennedy. Last month in a speech at the Sacramento Press Club he praised her abilities.

"She's spectacular. She's much better than I thought, and I'm looking forward to working with her for many more years," he said.

 

[ChristianCenturion]

You don't think that article is taking some liberties speculating on why the Governator hired a lesbian? How do you know she wasn't also the most qualified?

You are free to post her credentials; however, it seems that BOTH parties and the gay websites seem content on simply stating her qualifications were that she was a lesbian-gay activist. There may be more qualifications... but I have yet to see what they were or how she beat out any competition. Then there is the convenient timing of the appointment, but I'll pretend that was just a coincidence and it wasn't a token near-do-nothing.

Then again, meh - I don't live in California any more. So they can play their political games all day long until the people start demanding results.