Lots of closely held religious belief that women belong at home.

[elehhhhna]

Is THAT okay? To never hire women? or only hire single women? or fire women who are unmarried and pregnant? Or once they have a child?

[bravenak]

1. I suppose so, if it's a 'closely' held belief.nt

[Brigid]

2. And it's my "closely held" religious belief . . .

That this isn't the 1950s.

[Kath1]

26. Very well-said!

I was born in the 1950s but I don't want society to go back there. No way!

[WhiteTara]

3. Our economy would collapse.

Women make up the majority of the workforce. It would be interesting to see what would happen if women struck for one week and didn't work anywhere and just stayed home.

[Sissyk]

29. Please don't say that.

In my state, and the counties, our EEOC guidelines for female participation is only 6.9%. Yes, that is 6.9.

They may make up the majority of the workforce (which I find hard to believe) but if you are only required to have at least 6.9%, that means expectations are close to zero. And, that realistically means we need more women in the world place in most all areas.

[theHandpuppet]

31. The latest stats I have show 47% women to 53% men

Still, that difference is negligible. If nearly 50% of the workforce went on strike even for a week it would paralyze this country.

Here's the reference:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/labor/report/2012/07/12/11938/the-state-of-diversity-in-todays-workforce/

[el_bryanto]

4. That is probably more dependent on how many people you hire

If you have a large staff than you need to abide by non-discrimination laws. I could be wrong about this.

Bryant

[Squinch]

8. From what I understand HL applies to closely held companies. An S Corp, for example, has fewer than

75 shareholders, but can have as few as a handful of shareholders. So no, no large staff needed.

[el_bryanto]

9. well staff and share holders are different

I'm thinking of small businesses - like a card shop that employs 3 -5 people. I don't know how employment law applies to them.

Bryant

[Squinch]

10. Yes, but what I am saying is that it can range from very small companies with very few

employees to very large ones. My family used to have a plumbing company that was an S Corp. At one point there were only 5 employees. HL would apply to that company.

[el_bryanto]

12. When you say HL you mean the Hobby Lobby ruling? I might be misunderstanding you- nt

[Squinch]

14. Yes. Hobby Lobby applies to closely held corporations. Most small businesses are some type of

closely held corporation.

[el_bryanto]

15. Ah ok - yes then I agree the size of the company has no relevance in discussing the Hobby Lobby

ruling.

I was thinking more of hiring practices however (based on the OP) - if a company decided they didn't want to hire women or homosexuals - at what point are they subject to the laws regulating those hiring practices? While Hobby Lobby might well open the door to challenges on those types of cases, it doesn't allow companies to discriminate in hiring practices in and of itself. That's not to downplay the danger of it; it could well open the door to those kinds of abuses, but the cases would still have to be tried.

Bryant

[Squinch]

16. As far as I know, they have never had to adhere to any rules on who they hire unless they are

a.) ethical people or b.) contracting with the government where the government requires certain representations in the workforce.

As far as I know, you could staff your company with nothing but KKK members, and no one can do anything about it.

[el_bryanto]

17. I wish i knew more about labor law

Because I think once you reach a certain employment threshold than non-discriminatory laws come into play. Those laws do exist I believe, but I don't know how they are applied.

Bryant

[Squinch]

24. My knowledge might be outdated or imperfect, but my understanding is that the EEOC

requires that you report the gender and race and disability characteristics of your employees yearly if you have more than 100 employees or contract with the government, but if you are not contracting with the government, they take no action against you unless someone complains that you are discriminating. If you are contracting with the government, there are some strict standards you have to adhere to.

I could be wrong about that, though.

[Sissyk]

30. It's a bunch more than yearly if contracting for the government

but you are basically correct. We do have audits conducted by EEOC, federal and state, on all projects over 10million. They can hold your funding, take the job from you, put you on probationary corrective actions also if you don't meet your goals or make all attempts to reach your goals with advertising, minority agencies, etc. etc.

However, in my state and county it is only 6.9% required by trade for females. And, that's our federal government's goal. Only 6.9.

[Squinch]

34. Good God. 6.9% is awful. And that's government contractors, right?

[theHandpuppet]

32. Shoot, I read about those requirements just the other day

I wish I had saved a link.

[RKP5637]

5. Apparently with SCOTUS this would be just perfectly fine and fitting for the little women, as SCOTUS

seems to think women have no rights. What utter bullshit SCOTUS (some) seems to like in the 21st century. Backward and backward, day by day, yep, the good old times, NOT.

[elehhhhna]

11. Scaly already told us that women have no rights under the "GD piece of paper" Constitution:

Posted at 9:08 AM ET, 01/ 4/2011

Scalia: Constitution does not protect women against discrimination

By Emi Kolawole


Justice Antonin Scalia has weighed in on the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, leaving women's rights activists seething.

In an interview with California Lawyer, Scalia said that the Constitution itself does not protect women and gay men and lesbians from discrimination. Such protections are up to the legislative branch, he said.

In 1868, when the 39th Congress was debating and ultimately proposing the 14th Amendment, I don't think anybody would have thought that equal protection applied to sex discrimination, or certainly not to sexual orientation. So does that mean that we've gone off in error by applying the 14th Amendment to both

[RKP5637]

22. He should be removed from the bench! n/t

[smirkymonkey]

25. Scalia is a disgrace to justice everywhere.

He needs to be disbarred. He is not fit to serve on a high school student council, let alone the highest court in the land.

[JustAnotherGen]

6. To the

Scrotum Five - yep - sure is aok.

[cyberswede]

7. "Scrotum Five"

[TBF]

18. Scrotum Five -

[newfie11]

13. This woman says

F*Ck that SH*T!!!!!

[Kath1]

27. A lot of us are saying that.

A wake-up call to us, maybe?

[newfie11]

33. +infinity!!!!nt

[whistler162]

19. HUH?????

Could you try translating what you "wonder/think" into maybe English.

Thank you.

[CBGLuthier]

21. I will translate for you as I am skilled at understanding bad spell checkerese.

Lots of closely held religious belief that women belong at home.

Should have said

Lots of closely held religions believe that women belong at home.


I found the rest fairly lucid.

[LadyHawkAZ]

20. my closely held belief is that religious beliefs belong at home

not in the workplace.

[RKP5637]

23. Exactly! If someone has found something that works for them fine, but

don't try to push it on everyone else.

[joeglow3]

28. That would violate their Constitutional rights

One persons constitutional rights don't trump another's.

The same reason murder is not okay even if you declare jihad.