3 ms·

Devils advocate: you're trying to justify some destructive (and presumably illegal since it's influencing his hiring decisions based on a protected category) wo

• russelldjimmy 3y ago
  Why the ad hominem? Refute what they’ve put forward instead of trying to judge the person.
  • ern 3y ago
    If I were to share an anecdote about another group being subject to workplace discrimination and open bigotry; and then get a canned sociological treatise trying to justify it, that response would be, rightly seen as beyond the pale. So no, I’m not going to engage with it. EDIT: it looks like you’re from India, so you may not be aware of this. In most western countries engaging in workplace discrimination based on religion would get you into serious trouble, and quite likely fired. Not only is it illegal, it’s bad for business (losing a potentially valuable senior staff member because they’re the “wrong religion” has seriously hurt our project). Your reaction is quite telling though.
    • lostmsu 3y ago
      IMHO this is a glaring hole in constitution that got there due to the historical oppression from people affiliated with religions. Unlike other protected classes like race and gender religion is not bolted to a person at birth, and as a matter of choice should not be protected constitutionally or otherwise.
      • ern 3y ago
        You’re assuming I’m an American. Regardless, this sort of pseudo-anthropological BS has been used to justify discrimination for centuries (and I hope we can agree it’s entirely irrelevant to hiring decisions: I accept that people will be as bigoted as they want in private, once it starts influencing hiring, it becomes a problem). What’s more interesting is that it’s still up, and still got people defending it.
        • lostmsu 3y ago
          I don't see a problem with having personal/company preferences. In fact you have to justify any kind of limits on preferences. And no, I was not assuming you are American. But in the context of this website the constitution refers to the US constitution. What I said also applies to many other constitutions.
          • ern 3y ago
            I don’t see a problem with having personal/company preferences Fortunately you don’t make the law. But, regardless, he not only violated company policy and also broke the law, his “personal preferences” put a large program of work at risk. You leave your prejudices at the door and hire the best people for the job: one of the fundamental rules for (non-f*d) businesses.
            • lostmsu 3y ago
              It sounds like you ignored the point completely and just switched to personal attack. Do you agree or not that any law limiting hiring practices should be justified or not? If so, how do you justify religion over other criteria that are personal choices of the candidate like style, cleanliness, politeness etc? How do you even propose to discover criteria if you start with a clean list? I generally agree about the business point, but you seem to belive religion has no impact on fulfilling one's duties regardless of the nature of business, which is dubious even in common important professions like doctors.
              • ern 3y ago
                I’m not sure how you’d be able to figure out how a doctor would treat patients based on their religion. You seem to assume that people who belong to a particular religion adhere to every precept of their religion, which is not the case. In any case, most people are born into a religion and have no real choice in the matter. They acquire various markers of their religion (a name for example) from their parents. You seem to think it’s a personal choice, but for the vast majority of people that’s not the case. In the context of the person whose resume was rejected, he was not considered for the job based on his name and his educational history, which marked him as a Muslim. Even if we accept your argument that religious practice is a choice that can be discriminated against, there is no indication that he actually was a practicing Muslim (I don’t know if he was) he was rejected, sight unseen, because of those markers.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
• cscurmudgeon 3y ago
  The original post is an anecdote and even if true is just openly stereotyping Indians to be casteist and anti-Muslim by default.