The SA does not “prosper” from government funding. You don’t know a goddamn thing about how government funding works. I happen to be married to an expert on it. First of all, the SA gets the vast majority of its funding from kettles. Secondly, the government grants it gets are marked for very specific uses, with very specific conditions and are audited carefully. The SA does not and cannot profit from these funds since they cannot be merged with church funds, or for that matter even with other NON-church funds, or for anything but the specific programs for which they are granted. Government funds cannot be used for religious purposes. No discrimination is allowed in service, and there can be no proselytizing. Faith-based organizations aren’t prohibited from hiring on a religious basis, however - a Jewish organization can decide to hire Jewish people, a Catholic organization can decide to hire Catholics, etc. Looking at it another way, a faith-based organization cannot be forced to hire in a way that would compromise its religious identity. A Christian organization can decline to hire avowed Satanists, a Jewish organization does not have to hire a member of the Nation of Islam.
Here’s an FAQ from the HHS Department which will explain things to you.
Your ignorance is eclipsed only by your arrogant zealotry. Only your first link has anything to do with FBCI, so it’s the only one that needs to be addressed. Your highly biased, butthurt website is being rather misleading about the facts. For instance, there is no “loyalty statement.” That is a flat out lie. There is a position statement which does not ask for “loyalty” to anything, but only asks that employees do not publicly contradict the SA’s mission. Basically they’re just asking people not to trash them. There is also nothing in that statement about Jews. I am not guessing about this. My wife has overseen a number of these programs for years. It’s her job. There is also no policy of asking anybody what church they attend. That’s bullshit. If anyone in a given program tried to ask about something like that, they were acting contrary to SA policy (although they are ALLOWED by law to discriminate in hiring against people who would undermine their religious identity. Jewish organizations do the same thing.
I had a financial advisor at one point who fit into this category. I fired him and found another one…I decided I didn’t want to pay comissions to someone that thought I was so filthy that he would be contaminated if he touched me.
To be fair, he was also not managing my investments at all and was trying to tell me it the performance of the funds he invested me in mattered not at all. And I honestly felt he wouldn’t treat someone in his “club” with the same disregard, I wanted an investment advisor that saw me as a person, not a farm animal.
Then maybe it should stop asking for it since it can discriminate against its employees. “Prosper” does not have to mean “get cash”. Don’t kid yourself. The SA would not be as big as it is without government help - both in terms of funding and the work it does (like a contract) as a faith-based organization. :rolleyes:
Let me guess, Dio. That’s your cite!
That would make sense only if I believed in God and was an actual zealot, which I don’t and I’m not, and you know that, soo. Yeah.
The SA also discriminates against gay employees. I’m wondering if you think the woman in the story was a big fabricated liar, then?
Seriously, this is utter rubbish. There is nothing frivolous about this question.
You have no idea what you’re talking about.
Very generally speaking, a public accommodation is a business that invites the public to enter and seek to engage in trade for goods and services. So, that means pretty much every business that has an open door that people can drop in and do business.
“Private” generally refers to organizations that only engage with members or do not otherwise invite anyone wandering by to come in and do business.
Sounds like a public accommodation to me, but I’m no expert in this area of the law.
An individual customer choosing a service provider is not a public accommodation.
It’s not a matter of “incorporating as a private establishment.” It’s a matter of how you are running your business and how you get your customers. If you take business from people who walk in off the street, you’re not a private establishment.
Generally speaking all that matters is the individual person or organization’s sincere belief and practice. Courts usually don’t test a person’s beliefs and practices against some larger standard, unless there’s a question that there’s some shenanigans going on, i.e., someone is lying.
Exactly.
You feel that only as a female and not as a person? Men don’t get to have this feeling?
I presume the OP is in the United States. While individual states might have varying laws on discrimination, there is a lot of federal law in this area, so it’s valid to discuss it in terms of national law.
So you find it impossible to consider the issue from any other point of view? Because I’m pretty damn sure that there is no legal principle based on the proposition that “Women feel that they aren’t obligated to touch anyone.”
In fact, I’m pretty sure that there are situations in which some women might be obligated to touch someone, say, if they are working as emergency response personnel, health care professionals, law enforcement professionals, or they are in the military, for example.
What gave you the idea that his behavior had anything to do with “filth” or “contamination”? Do you think the Muslim woman discussed in the OP thinks men are “filthy”?
OP: There are a few hundred thousand Orthodox Jews in this country who avoid physical contact with unrelated members of the opposite sex. The number of Muslims with similar practices is probably a lot higher. At the same time, as seen in this thread, there are plenty of people who find their free practice of religion discriminatory and personally offensive. There must be someone out there who felt the same as Ann Hedonia, but had the time and inclination to pursue legal action. Are any of the lawyers here aware of such cases? What were the outcomes?
No it doesn’t. Try to read with some comprehension. That’s only referring to one program, not to the entire SA budget.
You’ll have to explain how this is discriminatory. It’s also not an accurate description of the position statement. There isn’t any religious “pledge.”
My wife is at work, but she said she’d be happy to help you with your confusion over these things when she has the time (later tonight). I guess she’ll have to register an account here.
She really is an expert on FBCI, particularly with regards to the Salvation Army. You can actually stand to learn something, you know.
You know, I’ve probably done business with lots of Orthodox folks who had this same belief, my reason for taking offense at this individual was that he seemed to visibly recoil if I stood within arms length of him and I felt that he tried to minimize face to face contact with me as a general policy…and I felt it reflected in the way he managed my account…he seemed to act as if he had some prohibition against “touching” my investments or working on my account which was what I had hired him to do.
In fact, every aspect of our interaction seemed to smack of him belonging to some club that I didn’t belong to…it may not have been his religion, he may have just been a really lousy advisor.
And I didn’t really “hire” the guy, he inherited my account from my previous advisor.
If a woman feels strongly that she isn’t obligated to touch a man, then she should refrain from taking employment that requires her to do so.
But I don’t think she can agree to perform a job as …say…a paramedic in a lumber camp…and reasonably expect her employer to let her sit around all day and collect a check for doing nothing.
if your religion won’t let you touch pork, I understand…but you also shouldn’t be accepting employment in a bacon factory
So, what are the penalties for refusing service on basis of sex? I assume if it’s federal law, there are federal penalties, there would also be penalties in our state, CT.
And to answer a question for a bit farther back, you CAN apply henna without touching someone, but it’s really hard, AND just being that close to a guy she’s not related to is out of bounds for her, so it wouldn’t help, not would gloves.
I should have a degree of liberty so that I don’t have to be touched by men to suit their fancy.
But the reason why I said “woman” and “female” is because I am a female and I have never had a penis or high levels of testosterone or the experiences of being a man. I can sympathize with men who feel the same way, but I can only relate so much.
Don’t nitpick.
Which is why many Orthodox women (of whatever variety) chose to work in their communities, in private ambulances, become obygns, etc.
Israel does have some provisions for halachah-following Orthodox women in the military, and that’s understandable. The US does not, but Orthodox men seem to do all right. (Not sure how many of them follow the prohibition of touching women.)
Dio, if I am so stupid that I can’t even read with comprehension and you insist on insulting me with every post, I certainly don’t want to talk to your wife as I would just take up her time and patience. As of now, I’m putting you on ignore. Normally I’m too lazy to go through the trouble, but you can be my first.
Somehow I think that being in the financial industry is not like a Jew or Muslim working in a bacon factory. Shaking your hand is not a requirement for the job. Get over it.
I’m a black man married to an biracial woman who looks white. I believe that, if a photographer running a sole proprietorship business had refused to do our wedding because she or he didn’t like the idea of an appaarently-interracial couple marrying, he or she would have been within his rights and should not be subject to government sanction.
Well, yes, but that’s not the point. There should be a limit to the government’s authority to enforce social norms. We should not be allowed to force individuals to abstain from all racist behaviors – just some, under certain circumstances.
Similiarly, though I believe same-sex marriage should be legal and that the only reasons to oppose it are bigotry and/or ignorance, I do not believe any minister, priest, or rabbi should be forced to officiate at such ceremonies.