Not Christian Enough? No Job For You

[dmcowen674]

6-17-2012

http://abcnews.go.com/US/christian-job-seeker-sues-company-saved/story?id=16585520#.T93IMrX2m74

Not Christian Enough? No Job For You



Job Seeker Sues Company for Asking When He Was 'Saved'

Wolfe says he applied for a job as Operations Supervisor at Voss's Tulsa, Oklahoma store.


His first interview went well, but in a second interview with the branch manager, he told lawyers, he was questioned about his religious practices and beliefs.


According to the complaint, the manager asked Wolfe "to identify every church he has attended over the past several years; where and when [he] was 'saved' and the circumstances that led up to it."

The complaint claims the manager asked Wolfe if he would "have a problem" coming to work early, without pay, to attend Bible study.


Wolfe, a single parent who says he cannot attend church on Sundays, told lawyers the branch manager was "agitated" at his answers.


He didn't get the job.

The suit is filed under Title VII, part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which makes it illegal to discriminate in hiring on the basis of religion.


In a statement, the company denies Wolfe was turned down for the job "as a consequence of his religious beliefs." Vice president and general manager Steve Sanderson writes, "The individual hired by Voss had more lighting product experience and was more qualified."

 

[dmcowen674]

Jerry Seinfeld was so far ahead of his time.

 

[Orignal Earl]

When I read the other day that it's against the law for atheists to hold public office in several states, I was shocked.

 

[DCal430]

When I read the other day that it's against the law for atheists to hold public office in several states, I was shocked.

Those laws are not valid, they are just old relics that are still on the books, and are not enforceable.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally Posted by Orignal Earl
When I read the other day that it's against the law for atheists to hold public office in several states, I was shocked.

Those laws are not valid, they are just old relics that are still on the books, and are not enforceable.

If it's still on the books, they are still valid and enforceable.

 

[Doppel]

It makes perfect sense a company engaged in religious sales would discriminate on this, but some link I found 60 seconds ago and cannot find now for some reason alluded to some civil rights law from 1964 that says it's illegal.

 

[Orignal Earl]

If it's still on the books, they are still valid and enforceable.

Maryland:
"That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution."
Arkansas:
"No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court."
Mississippi:
"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state."
South Carolina:
"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."
Tennessee:
"No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."
Texas:
"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

I know Rick Perry mentioned it when he was running against an atheist.
But ya, I imagine if an atheist took it all the way to the Supreme Court he would have to win.

 

[Lithium381]

There are A LOT of old laws on the books. Since our legislators seem to have so much free time maybe they can clean 'em up. Start with the tax code

 

[peonyu]

Meh, I dont condone this at all, yet its not as uncommon as people think it is. Alot of small companies and family owned stores do this, they just are not as dumb as this company was by being so blatant about it. I cant count how many Muslim owned gas stations there are in S.Florida, aswell as Muslim owned markets...Their employees are always all Muslim aswell, is it a coincidince ? I doubt it, especially since joblessness is epidemic down here, surely a non-Muslim would work in a Gas station since the publicly owned gas stations [Shell, Exxon etc] hire them...Its not like there is a aversion to working in a Gas station down here by any group of people. And how about Hispanic restaurants ? Plenty of them seem to only hire other Hispanics, since even in black majority areas where they have their restaurant at its still all hispanic employees..

 

[alkemyst]

blue laws are bullshit.

however most fighting them are doubly so.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Their employees are always all Muslim aswell, is it a coincidince ? I doubt it, especially since joblessness is epidemic down here, surely a non-Muslim would work in a Gas station since the publicly owned gas stations [Shell, Exxon etc] hire them...And how about Hispanic restaurants ? Plenty of them seem to only hire other Hispanics, since even in black majority areas where they have their restaurant at its still all hispanic employees..

Actually those are just family run businesses too, for some reason though you chose to look at their religious and ethnic background instead

 

[dmcowen674]

Maryland:
Arkansas:
Mississippi:
South Carolina:
Tennessee:
Texas:

I know Rick Perry mentioned it when he was running against an atheist.
But ya, I imagine if an atheist took it all the way to the Supreme Court he would have to win.

No surprise coming from the Radical Religious Right South States.

Maryland is the only surprise in that bunch.

 

[DCal430]

Originally Posted by Orignal Earl
When I read the other day that it's against the law for atheists to hold public office in several states, I was shocked.



If it's still on the books, they are still valid and enforceable.

No it isn't, some states have laws banning interracial marriage on the books, it isn't valid and it isn't enforceable. Some states have laws banning working on Sunday to honor the sabath, again not enforceable. Other states have laws banning blacks and Asians from owning property, once again not enforceable.

 

[DCal430]

I know Rick Perry mentioned it when he was running against an atheist.
But ya, I imagine if an atheist took it all the way to the Supreme Court he would have to win.

It has already been to the Supreme Court, and they already threw these laws out. They are on the books, but they are NOT enforceable.

 

[DCal430]

When the courts strike down a law, it isn't erased from the books. It stays on their like any other law, it just isn't enforced.

 

[TerryMathews]

It has already been to the Supreme Court, and they already threw these laws out. They are on the books, but they are NOT enforceable.

Damn activist judges.

 

[Moonbeam]

When the courts strike down a law, it isn't erased from the books. It stays on their like any other law, it just isn't enforced.

It would make sense to remove them but that might take some courage.

 

[1prophet]

Actually those are just family run businesses too, for some reason though you chose to look at their religious and ethnic background instead

Actually in black neighborhoods there is a perceived sense of discrimination real or not when other ethnic groups open up businesses and hire family only.

 

[Genx87]

No it isn't, some states have laws banning interracial marriage on the books, it isn't valid and it isn't enforceable. Some states have laws banning working on Sunday to honor the sabath, again not enforceable. Other states have laws banning blacks and Asians from owning property, once again not enforceable.

Dave doesnt get it. He believes if laws are on the book they are always enforceable. Like a law in ND that allows one to shoot an Indian who is on a horse provided you are in a covered wagon. Yeah dave, go try that and get back to us on how many years you are serving for murder.

 

[ichy]

If it's still on the books, they are still valid and enforceable.

As usual you are wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins

Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961) was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court reaffirmed that the United States Constitution prohibits States and the Federal Government from requiring any kind of religious test for public office, in the specific case, as a notary public.

Do you ever get tired of looking like an idiot?

 

[dmcowen674]

When the courts strike down a law, it isn't erased from the books. It stays on their like any other law, it just isn't enforced.

If the law was struck down then obviously it is not valid.

Laws that have not been struck down are still valid and enforceable.

Go ahead guys start breaking them.

 

[DCal430]

If the law was struck down then obviously it is not valid.

Laws that have not been struck down are still valid and enforceable.

Go ahead guys start breaking them.

These laws were struct down.

 

[cybrsage]

If laws that are on the books have to be enforced, then Obama is in a lot of trouble wrt his recent illegal immigrant rules.

 

[cybrsage]

In a statement, the company denies Wolfe was turned down for the job "as a consequence of his religious beliefs." Vice president and general manager Steve Sanderson writes, "The individual hired by Voss had more lighting product experience and was more qualified."

Do we now need to force companies to hire less qualified non-Christians, like they are forced to hire less qualified non-whites?

 

[alzan]

Do we now need to force companies to hire less qualified non-Christians, like they are forced to hire less qualified non-whites?

Since the article deals with the absence of religious belief of the applicant and not Affirmative Action as you've framed your question; your question should be rephrased as "Do we need to force companies whose primary business is not religious in nature from discrimination in hiring based upon the religious belief or lack thereof of the applicant?"