At what point during a job interview...

At what point during a job interview...

Posted in the Christian Forum

First Prev
of 6
Next Last

“Vader2016!”

Since: Sep 10

The Deathstar

#1 Jul 2, 2014
...is it appropriate to ask the owner's religion?

Since a business owner's religion subjects their employees to different rules now, it seems like that's an important question to ask during the interview process.

“Vader2016!”

Since: Sep 10

The Deathstar

#3 Jul 4, 2014
http://www.alternet.org/pandoras-box-wide-ope...

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2...

Pandora's Box Wide Open: Faith Leaders Ask Obama for Exemptions to Discriminate Against LGBT Persons

“Right Makes might”

Since: Dec 13

Location hidden

#4 Jul 5, 2014
10uhsee wrote:
...is it appropriate to ask the owner's religion?
Since a business owner's religion subjects their employees to different rules now, it seems like that's an important question to ask during the interview process.
I get the point you are making...unlike the other poster.

You make a good point. What is the job seeker to do now? Where does the applicant go to find the Corporate Boards manifesto of their beliefs and how they will, or could impact their employees...?

Whats to stop a Board of Christian Scientists from not supporting a Rx drug plan? Or whatever else might disturb their Religious sensibilities...maybe head coverings for the women, the males must not shave, etc...

The Problem with the US Supreme Court right now is 1. they are doing everything the Conservatives rail against re; Liberals - being an Advocate Court, and 2. Setting us all up for a real battle with other Religions such as Islam to insert their beliefs and their Sharia into the American legal system as worthy of enforcement on others.

What better place to start then in the workplace, where Conservatives have stripped away practically every hard fought and won Employee protection there is. Where the rights to being treated fairly and as legally represented citizens with civil rights to protection is being wiped away in the Neo-Conservatives battle to promulgate their Christian beliefs and their sycophantic worship of American Corporatism.

The "Hobby Lobby" decision is a bad one that WILL come back to haunt this Court...and very soon. Mark my words...this decision will set up dozens of more cases that will feed off this ignorant decision. This wont open a mere can of worms, but several barrels...oil drum sized...

“Right Makes might”

Since: Dec 13

Location hidden

#5 Jul 5, 2014
hmmmmm wrote:
<quoted text>
Its not appropriate at all, just like they cannot ask you about your faith.
What you can do is ask if the COMPANY follows any religious practices, if it is that important to you then ask in the very beginning of the interview.
Hope that helps
But the COMPANY doesn't follow anything. No COMPANY, a legally created institution cant follow anything on its own. The issue is with the Board, the owners, etc...individuals who are protected behind the veil of their Corporation from being sued as individuals, but now can enforce their personal beliefs on their employees. Don't you see the disconnect? Stop looking at the Hobby Lobby decision from a Religious POV, but look at the legality, which the USSC ignored, at least the agreeing parties did. Whats to stop Christian Scientist owners, hidden and protected behind their Corp veil - to now suddenly deny a Rx drug plan in whole? Of course they could do so anyway, but now they can prevent their employees from collectively bargaining for one!

This case has implications that reach all over the Employer-Employee landscape that no one is looking at...least of all Christians who see this as a WIN for their enforcing their beliefs onto others. Its going to create a disastrous legal precedent that in fact ignored all legal precedent to date...

NDanger

“Third Eye”

Since: Nov 10

You can't get there from here.

#6 Jul 5, 2014
10uhsee wrote:
...is it appropriate to ask the owner's religion?
Since a business owner's religion subjects their employees to different rules now, it seems like that's an important question to ask during the interview process.
It wouldn't even come up...

“Right Makes might”

Since: Dec 13

Location hidden

#7 Jul 5, 2014
NDanger wrote:
<quoted text>
It wouldn't even come up...
why not?

A job seeker might look to a company's social responsibility, etc, and seek employment there - so to they should NOW know the Religious POV's of the Board/Owners. As they could now impact the employee on a very personal level.

The barrels of worms the HobbyLobby decision opened up is gonna haunt all you Right Wing Christians. Just watch...
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#8 Jul 5, 2014
This decision of the Supreme Court was very specific to say that it applied only to the contraceptive mandate...

"This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employerÂ’s religious beliefs." - Justice Alito, who wrote the majority opinion

The majority opinion also very specifically limited the exemption to "closely held" corporations...

"Has more than 50% of the value of its outstanding stock owned (directly or indirectly) by 5 or fewer individuals." -IRS

Interestingly enough 85% of large corporations already offered contraceptive coverage before the Affordable Care Act went into effect. Although Hobby Lobby is one of the largest "closely held" corporations I think they may find not offering contraceptive coverage to be a disadvantage in attracting female employees at all levels since the vast majority of women in this country do choose to use contraceptives when they feel the need.

I don't think the owners of Hobby Lobby would think it right to try to tell their employees how to spend their wages and I don't understand why they (or those 5 Justices) think they should be able to tell their employees how to use their health insurance.

NDanger

“Third Eye”

Since: Nov 10

You can't get there from here.

#9 Jul 5, 2014
Scurge wrote:
<quoted text>why not?
A job seeker might look to a company's social responsibility, etc, and seek employment there - so to they should NOW know the Religious POV's of the Board/Owners. As they could now impact the employee on a very personal level.
The barrels of worms the HobbyLobby decision opened up is gonna haunt all you Right Wing Christians. Just watch...
Why 'should' it? I could give a fluck what their views are as they do mine...

NDanger

“Third Eye”

Since: Nov 10

You can't get there from here.

#10 Jul 5, 2014
Big Al wrote:
This decision of the Supreme Court was very specific to say that it applied only to the contraceptive mandate...
"This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employerÂ’s religious beliefs." - Justice Alito, who wrote the majority opinion
The majority opinion also very specifically limited the exemption to "closely held" corporations...
"Has more than 50% of the value of its outstanding stock owned (directly or indirectly) by 5 or fewer individuals." -IRS
Interestingly enough 85% of large corporations already offered contraceptive coverage before the Affordable Care Act went into effect. Although Hobby Lobby is one of the largest "closely held" corporations I think they may find not offering contraceptive coverage to be a disadvantage in attracting female employees at all levels since the vast majority of women in this country do choose to use contraceptives when they feel the need.
I don't think the owners of Hobby Lobby would think it right to try to tell their employees how to spend their wages and I don't understand why they (or those 5 Justices) think they should be able to tell their employees how to use their health insurance.
Their is a difference between 'using' it and being forced...
Cisco Kid

Sonora, CA

#11 Jul 5, 2014
10uhsee wrote:
...is it appropriate to ask the owner's religion?....
At the point you no longer want to get hired.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#12 Jul 5, 2014
NDanger wrote:
<quoted text>
Their is a difference between 'using' it and being forced...
I don't get your point. What's the difference if the employee uses the wage she receives from the employer or the insurance she receives from the employer to obtain contraceptives in either case the the employer is providing the means to obtain contraceptives. I will repeat, I don't see why the employer should have any more to say about how an employee uses her health insurance than how she uses her wage.

“Right Makes might”

Since: Dec 13

Location hidden

#13 Jul 5, 2014
NDanger wrote:
<quoted text>
Why 'should' it? I could give a fluck what their views are as they do mine...
They who?

“Right Makes might”

Since: Dec 13

Location hidden

#14 Jul 5, 2014
Christians who laud the HobbyLobby decision, dont realize it opens up lawsuits to sue to know the views of Owner-Employers protected behind their Corporate veil, who can now when they see fit reach around that veil and interrupt the personal health decisions of their employees when it comes to how they, the employees, use their health insurance. Or in this case, what they decide to cover based on their (the Owner-Corporate officer) personal POV's But whom currently cant be sued as individuals for anything else the Corporation might do.

This is not a Liberal vs. Conservative, or Believer vs. non-believer issue, this is now about Interpretation of long held Corporate laws. As to where the individual lies in that legal creation and when and if they can stick their heads out and into other peoples lives and their personal decision making.

This is going to haunt the Right, Christian and otherwise.

NDanger

“Third Eye”

Since: Nov 10

You can't get there from here.

#16 Jul 5, 2014
Scurge wrote:
<quoted text>
They who?
Prospective employers...

NDanger

“Third Eye”

Since: Nov 10

You can't get there from here.

#17 Jul 5, 2014
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't get your point. What's the difference if the employee uses the wage she receives from the employer or the insurance she receives from the employer to obtain contraceptives in either case the the employer is providing the means to obtain contraceptives. I will repeat, I don't see why the employer should have any more to say about how an employee uses her health insurance than how she uses her wage.
If they use their own monies, it's their decision. Why should you or I have to pay for it if we don't want to use it?

When I choose my insurance, I choose exactly the coverage I need...
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#18 Jul 6, 2014
NDanger wrote:
<quoted text>
If they use their own monies, it's their decision. Why should you or I have to pay for it if we don't want to use it?
When I choose my insurance, I choose exactly the coverage I need...
An employee does not choose his/her employer provided insurance coverage. Before the Affordable Care Act employees got whatever coverage the employer offered. Some employers offered no healthcare insurance at all. Under the ACA most employers are now required to provide healthcare insurance coverage and contraceptive coverage is one of the coverages required. Not all employees will use their contraceptive coverage just as not all employees will use their pregnacy coverage. It's the employee's choice not the employer's.

If a single woman employed by Hobby Lobby with no other source of income does not have contraceptive coverage and chooses to use a contraceptive she will use her wage or salary to pay for it. Hobby Lobby will, in essence, still be paying for her contraceptives. The problem is not that the business is paying for the use of contraceptives. The argument is that providing contraceptives through their healthcare insurance will encourage the use of contraceptives. Employers with a religious objection to the use of contraceptives feel that they should not be required to participate in anything that encourages the use of contraceptives. This is where I disagree. The use of contraceptives is legal and I think an employer has no right to interfere in any way with an employee's choice to use her wage, salary or benefits in any way she chooses.
Nc resident

Charlotte, NC

#19 Jul 6, 2014
Scurge wrote:
<quoted text>I get the point you are making...unlike the other poster.
You make a good point. What is the job seeker to do now? Where does the applicant go to find the Corporate Boards manifesto of their beliefs and how they will, or could impact their employees...?
Whats to stop a Board of Christian Scientists from not supporting a Rx drug plan? Or whatever else might disturb their Religious sensibilities...maybe head coverings for the women, the males must not shave, etc...
The Problem with the US Supreme Court right now is 1. they are doing everything the Conservatives rail against re; Liberals - being an Advocate Court, and 2. Setting us all up for a real battle with other Religions such as Islam to insert their beliefs and their Sharia into the American legal system as worthy of enforcement on others.
What better place to start then in the workplace, where Conservatives have stripped away practically every hard fought and won Employee protection there is. Where the rights to being treated fairly and as legally represented citizens with civil rights to protection is being wiped away in the Neo-Conservatives battle to promulgate their Christian beliefs and their sycophantic worship of American Corporatism.
The "Hobby Lobby" decision is a bad one that WILL come back to haunt this Court...and very soon. Mark my words...this decision will set up dozens of more cases that will feed off this ignorant decision. This wont open a mere can of worms, but several barrels...oil drum sized...
I believe the solution would be in not allowing the insurance company to offer plans that do not include reproductive coverage.
Nc resident

Charlotte, NC

#20 Jul 6, 2014
Scurge wrote:
Christians who laud the HobbyLobby decision, dont realize it opens up lawsuits to sue to know the views of Owner-Employers protected behind their Corporate veil, who can now when they see fit reach around that veil and interrupt the personal health decisions of their employees when it comes to how they, the employees, use their health insurance. Or in this case, what they decide to cover based on their (the Owner-Corporate officer) personal POV's But whom currently cant be sued as individuals for anything else the Corporation might do.
This is not a Liberal vs. Conservative, or Believer vs. non-believer issue, this is now about Interpretation of long held Corporate laws. As to where the individual lies in that legal creation and when and if they can stick their heads out and into other peoples lives and their personal decision making.
This is going to haunt the Right, Christian and otherwise.
How much more money does the policy covering birth control cost? Why not turn it on the insurance companies rather than the business owners?
Nc resident

Charlotte, NC

#21 Jul 6, 2014
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#22 Jul 6, 2014
Nc resident wrote:
<quoted text>
How much more money does the policy covering birth control cost? Why not turn it on the insurance companies rather than the business owners?
Good question. Insurance rates are based on actuarial tables, statistics and above all the amount of money in claims insurance companies are required to pay. An insurance company that provides a policy that does not include contraceptive coverage will not have to pay claims for contraceptives but will inevitably have more pregnancy claims. One pregnancy costs considerably more than a year's worth of contratraceptives. Who knows if the policy will end up costing more or less. I don'think the insurance companies are objecting to providing contraceptive coverage.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 6
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Why did Christ come to Earth? (Oct '16) 57 min Ben Avraham 1,136
Israel is anti christ, literally 1 hr Ben Avraham 242
The truth is difficult, I understand. 3 hr Barmsweb 151
Early Christianity (Dec '16) 4 hr Big Al 2,612
The False Teachings of the Hebrew Israelites, s... (Jan '14) 5 hr Big Al 1,920
the essay of mark twain about the jews 10 hr Ben Avraham 52
breath of god, and how we come to light. 12 hr Big Al 68
More from around the web