Christian Persecution vs Persecuted Christians

[trappedslider]

That statement applies to virtually everyone. What's your point?

I was agreeing with you about disliking names and not being racist, not everyone in this thread is out to troll debate you

 

[Maxperson]

I was agreeing with you about disliking names and not being racist, not everyone in this thread is out to troll debate you

Oh, okay. Tone doesn't travel well in text. Sorry for taking that wrong.

 

[billd91]

If you have any evidence that inextricably tied name to race, provide it. I'm really curious to know what race I am since I've met black, white, hispanic and asian people with my name. Which race am I forced to be?

Sorry, but they are not bound and I can dislike names without being racist.

There in nothing inextricably tying race to names, but you cannot deny the trends. Discriminating against names like Shaniqua will have you systematically discriminating against black women, for no appropriate reason. Favoring names like James, Robin, Rhonda, and George will have you systematically privileging white people, for no appropriate reason.

 

[Maxperson]

There in nothing inextricably tying race to names, but you cannot deny the trends. Discriminating against names like Shaniqua will have you systematically discriminating against black women, for no appropriate reason. Favoring names like James, Robin, Rhonda, and George will have you systematically privileging white people, for no appropriate reason.

That's impossible. I can't be discriminating against someone or something I am not discriminating against. In order for me to discriminate against black women, I must intend to do so. I have absolutely no issue with any race, religion, gender, etc. I would hire a qualified black woman just the same as a white woman, asian woman or venusian woman. I would not hire someone whose name I really dislike whether she was white, black, asian, venusian or whatever. The two are not tied together in any discriminatory sense.

Oh, and I've met a lot more black Rhonda's than white.

 

[billd91]

That's impossible. I can't be discriminating against someone or something I am not discriminating against. In order for me to discriminate against black women, I must intend to do so. I have absolutely no issue with any race, religion, gender, etc. I would hire a qualified black woman just the same as a white woman, asian woman or venusian woman. I would not hire someone whose name I really dislike whether she was white, black, asian, venusian or whatever. The two are not tied together in any discriminatory sense.

Oh, and I've met a lot more black Rhonda's than white.

Ultimately, this is like saying "I only hire people who stand up to pee" and then denying that you favor hiring men. The factor you cite may sound independent (though just as illegitimate since, like name, has no bearing on expected job performance), it really isn't. Names may penetrate different cultures to a certain degree, but they also serve as cultural markers. Discriminating against names will discriminate against the cultures in which they trend, discriminating for names will discriminate for cultures in which they trend. This is a significant reason minority cultures (minority in the sense that they don't dominate the politics or economy) and languages are threatened with extinction.

 

[Maxperson]

Ultimately, this is like saying "I only hire people who stand up to pee" and then denying that you favor hiring men. The factor you cite may sound independent (though just as illegitimate since, like name, has no bearing on expected job performance), it really isn't. Names may penetrate different cultures to a certain degree, but they also serve as cultural markers. Discriminating against names will discriminate against the cultures in which they trend, discriminating for names will discriminate for cultures in which they trend. This is a significant reason minority cultures (minority in the sense that they don't dominate the politics or economy) and languages are threatened with extinction.

No it's not like that at all. People fail to get jobs for lots of reasons. Some bosses don't like ugly people. Others dislike fat people. Maybe you walked in wearing green that day and the person interviewing doesn't like green. The reasons for not hiring you are the only reasons there are for not hiring you. You don't get to invent other reasons like racism or discrimination and then apply them to me. Especially when there are lots of names that I do like that are often black, but are not africanesque.

 

[billd91]

No it's not like that at all. People fail to get jobs for lots of reasons. Some bosses don't like ugly people. Others dislike fat people. Maybe you walked in wearing green that day and the person interviewing doesn't like green. The reasons for not hiring you are the only reasons there are for not hiring you. You don't get to invent other reasons like racism or discrimination and then apply them to me. Especially when there are lots of names that I do like that are often black, but are not africanesque.

I could say that if you walk like a duck and quack like a duck...

But instead, I'll go with this:

The laws enforced by EEOC prohibit an employer or other covered entity from using neutral employment policies and practices that have a disproportionately negative effect on applicants or employees of a particular race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), or national origin, or on an individual with a disability or class of individuals with disabilities, if the polices or practices at issue are not job-related and necessary to the operation of the business.

You may think you wouldn't be discriminating on race, but the EEOC disagrees with you.

 

[Maxperson]

I could say that if you walk like a duck and quack like a duck...

But instead, I'll go with this:

You may think you wouldn't be discriminating on race, but the EEOC disagrees with you.

Yep. The government is overly racist with some of its policies. Of course, since there are many names that are black that I do like, what I do doesn't qualify anyway. It doesn't target a race.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

As the EEOC rule points out, it is pretty well settled law that "disperate impact" is a valid definition of impermissible discrimination. It isn't inherently racist- IMHO, racism requires intent- but its effects are indistinguishable from racism, so it is illegal just about wherever it crops up- employment law, housing law, voting rights, etc.

Or, to put it a different way: I just spent 7 hours of my Wednesday in a CLE course on Employment Law.* The theme as a whole was by preparing your business to go to litigation, you can avoid litigation. That is, if you know the potential traps in EL, you're less likely to get sued.

One point the lead lecturer made repeatedly in a variety of ways- most briefly was "The Smell Test"- was that a business needs to avoid not only actual impropriety, but also the appearance of impropriety. And a pattern of non-interviewing/hiring that leaves minority job seekers disproportionately shut out of the process is a sure loser unless you can provide a valid business-related justification for that pattern that the court finds acceptable. The employer bears the burden of proof.

Even in an Emplyment at will jurisdiction.









*Not my personal field of practice, but it needed the CLE hours to keep my license active, and I was out of time.

 

[Umbran]

I can't be discriminating against someone or something I am not discriminating against. In order for me to discriminate against black women, I must intend to do so.

Incorrect. Let us look at the definition from the UN I've shown a few times - emphasis is mine:

"the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life."

Note that - has the purpose or effect. You don't mean to specifically consciously intend it, but if the result has more negative impact on a specific racial, ethnic, or national group, then the thing you're doing is racist.

And, if the policy in question comes from a thought process of, "I hate the names they give black kids these days, so I won't hire people with those names," one does have to wonder if it is really just the names that are at issue. Unconscious bias is a real thing.

Plus, generally speaking, not hiring a person because you don't like their name is pretty darned dumb. Sorry. Personal opinion, that.