Salon.com once again promoting pedos.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-25-2016, 05:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes and you cannot be discriminated against because of your sex, race, ect... Your going to have to do a better job of explaining the "minority myth" or more importantly how I refered to it.

Can you explain?

[Belsnickel]

(05-25-2016, 05:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Yes and you cannot be discriminated against because of your sex, race, ect... Your going to have to do a better job of explaining the "minority myth" or more importantly how I refered to it.

(05-25-2016, 04:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: My interpretation is that you must fall into one of the protected classes as outlined in the CRA.

Since everyone in existence falls into all classes protected by the CRA, can you explain how someone would not fall into a protected class? By using the terminology that they must fall into one of the protected classes you are implying that there are those that do not. This is what I am referring to when I speak of the myth that it only protects minorities, is that there are people that think the CRA could not apply to discrimination you face.

[*bfine32*]

(05-25-2016, 05:19 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Can you explain?

(05-25-2016, 05:23 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Since everyone in existence falls into all classes protected by the CRA, can you explain how someone would not fall into a protected class? By using the terminology that they must fall into one of the protected classes you are implying that there are those that do not. This is what I am referring to when I speak of the myth that it only protects minorities, is that there are people that think the CRA could not apply to discrimination you face.

Of course everyone falls into a protected class and you cannot be discriminated because of it. A trans falls into the protected class of Sex (there is not one for gender) however, they are not being discriminated against because of their sex; as they are actually fighting to go against their sex in regards to policy. So in reality they are the only ones discriminating against themselves because of sex.

For instance you brought up sex in reference to employment. There was a time when men went it was suggested that men were being discriminated against being flight attendants.

The point is that congress should do there job and expand it to either include or exclude the envogue issues. For instance if they extended it to include sexual orientation, you could not be discriminated because of it; even though everybody has one.

[Belsnickel]

(05-25-2016, 05:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course everyone falls into a protected class and you cannot be discriminated because of it. A trans falls into the protected class of Sex (there is not one for gender) however, they are not being discriminated against because of their sex; as they are actually fighting to go against their sex in regards to policy. So in reality they are the only ones discriminating against themselves because of sex.

For instance you brought up sex in reference to employment. There was a time when men went it was suggested that men were being discriminated against being flight attendants.

The point is that congress should do there job and expand it to either include or exclude the envogue issues. For instance if they extended it to include sexual orientation, you could not be discriminated because of it; even though everybody has one.

So you are saying the situation must fall into one of the categories, not the person? That was unclear in your original statement on this.

As for the trans issue, that is your opinion on it. Opinions are split, and we will see how it shakes out in the end.

[*bfine32*]

(05-25-2016, 05:52 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So you are saying the situation must fall into one of the categories, not the person? That was unclear in your original statement on this.

As for the trans issue, that is your opinion on it. Opinions are split, and we will see how it shakes out in the end.

Kind of. The person must be discriminated against because they fall into the class that is protected. This is why I say Trans are "borrowing" a protected class that they are not being discriminated for.

And yes opinions differ; that's why I've said all along: Congress needs to do its job. Whether you, I, or anyone else agrees with their laws.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-25-2016, 05:44 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course everyone falls into a protected class and you cannot be discriminated because of it. A trans falls into the protected class of Sex (there is not one for gender) however, they are not being discriminated against because of their sex; as they are actually fighting to go against their sex in regards to policy. So in reality they are the only ones discriminating against themselves because of sex.

For instance you brought up sex in reference to employment. There was a time when men went it was suggested that men were being discriminated against being flight attendants.

The point is that congress should do there job and expand it to either include or exclude the envogue issues. For instance if they extended it to include sexual orientation, you could not be discriminated because of it; even though everybody has one.

You mean it is unlawful to discriminate, right?

Lucie stated in another thread he wouldn't hire a transgender person.  He knows nothing about a prospective transgender employee, other than they are transgender.  In my opinion, that is discrimination based upon the individual being transgender.  Do you agree?  Explain why you do or do not agree.  If you believe it is discrimination, on what basis?

[Griever]

(05-25-2016, 07:59 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You mean it is unlawful to discriminate, right?

Lucie stated in another thread he wouldn't hire a transgender person.  He knows nothing about a prospective transgender employee, other than they are transgender.  In my opinion, that is discrimination based upon the individual being transgender.  Do you agree?  Explain why you do or do not agree.  If you believe it is discrimination, on what basis?

i know why he believes in discrmination

[*bfine32*]

(05-25-2016, 07:59 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You mean it is unlawful to discriminate, right?

Lucie stated in another thread he wouldn't hire a transgender person.  He knows nothing about a prospective transgender employee, other than they are transgender.  In my opinion, that is discrimination based upon the individual being transgender.  Do you agree?  Explain why you do or do not agree.  If you believe it is discrimination, on what basis?

It is Federally unlawful to discriminate under a protected class. Gender is not protected by the CRA or any other federal legislature.

I may have 2 applicants apply for a job: one male that went to school at Harvard and one female that went to school at UC. I hire the male, the female brings suit and claims she was discriminated against. In fact she was discriminated against because I noted a difference in their education; however, she has no case because education is not a protected class (unfortunate for many in this forum).

[*bfine32*]

(05-26-2016, 11:24 AM)Griever Wrote: i know why he believes in discrmination

Do tell..

[GMDino]

(05-26-2016, 11:43 AM)bfine32 Wrote: It is Federally unlawful to discriminate under a protected class. Gender is not protected by the CRA or any other federal legislature.

I may have 2 applicants apply for a job: one male that went to school at Harvard and one female that went to school at UC. I hire the male, the female brings suit and claims she was discriminated against. In fact she was discriminated against because I noted a difference in their education; however, she has no case because education is not a protected class (unfortunate for many in this forum).

Zing.

What if they have the same education and experience?

Do you think the female can make a claim then?

[Belsnickel]

(05-26-2016, 11:43 AM)bfine32 Wrote: It is Federally unlawful to discriminate under a protected class. Gender is not protected by the CRA or any other federal legislature.

But sex is. A trans person will present themselves as the gender they identify as, not as trans. So you interview a man and a woman. Everything matches up. Experience, education, you're have a tough go of the decision because the interviews went well, too. Someone tells you the woman is MTF and you make your decision based on that. The discrimination is sex based because her sex is male.

But, I know, you disagree. I don't know why I keep typing this sort of thing out.

[GMDino]

(05-26-2016, 11:54 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: But sex is. A trans person will present themselves as the gender they identify as, not as trans. So you interview a man and a woman. Everything matches up. Experience, education, you're have a tough go of the decision because the interviews went well, too. Someone tells you the woman is MTF and you make your decision based on that. The discrimination is sex based because her sex is male.

But, I know, you disagree. I don't know why I keep typing this sort of thing out.

You mean a male CAN be discriminated against?!?!

Even a *gasp* WHITE one?!?!

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-26-2016, 11:43 AM)bfine32 Wrote: It is Federally unlawful to discriminate under a protected class. Gender is not protected by the CRA or any other federal legislature.

I may have 2 applicants apply for a job: one male that went to school at Harvard and one female that went to school at UC. I hire the male, the female brings suit and claims she was discriminated against. In fact she was discriminated against because I noted a difference in their education; however, she has no case because education is not a protected class (unfortunate for many in this forum).

You gave a good explanation, but you just couldn't resist the urge to include your obligatory cattiness.  It's ironic considering you believe some living cells are life while denying other living cells are life despite everything we know about cell biology.  And it's been less than 12 hours since you climbed up onto your soapbox to declare 99% of the posters here are intelligent, you've learned plenty, and no one is forced to post here.  So what happened in the interim?  Someone stop shining a spotlight on the soapbox?

[Griever]

(05-26-2016, 12:30 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You gave a good explanation, but you just couldn't resist the urge to include your obligatory cattiness.  It's ironic considering you believe some living cells are life while denying other living cells are life despite everything we know about cell biology.  And it's been less than 12 hours since you climbed up onto your soapbox to declare 99% of the posters here are intelligent, you've learned plenty, and no one is forced to post here.  So what happened in the interim?  Someone stop shining a spotlight on the soapbox?

hes just in between personalities right now

[*bfine32*]

(05-26-2016, 11:54 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: But sex is. A trans person will present themselves as the gender they identify as, not as trans. So you interview a man and a woman. Everything matches up. Experience, education, you're have a tough go of the decision because the interviews went well, too. Someone tells you the woman is MTF and you make your decision based on that. The discrimination is sex based because her sex is male.

But, I know, you disagree. I don't know why I keep typing this sort of thing out.

If I am biologically white; yet identify as a black person; can I make a reasonable claim that you didn't hire me because of my race?

No one is making you type anything.

[*bfine32*]

(05-26-2016, 12:30 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: You gave a good explanation, but you just couldn't resist the urge to include your obligatory cattiness.  It's ironic considering you believe some living cells are life while denying other living cells are life despite everything we know about cell biology.  And it's been less than 12 hours since you climbed up onto your soapbox to declare 99% of the posters here are intelligent, you've learned plenty, and no one is forced to post here.  So what happened in the interim?  Someone stop shining a spotlight on the soapbox?

Difference between intelligence and education. Also no one was singled out. But thanks for keeping track.

[BmorePat87]

(05-26-2016, 05:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If I am biologically white; yet identify as a black person; can I make a reasonable claim that you didn't hire me because of my race?

If you reason to believe so, sure. 

[*bfine32*]

(05-27-2016, 12:05 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: If you reason to believe so, sure. 

"If you reason to believe so": What does that mean?

[BmorePat87]

(05-27-2016, 12:27 AM)bfine32 Wrote: "If you reason to believe so": What does that mean?

if you have*

(it's way past my bed time)

[*bfine32*]

(05-27-2016, 12:42 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: if you have*

(it's way past my bed time)

So if the white guy has reason to believe he is black then he could reasonably charge discrimination due to race?

Kindly list reasons a white person may have to have reason to believe they are black?