Federal appeals court rules religious businesses can refuse same-sex weddings

[Bush92]

You can get caught up in semantics, I'm putting forth the segregated south that kept millions of people in poverty with fewer rights due to "the markets" will. Only the majority can afford to live in a libertarian style government.

That exactly backasswards. What kept millions of people in poverty in the South were Jim Crow laws. Laws. Government.

Again, for the third time. Show me an example of a libertarian country that works. I don't think it exists.

And for the third time I'll dismiss it. I realize this the recommended talking point to throw out there when libertarians are exposing the hypocrisy of the status quo, but let's take a look at it. This is the standard response from all reactionaries when they oppose change. If we'd listened to this kind of reasoning pretty much all progress would have been thwarted. So much for liberalism.

The United States of America was Libertarian until the 1930’s.

 

[dblack]

Repealing laws is change. Repealing bad laws is positive change.

The laws were created for a very real reason. Evidence for the need is still there as I've posted earlier. To repeal the laws would be going backwards.

That's conjecture. I think you're wrong.

Conjecture is a two way street. I've posted evidence to my point.

Libertarianism doesn't prescribe a ”world". That's at the core of the philosophy. We believe that government should protect our freedom to create the kind of society we want. It's not there to tell us how to live.

Who is we?

We is society. Not just the majority of voters, but everyone who takes part.

Who is going to ensure that a minority can get a bank loan without paying high interest rates due to a lack of options?

Whoever wants to. But who gets loans, and who doesn't, shouldn't be the government's decision.

Society as a whole mostly has rejected libertarianism. Sure, some aspect may be popular such as marijuana legalization though I don't think libertarians own that idea out right. In the great market of ideas libertarians have a failed party and are teetering out of the GOP.

Giving up? I see you've resorted to the, ”Well, it ain't ever going" harrumphing. Of course that says nothing about whether it should, whether it's right or wrong, whether we should try to make it happen.

Nobody wants to live in a libertarian style government, the masses have not been converted. Nobody said anything about giving up but you're not going anywhere until you make something of your party that doesn't resemble a joke with joke candidates.

In a way libertarians remind me of people who only vote third party. Their candidate is never going to win and they aren't putting any effort into changing that either. Bragging about voting for a losing candidate every 4 years and not doing anything in between is just people who like to complain and not be a substantive part of anything having to do with shaping the future of the country.

More harrumphing. "Lesser of two evils” is far worse, and you know it. Which is why you lept to making excuses for it before I even brought it up.

 

[Bush92]

Since I have been mentioned...here is my view.

Any and all anti-discrimination laws applied to anyone but the government itself are unconstitutional. The Constitution tells the government they cannot discriminate, it does not tell me and you we cannot.

Considering the courts who are responsible for interpreting our laws and ensuring their Constitutionality by the Constitution disagree with you...

Furthermore, the very concept of a "protected class" violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution as protected classes have more protections, thus it is not equal.

Says which court?

I understand why we had them, but I do believe if they were removed today that the marketplace would weed out those that wanted to discriminate against any group.

Beliefs are nice.

Study: anti-black hiring discrimination is as prevalent today as it was in 1989

A new study, by researchers at Northwestern University, Harvard, and the Institute for Social Research in Norway, looked at every available field experiment on hiring discrimination from 1989 through 2015. The researchers found that anti-black racism in hiring is unchanged since at least 1989, while anti-Latino racism may have decreased modestly.

They looked at two kinds of experiments: résumé and in-person audits. In the first, researchers send out résumés with similar levels of education, experience, and so on, but the names differ so some résumés have a stereotypically black or Latino name and the others have a stereotypically white name. In the second, applicants go in-person to apply for a job; they each share similar qualifications, but some are white while others are black or brown.

In total, the researchers produced 24 studies with 30 estimates of discrimination for black and Latino Americans, collectively representing more than 54,000 applications submitted for more than 25,000 positions.

They concluded that, on average, “white applicants receive 36% more callbacks than equally qualified African Americans” while “[w]hite applicants receive on average 24% more callbacks than Latinos.”

They also found no evidence of changes over time in rates of hiring discrimination for black people, with anything but the slight possibility of “a slow decline” ruled out by the studies. With Latinos, the evidence indicates “a possible decline in discrimination, although this trend is outside of conventional levels of significance” — meaning the data isn’t statistically significant enough to draw a solid conclusion.

Socialist Northwestern (Chicago) and socialist Harvard (Boston) produced numbers to support the bias they had before they even did the study.

 

[Bush92]

Since I have been mentioned...here is my view.

Any and all anti-discrimination laws applied to anyone but the government itself are unconstitutional. The Constitution tells the government they cannot discriminate, it does not tell me and you we cannot.

Considering the courts who are responsible for interpreting our laws and ensuring their Constitutionality by the Constitution disagree with you...

Furthermore, the very concept of a "protected class" violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution as protected classes have more protections, thus it is not equal.

Says which court?

I understand why we had them, but I do believe if they were removed today that the marketplace would weed out those that wanted to discriminate against any group.

Beliefs are nice.

Study: anti-black hiring discrimination is as prevalent today as it was in 1989

A new study, by researchers at Northwestern University, Harvard, and the Institute for Social Research in Norway, looked at every available field experiment on hiring discrimination from 1989 through 2015. The researchers found that anti-black racism in hiring is unchanged since at least 1989, while anti-Latino racism may have decreased modestly.

They looked at two kinds of experiments: résumé and in-person audits. In the first, researchers send out résumés with similar levels of education, experience, and so on, but the names differ so some résumés have a stereotypically black or Latino name and the others have a stereotypically white name. In the second, applicants go in-person to apply for a job; they each share similar qualifications, but some are white while others are black or brown.

In total, the researchers produced 24 studies with 30 estimates of discrimination for black and Latino Americans, collectively representing more than 54,000 applications submitted for more than 25,000 positions.

They concluded that, on average, “white applicants receive 36% more callbacks than equally qualified African Americans” while “[w]hite applicants receive on average 24% more callbacks than Latinos.”

They also found no evidence of changes over time in rates of hiring discrimination for black people, with anything but the slight possibility of “a slow decline” ruled out by the studies. With Latinos, the evidence indicates “a possible decline in discrimination, although this trend is outside of conventional levels of significance” — meaning the data isn’t statistically significant enough to draw a solid conclusion.

Harvard has become so leftist and politicized their studies should be disregarded.

 

[Bush92]

Since I have been mentioned...here is my view.

Any and all anti-discrimination laws applied to anyone but the government itself are unconstitutional. The Constitution tells the government they cannot discriminate, it does not tell me and you we cannot.

Considering the courts who are responsible for interpreting our laws and ensuring their Constitutionality by the Constitution disagree with you...

Furthermore, the very concept of a "protected class" violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution as protected classes have more protections, thus it is not equal.

Says which court?

I understand why we had them, but I do believe if they were removed today that the marketplace would weed out those that wanted to discriminate against any group.

Beliefs are nice.

Study: anti-black hiring discrimination is as prevalent today as it was in 1989

A new study, by researchers at Northwestern University, Harvard, and the Institute for Social Research in Norway, looked at every available field experiment on hiring discrimination from 1989 through 2015. The researchers found that anti-black racism in hiring is unchanged since at least 1989, while anti-Latino racism may have decreased modestly.

They looked at two kinds of experiments: résumé and in-person audits. In the first, researchers send out résumés with similar levels of education, experience, and so on, but the names differ so some résumés have a stereotypically black or Latino name and the others have a stereotypically white name. In the second, applicants go in-person to apply for a job; they each share similar qualifications, but some are white while others are black or brown.

In total, the researchers produced 24 studies with 30 estimates of discrimination for black and Latino Americans, collectively representing more than 54,000 applications submitted for more than 25,000 positions.

They concluded that, on average, “white applicants receive 36% more callbacks than equally qualified African Americans” while “[w]hite applicants receive on average 24% more callbacks than Latinos.”

They also found no evidence of changes over time in rates of hiring discrimination for black people, with anything but the slight possibility of “a slow decline” ruled out by the studies. With Latinos, the evidence indicates “a possible decline in discrimination, although this trend is outside of conventional levels of significance” — meaning the data isn’t statistically significant enough to draw a solid conclusion.

If I were an employer a degree from Harvard would eliminate them from potential employment.

 

[HappyJoy]

The laws were created for a very real reason. Evidence for the need is still there as I've posted earlier. To repeal the laws would be going backwards.

That's conjecture. I think you're wrong.

Conjecture is a two way street. I've posted evidence to my point.

Who is we?

We is society. Not just the majority of voters, but everyone who takes part.

Who is going to ensure that a minority can get a bank loan without paying high interest rates due to a lack of options?

Whoever wants to. But who gets loans, and who doesn't, shouldn't be the government's decision.

Society as a whole mostly has rejected libertarianism. Sure, some aspect may be popular such as marijuana legalization though I don't think libertarians own that idea out right. In the great market of ideas libertarians have a failed party and are teetering out of the GOP.

Giving up? I see you've resorted to the, ”Well, it ain't ever going" harrumphing. Of course that says nothing about whether it should, whether it's right or wrong, whether we should try to make it happen.

Nobody wants to live in a libertarian style government, the masses have not been converted. Nobody said anything about giving up but you're not going anywhere until you make something of your party that doesn't resemble a joke with joke candidates.

In a way libertarians remind me of people who only vote third party. Their candidate is never going to win and they aren't putting any effort into changing that either. Bragging about voting for a losing candidate every 4 years and not doing anything in between is just people who like to complain and not be a substantive part of anything having to do with shaping the future of the country.

More harrumphing. "Lesser of two evils” is far worse, and you know it. Which is why you lept to making excuses for it before I even brought it up.

Far worse than what? Never winning anything which is what you have because you 3rd party types never attempt to change anything between elections.

 

[HappyJoy]

Since I have been mentioned...here is my view.

Any and all anti-discrimination laws applied to anyone but the government itself are unconstitutional. The Constitution tells the government they cannot discriminate, it does not tell me and you we cannot.

Considering the courts who are responsible for interpreting our laws and ensuring their Constitutionality by the Constitution disagree with you...

Furthermore, the very concept of a "protected class" violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution as protected classes have more protections, thus it is not equal.

Says which court?

I understand why we had them, but I do believe if they were removed today that the marketplace would weed out those that wanted to discriminate against any group.

Beliefs are nice.

Study: anti-black hiring discrimination is as prevalent today as it was in 1989

A new study, by researchers at Northwestern University, Harvard, and the Institute for Social Research in Norway, looked at every available field experiment on hiring discrimination from 1989 through 2015. The researchers found that anti-black racism in hiring is unchanged since at least 1989, while anti-Latino racism may have decreased modestly.

They looked at two kinds of experiments: résumé and in-person audits. In the first, researchers send out résumés with similar levels of education, experience, and so on, but the names differ so some résumés have a stereotypically black or Latino name and the others have a stereotypically white name. In the second, applicants go in-person to apply for a job; they each share similar qualifications, but some are white while others are black or brown.

In total, the researchers produced 24 studies with 30 estimates of discrimination for black and Latino Americans, collectively representing more than 54,000 applications submitted for more than 25,000 positions.

They concluded that, on average, “white applicants receive 36% more callbacks than equally qualified African Americans” while “[w]hite applicants receive on average 24% more callbacks than Latinos.”

They also found no evidence of changes over time in rates of hiring discrimination for black people, with anything but the slight possibility of “a slow decline” ruled out by the studies. With Latinos, the evidence indicates “a possible decline in discrimination, although this trend is outside of conventional levels of significance” — meaning the data isn’t statistically significant enough to draw a solid conclusion.

Socialist Northwestern (Chicago) and socialist Harvard (Boston) produced numbers to support the bias they had before they even did the study.

I know, they believe in logic and reasoning and employed that in their studies. How 'socialist' of them. Maybe we should look at a public colleges that aren't as socialiast. Jesus, it's a miracle you know how to breathe.

 

[HappyJoy]

Since I have been mentioned...here is my view.

Any and all anti-discrimination laws applied to anyone but the government itself are unconstitutional. The Constitution tells the government they cannot discriminate, it does not tell me and you we cannot.

Considering the courts who are responsible for interpreting our laws and ensuring their Constitutionality by the Constitution disagree with you...

Furthermore, the very concept of a "protected class" violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution as protected classes have more protections, thus it is not equal.

Says which court?

I understand why we had them, but I do believe if they were removed today that the marketplace would weed out those that wanted to discriminate against any group.

Beliefs are nice.

Study: anti-black hiring discrimination is as prevalent today as it was in 1989

A new study, by researchers at Northwestern University, Harvard, and the Institute for Social Research in Norway, looked at every available field experiment on hiring discrimination from 1989 through 2015. The researchers found that anti-black racism in hiring is unchanged since at least 1989, while anti-Latino racism may have decreased modestly.

They looked at two kinds of experiments: résumé and in-person audits. In the first, researchers send out résumés with similar levels of education, experience, and so on, but the names differ so some résumés have a stereotypically black or Latino name and the others have a stereotypically white name. In the second, applicants go in-person to apply for a job; they each share similar qualifications, but some are white while others are black or brown.

In total, the researchers produced 24 studies with 30 estimates of discrimination for black and Latino Americans, collectively representing more than 54,000 applications submitted for more than 25,000 positions.

They concluded that, on average, “white applicants receive 36% more callbacks than equally qualified African Americans” while “[w]hite applicants receive on average 24% more callbacks than Latinos.”

They also found no evidence of changes over time in rates of hiring discrimination for black people, with anything but the slight possibility of “a slow decline” ruled out by the studies. With Latinos, the evidence indicates “a possible decline in discrimination, although this trend is outside of conventional levels of significance” — meaning the data isn’t statistically significant enough to draw a solid conclusion.

Harvard has become so leftist and politicized their studies should be disregarded.

Did Alex Jones tell you that?

 

[HappyJoy]

Since I have been mentioned...here is my view.

Any and all anti-discrimination laws applied to anyone but the government itself are unconstitutional. The Constitution tells the government they cannot discriminate, it does not tell me and you we cannot.

Considering the courts who are responsible for interpreting our laws and ensuring their Constitutionality by the Constitution disagree with you...

Furthermore, the very concept of a "protected class" violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution as protected classes have more protections, thus it is not equal.

Says which court?

I understand why we had them, but I do believe if they were removed today that the marketplace would weed out those that wanted to discriminate against any group.

Beliefs are nice.

Study: anti-black hiring discrimination is as prevalent today as it was in 1989

A new study, by researchers at Northwestern University, Harvard, and the Institute for Social Research in Norway, looked at every available field experiment on hiring discrimination from 1989 through 2015. The researchers found that anti-black racism in hiring is unchanged since at least 1989, while anti-Latino racism may have decreased modestly.

They looked at two kinds of experiments: résumé and in-person audits. In the first, researchers send out résumés with similar levels of education, experience, and so on, but the names differ so some résumés have a stereotypically black or Latino name and the others have a stereotypically white name. In the second, applicants go in-person to apply for a job; they each share similar qualifications, but some are white while others are black or brown.

In total, the researchers produced 24 studies with 30 estimates of discrimination for black and Latino Americans, collectively representing more than 54,000 applications submitted for more than 25,000 positions.

They concluded that, on average, “white applicants receive 36% more callbacks than equally qualified African Americans” while “[w]hite applicants receive on average 24% more callbacks than Latinos.”

They also found no evidence of changes over time in rates of hiring discrimination for black people, with anything but the slight possibility of “a slow decline” ruled out by the studies. With Latinos, the evidence indicates “a possible decline in discrimination, although this trend is outside of conventional levels of significance” — meaning the data isn’t statistically significant enough to draw a solid conclusion.

If I were an employer a degree from Harvard would eliminate them from potential employment.

You're not, so who cares?

 

[CowboyTed]

GOOD. Gay-marriage is contrary thought. It's a slap in the face of core values, nature and common sense. Some people find the idea absurd, and I'm one of them. I'm not even religious.

Marriage supports the very core of nature in humans. Homosexuality does not fit into the category, because it's a contradiction. Homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality on any level, so why pretend it is?

While some arguments for gay marriage sound plausible, every one of them could be applied to marriage between close relatives.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/federal-appeals-court-rules-religious-122449223.html

This is a good ruling, not because there is anything wrong with same sex marriage, but because companies should not be forced to serve people or provide a service they do not wish to.

I suppose other businesses can stop serving racists...

 

[Bush92]

Since I have been mentioned...here is my view.

Any and all anti-discrimination laws applied to anyone but the government itself are unconstitutional. The Constitution tells the government they cannot discriminate, it does not tell me and you we cannot.

Considering the courts who are responsible for interpreting our laws and ensuring their Constitutionality by the Constitution disagree with you...

Furthermore, the very concept of a "protected class" violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution as protected classes have more protections, thus it is not equal.

Says which court?

I understand why we had them, but I do believe if they were removed today that the marketplace would weed out those that wanted to discriminate against any group.

Beliefs are nice.

Study: anti-black hiring discrimination is as prevalent today as it was in 1989

A new study, by researchers at Northwestern University, Harvard, and the Institute for Social Research in Norway, looked at every available field experiment on hiring discrimination from 1989 through 2015. The researchers found that anti-black racism in hiring is unchanged since at least 1989, while anti-Latino racism may have decreased modestly.

They looked at two kinds of experiments: résumé and in-person audits. In the first, researchers send out résumés with similar levels of education, experience, and so on, but the names differ so some résumés have a stereotypically black or Latino name and the others have a stereotypically white name. In the second, applicants go in-person to apply for a job; they each share similar qualifications, but some are white while others are black or brown.

In total, the researchers produced 24 studies with 30 estimates of discrimination for black and Latino Americans, collectively representing more than 54,000 applications submitted for more than 25,000 positions.

They concluded that, on average, “white applicants receive 36% more callbacks than equally qualified African Americans” while “[w]hite applicants receive on average 24% more callbacks than Latinos.”

They also found no evidence of changes over time in rates of hiring discrimination for black people, with anything but the slight possibility of “a slow decline” ruled out by the studies. With Latinos, the evidence indicates “a possible decline in discrimination, although this trend is outside of conventional levels of significance” — meaning the data isn’t statistically significant enough to draw a solid conclusion.

If I were an employer a degree from Harvard would eliminate them from potential employment.

You're not, so who cares?

Employers who do. Harvard has been a breeding ground for socialist. Business people know this. Only place for Harvard grads is in education so they can poison future generations with their Marxist bullshit ideology.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

GOOD. Gay-marriage is contrary thought. It's a slap in the face of core values, nature and common sense. Some people find the idea absurd, and I'm one of them. I'm not even religious.

Marriage supports the very core of nature in humans. Homosexuality does not fit into the category, because it's a contradiction. Homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality on any level, so why pretend it is?

While some arguments for gay marriage sound plausible, every one of them could be applied to marriage between close relatives.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/federal-appeals-court-rules-religious-122449223.html

This is a good ruling, not because there is anything wrong with same sex marriage, but because companies should not be forced to serve people or provide a service they do not wish to.

I suppose other businesses can stop serving racists...

That would be a good thing if they choose to do so. I am all for the freedom to do such things.

 

[Bush92]

GOOD. Gay-marriage is contrary thought. It's a slap in the face of core values, nature and common sense. Some people find the idea absurd, and I'm one of them. I'm not even religious.

Marriage supports the very core of nature in humans. Homosexuality does not fit into the category, because it's a contradiction. Homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality on any level, so why pretend it is?

While some arguments for gay marriage sound plausible, every one of them could be applied to marriage between close relatives.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/federal-appeals-court-rules-religious-122449223.html

This is a good ruling, not because there is anything wrong with same sex marriage, but because companies should not be forced to serve people or provide a service they do not wish to.

I concur. If you, as a business person want to alienate a segment of the consumer market that is your prerogative. You will have to budget to lose all of those customers $$$. But government has no place in telling small businesses and how they conduct their day-to-day activities. People can express themselves through capitalism in terms of where, how, and on what you spend your money. You spending habits are as good as a vote at the ballot box.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

GOOD. Gay-marriage is contrary thought. It's a slap in the face of core values, nature and common sense. Some people find the idea absurd, and I'm one of them. I'm not even religious.

Marriage supports the very core of nature in humans. Homosexuality does not fit into the category, because it's a contradiction. Homosexuality is not equal to heterosexuality on any level, so why pretend it is?

While some arguments for gay marriage sound plausible, every one of them could be applied to marriage between close relatives.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/federal-appeals-court-rules-religious-122449223.html

Go to a Muzzy butcher and ask for a leg of Ham and see what you get. (Civil case you can win?)

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Since I have been mentioned...here is my view.

Any and all anti-discrimination laws applied to anyone but the government itself are unconstitutional. The Constitution tells the government they cannot discriminate, it does not tell me and you we cannot.

Considering the courts who are responsible for interpreting our laws and ensuring their Constitutionality by the Constitution disagree with you...

Furthermore, the very concept of a "protected class" violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution as protected classes have more protections, thus it is not equal.

Says which court?

I understand why we had them, but I do believe if they were removed today that the marketplace would weed out those that wanted to discriminate against any group.

Beliefs are nice.

Study: anti-black hiring discrimination is as prevalent today as it was in 1989

A new study, by researchers at Northwestern University, Harvard, and the Institute for Social Research in Norway, looked at every available field experiment on hiring discrimination from 1989 through 2015. The researchers found that anti-black racism in hiring is unchanged since at least 1989, while anti-Latino racism may have decreased modestly.

They looked at two kinds of experiments: résumé and in-person audits. In the first, researchers send out résumés with similar levels of education, experience, and so on, but the names differ so some résumés have a stereotypically black or Latino name and the others have a stereotypically white name. In the second, applicants go in-person to apply for a job; they each share similar qualifications, but some are white while others are black or brown.

In total, the researchers produced 24 studies with 30 estimates of discrimination for black and Latino Americans, collectively representing more than 54,000 applications submitted for more than 25,000 positions.

They concluded that, on average, “white applicants receive 36% more callbacks than equally qualified African Americans” while “[w]hite applicants receive on average 24% more callbacks than Latinos.”

They also found no evidence of changes over time in rates of hiring discrimination for black people, with anything but the slight possibility of “a slow decline” ruled out by the studies. With Latinos, the evidence indicates “a possible decline in discrimination, although this trend is outside of conventional levels of significance” — meaning the data isn’t statistically significant enough to draw a solid conclusion.

If I were an employer a degree from Harvard would eliminate them from potential employment.

You're not, so who cares?

Employers who do. Harvard has been a breeding ground for socialist. Business people know this. Only place for Harvard grads is in education so they can poison future generations with their Marxist bullshit ideology.

You are so full of shit, no employer is not hiring someone because they went to Harvard.

 

[Bush92]

Since I have been mentioned...here is my view.

Any and all anti-discrimination laws applied to anyone but the government itself are unconstitutional. The Constitution tells the government they cannot discriminate, it does not tell me and you we cannot.

Considering the courts who are responsible for interpreting our laws and ensuring their Constitutionality by the Constitution disagree with you...

Furthermore, the very concept of a "protected class" violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution as protected classes have more protections, thus it is not equal.

Says which court?

I understand why we had them, but I do believe if they were removed today that the marketplace would weed out those that wanted to discriminate against any group.

Beliefs are nice.

Study: anti-black hiring discrimination is as prevalent today as it was in 1989

A new study, by researchers at Northwestern University, Harvard, and the Institute for Social Research in Norway, looked at every available field experiment on hiring discrimination from 1989 through 2015. The researchers found that anti-black racism in hiring is unchanged since at least 1989, while anti-Latino racism may have decreased modestly.

They looked at two kinds of experiments: résumé and in-person audits. In the first, researchers send out résumés with similar levels of education, experience, and so on, but the names differ so some résumés have a stereotypically black or Latino name and the others have a stereotypically white name. In the second, applicants go in-person to apply for a job; they each share similar qualifications, but some are white while others are black or brown.

In total, the researchers produced 24 studies with 30 estimates of discrimination for black and Latino Americans, collectively representing more than 54,000 applications submitted for more than 25,000 positions.

They concluded that, on average, “white applicants receive 36% more callbacks than equally qualified African Americans” while “[w]hite applicants receive on average 24% more callbacks than Latinos.”

They also found no evidence of changes over time in rates of hiring discrimination for black people, with anything but the slight possibility of “a slow decline” ruled out by the studies. With Latinos, the evidence indicates “a possible decline in discrimination, although this trend is outside of conventional levels of significance” — meaning the data isn’t statistically significant enough to draw a solid conclusion.

If I were an employer a degree from Harvard would eliminate them from potential employment.

You're not, so who cares?

Employers who do. Harvard has been a breeding ground for socialist. Business people know this. Only place for Harvard grads is in education so they can poison future generations with their Marxist bullshit ideology.

You are so full of shit, no employer is not hiring someone because they went to Harvard.

So employers don’t read resumes? That’s interesting.

 

[Bush92]

Since I have been mentioned...here is my view.

Any and all anti-discrimination laws applied to anyone but the government itself are unconstitutional. The Constitution tells the government they cannot discriminate, it does not tell me and you we cannot.

Considering the courts who are responsible for interpreting our laws and ensuring their Constitutionality by the Constitution disagree with you...

Furthermore, the very concept of a "protected class" violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution as protected classes have more protections, thus it is not equal.

Says which court?

I understand why we had them, but I do believe if they were removed today that the marketplace would weed out those that wanted to discriminate against any group.

Beliefs are nice.

Study: anti-black hiring discrimination is as prevalent today as it was in 1989

A new study, by researchers at Northwestern University, Harvard, and the Institute for Social Research in Norway, looked at every available field experiment on hiring discrimination from 1989 through 2015. The researchers found that anti-black racism in hiring is unchanged since at least 1989, while anti-Latino racism may have decreased modestly.

They looked at two kinds of experiments: résumé and in-person audits. In the first, researchers send out résumés with similar levels of education, experience, and so on, but the names differ so some résumés have a stereotypically black or Latino name and the others have a stereotypically white name. In the second, applicants go in-person to apply for a job; they each share similar qualifications, but some are white while others are black or brown.

In total, the researchers produced 24 studies with 30 estimates of discrimination for black and Latino Americans, collectively representing more than 54,000 applications submitted for more than 25,000 positions.

They concluded that, on average, “white applicants receive 36% more callbacks than equally qualified African Americans” while “[w]hite applicants receive on average 24% more callbacks than Latinos.”

They also found no evidence of changes over time in rates of hiring discrimination for black people, with anything but the slight possibility of “a slow decline” ruled out by the studies. With Latinos, the evidence indicates “a possible decline in discrimination, although this trend is outside of conventional levels of significance” — meaning the data isn’t statistically significant enough to draw a solid conclusion.

If I were an employer a degree from Harvard would eliminate them from potential employment.

You're not, so who cares?

Employers who do. Harvard has been a breeding ground for socialist. Business people know this. Only place for Harvard grads is in education so they can poison future generations with their Marxist bullshit ideology.

You are so full of shit, no employer is not hiring someone because they went to Harvard.

Am I? Why You Shouldn’t Hire Someone From Harvard

 

[Lysistrata]

And gay couples will continue to marry. This will simply open up new business for others.

Fine..and leave Christians alone... anyone with a lick of sense sees the homos are targeting

You constant complainers never specify which Christians. Your fault. I've known plenty of LGBTs who are themselves Christian. One even taught Sunday School.

Constant complainers? You do realize you loons have been complaining for three fricken years...dumbass.

The "Christian" fundies have been complaining for decades and think that the whole nation should stop to cater to their demands. This is entirely unrealistic. Nobody is going to change their behavior to suit the beliefs of total strangers. I don't think that you stop what you're doing to accommodate anyone else's beliefs. Put down that pork chop and pray to Yahweh, G-d, and Allah.

Something to think about though.

The Christian community in America has long felt marginalized and disrespected, especially disrespected.

This has culminated into a surge of support for Trump, and his electoral victory. He is no Christian, at least by his behavior, but he has tapped into that anger and given them a voice. We, the left, have only ourselves to blame.

A little respect, the ability to listen, and to compromise can go a long way towards healing some of these divisions.

When you talk about catering to demands, you are using the same language they use against the gay community.

Same sex marriage is here to stay, itis a right, and frankly has zero effect on anyone other than the married couple. So leave them alone. Homosexuality is by no means the worst “sin” in Christian theology but it certainly gets a disproportionate amount of hate. So much so that followers ignore some Jesus’ messages in the process.

But, should Christians be forced to provide services to same sex weddings if they feel a strong religious conviction?

I am on the fence. I tend to see a slippery slope here because so-called religious freedom is being used as a pretext to refuse pretty important services in the pharmacies and medicine. When does it become a pretext for bigotry.

On the other hand, how far can you go in forcing some to act against their convictions? Where is the happy medium?

IMO, having a sign that says “we are a Christian Bakery and serve Christian weddings, we would be happy to refer you to other bakeries” is reasonable. No one should go to a place expecting to be served like anyone else, only to be refused, that is far too much like the old “no blacks” or Irish or other restrictions.

I largely agree with you, and this situation does present a slippery slope. But I am getting increasingly frustrated with "Christians." With roughly 75% of Americans identifying as Christian, it is difficult to conclude that Christians have been "marginalized and disrespected."
People come up with all kinds of ideas that they proffer as "Christian," but are simply beliefs of one or another sect, like the Bible is inerrant and infallible, or women can't wear pants.

There is no universally recognized body of Christian theology beyond recognition of Jesus as the Messiah. Look at how a Southern Baptist and an Episcopalian, Graham and Buttigieg, just got into it. The question is always "which Christian." It's too confusing and society can't allow millions and millions of Christians and others to go their own way in a nation of 325 million. Only chaos could result.

Moreover, every religious adherent has to determine how to relate to larger society. The woman in the hijab who checks me out at the local wine store knows that we are going to drink what she is bagging for me. Everyone has to compromise.

This is an interesting case of a flight attendant who converted to Islam and then asserted that she could not serve alcoholic beverages to passengers: Stanley v. Expressjet Airlines, Inc, 356 F. Supp. 3d 667 | Casetext I don't think it turned out well.

There also have been incidents on El Al flights when Orthodox men demanded that women on the plane be moved so that they would not have to sit next to a woman. Activist: El Al can be sued for $18,000 if women asked to move for men. Notice that these guys expected that other people would accept being inconvenienced to accommodate their thoughts, rather than simply rebooking on another flight.
.

 

[WEATHER53]

Christians don’t need to accommodate or capitulate.

 

[Bush92]

Since I have been mentioned...here is my view.

Any and all anti-discrimination laws applied to anyone but the government itself are unconstitutional. The Constitution tells the government they cannot discriminate, it does not tell me and you we cannot.

Considering the courts who are responsible for interpreting our laws and ensuring their Constitutionality by the Constitution disagree with you...

Furthermore, the very concept of a "protected class" violates the equal protection clause of the Constitution as protected classes have more protections, thus it is not equal.

Says which court?

I understand why we had them, but I do believe if they were removed today that the marketplace would weed out those that wanted to discriminate against any group.

Beliefs are nice.

Study: anti-black hiring discrimination is as prevalent today as it was in 1989

A new study, by researchers at Northwestern University, Harvard, and the Institute for Social Research in Norway, looked at every available field experiment on hiring discrimination from 1989 through 2015. The researchers found that anti-black racism in hiring is unchanged since at least 1989, while anti-Latino racism may have decreased modestly.

They looked at two kinds of experiments: résumé and in-person audits. In the first, researchers send out résumés with similar levels of education, experience, and so on, but the names differ so some résumés have a stereotypically black or Latino name and the others have a stereotypically white name. In the second, applicants go in-person to apply for a job; they each share similar qualifications, but some are white while others are black or brown.

In total, the researchers produced 24 studies with 30 estimates of discrimination for black and Latino Americans, collectively representing more than 54,000 applications submitted for more than 25,000 positions.

They concluded that, on average, “white applicants receive 36% more callbacks than equally qualified African Americans” while “[w]hite applicants receive on average 24% more callbacks than Latinos.”

They also found no evidence of changes over time in rates of hiring discrimination for black people, with anything but the slight possibility of “a slow decline” ruled out by the studies. With Latinos, the evidence indicates “a possible decline in discrimination, although this trend is outside of conventional levels of significance” — meaning the data isn’t statistically significant enough to draw a solid conclusion.

If I were an employer a degree from Harvard would eliminate them from potential employment.

You're not, so who cares?

Employers who do. Harvard has been a breeding ground for socialist. Business people know this. Only place for Harvard grads is in education so they can poison future generations with their Marxist bullshit ideology.

You are so full of shit, no employer is not hiring someone because they went to Harvard.

Employers know Harvard is a shit school that liberal elites get their lazy kids into. Then they enroll unqualified minorities to cover their tracks. It’s scandalous.
The No. 1 Ivy League school employers most want to see on a resume is ...