That's not discrimination based on orientation (who a person is), it's discrimination based on behavior (what a person chooses to do). There is a marked difference between the two.
Discrimination against a Christian?
- Thread starter Mendalla
- Start date
Welcome to Wondercafe2!
A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!
That's not discrimination based on orientation (who a person is), it's discrimination based on behavior (what a person chooses to do). There is a marked difference between the two.
Ritafee
Is Being Human
I doubt that she ever really wanted to get hired ... she wanted exactly what happened to happen ... seems to me that is what education is coming to ... learning how to play your discrimination cards in the Human Rights Tribunal Arena ... how to earn compensation for 'lost wages' without even getting a job ... when your bluff is called sue "for injury to feelings and self respect" ... (CBC News Article said:Trotter said if the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal concludes his client was discriminated against, he will seek compensation for lost wages and "for injury to feelings and self respect.")Well, even if they had hired her, she may have quit again soon when she saw them wear Thor hammers for tattoos and pendants and invoke Thor for a wild ride.
Again ... mainstream media distraction from more important issues (Mr. Harper will not sacrifice a place at the forefront of the battle against ISIS, whatever the prospect of success and whatever the ultimate cost to Canadians in men and material) ... while supporting generation of money for all parties involved ... legal advertising for (gay card) viking adventurers and legal fees and compensations for the so called christian rights (card).
Another human rights example of canadian christians with 'good heads on their shoulders' 'keeping their (own ) heads' and generating revenue for themselves at the same time.
Mendalla
Happy headbanging ape!!
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
But why should standards of behaviour be different for one orientation than another? Why is a behaviour that is okay for heterosexuals not okay for homosexuals? It's the old argument that it is okay to be gay as long as you are celibate and that's discriminatory. Every consenting adult should be free to enjoy the same level of intimate companionship with those they love.
Mendalla, you posted,
Mendalla said:
Where are the different standards? If you're gay, straight, or anything else, they're okay with you being married to a person of the opposite gender.
chansen
Had a point all along
- Pronouns
- He/Him/His
LOL, you're just trolling again.
It's not astonishing to me, it's all I've ever known. There are a lot of SBNR people here, though. I grew up with a few kids who went to church but they were in the minority in my experience. I now have a coworker who's sort of Buddhist but he reads all kinds of new age stuff - a mixed bag- and he talks about his 'religion' all the time and that's not unusual here but it is unusual for the bible to come up in casual conversation.
Meanwhile, where's the most religious province? I am guessing Alberta?
ChemGal
One with keen eye
- Pronouns
- She/Her/Her
Using the same data that Chansen used, Alberta is the second least religious province. Newfoundland is the most.
My guess would have been Quebec, they come in second.
Hermann
Well-Known Member
Here in BC, some people who profess to be Christian aren't, at least not in the opinion of some conventional Christians. I enter the statistics as a Christian and member of the United Church of Canada, but I don't believe in any church doctrines, my spirituality is experiential, and what makes me "Christian" merely is the culture I grew up in as well as the fact that my experiential spirituality compels me to do what is basic Christian moral action, and that the traditional Christian metaphors are adaptable to my spirituality.
But is this enough to call oneself a "Christian?" I'd say yes, but many of may fellow Christians would disagree.
On the old wondercafe someone posted the topic "Who is a Christian?" My answer was, "Whoever considers himself a Christian."
Neo
Well-Known Member
I would say that Christ would accept you as Christian more than many orthodox Chrisistian organizations would. Our* bias' can colour reality, especially when the emotions are big at play.
* people in general
Seeler
Well-Known Member
I wonder if Trinity's attitude towards same sex marriage might also give a clue as to how they feel about other things - like evolution. The position this woman applied for required a degree in biology. I would think that the theory of evolution would show up in biology courses. I would be suspicious of a degree in biology from a university that denies evolution. If I were doing the hiring for a position and was seriously considering this girl based on her qualifications I might want to look at the curriculum of the biology department before making my final decision.
As would I.
I wouldn't want to hire someone from a university that taught a theory as fact.
revsdd
Well-Known Member
You actually believe that this young woman checked out various employment opportunities until she found a Norwegian company which ran a wilderness tour company offering tours in Northern Canada, knowing that the company was run by rabidly anti-Christian Norse neo-pagans, so that she could apply for a job knowing that she'd not only be rejected by them but also have her faith ridiculed by them, all so that she could make a complaint to the BC Human Rights Commission and get financially compensated?
Ritafee
Is Being Human
I don't think she started out looking for a human rights issue ... more likely applying for jobs that she did not bother to research at all ...
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 1:59 PM
Hi, my name is Bethany Paquette. In the attached document I have provided my cover letter,
resume, and current photo in regards to a position for an assistant guide intern in Canada.
Thank you for your time, Bethany
From: Olaf Amundsen Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 a 5 AM
Subject: Re: assistant guide internship Canada
Ms Paquette, I do not understand the purpose of your application considering you do not meet the
minimum requirements that are clearly outlined on our website.
- 's Added by me (Undefinitive) but taken from the website the viking was referring to
- How to Apply
- Please review all minimum requirements of the position, and ensure you meet all said requirements, without exception before you apply.
- Upon confirmation that you meet all minimum requirements, please send your complete application, to careers.emploi@amaruk.com, with the position reference in subject, as well as desired region(s).
- Selection Process
- Applications that do not meet all minimum requirements, and/or do not include all required documentation, will be rejected with prejudice.
Sincerely, Olaf Amundsen Wildemess Guide/Instructor
Now to my mind a good 'Christian' girl would have taken this to heart as a lesson in researching a jobs minimum requirements before she applies ... but instead Bethany proceeds of her own free will and as a "Proud Christian and Graduate of Trinity Western University"- (bethany's header on p.4 of 8) to carry on an email debate with Olaf (with no apology for having already wasted his time by applying for a position that she should not have applied for in the first place).. In the CBS article "Paquette was furious and told CBC, "My beliefs have developed who I am as an individual, but they don't come into play when I am doing my job." and "I signed it God Bless, probably partially because I knew it would irritate them," Paquette said. ... anyway here is the whole Original Document (PDF) » Contributed by: British Columbia, CBC News ...
This girl seized an opportunity to cash in on a human rights ticket ... and is now playing it out in the public arena ... I for one do not think she has a case now that I have looked at it closer ... poor Bethany they did not teach her that pride goeth before a fall ... as for Olaf The Well Educated Norseman ... all advertising is good advertising and his bases are covered. GAY card TRUMPS again!
Last edited:
At any rate - to go back to a question I asked - whether TWU discriminates or not - how does that affect the educational quality of the courses they teach?
revjohn
Well-Known Member
Hi UnDefinitive,
That is an Ad Hominem attack.
Even if it turns out to be more factual than opinion the situation for the employer does not clarify as communication continues.
Silence is golden. Keep spouting off and it can cost you some green.
Will it increase the profile of the tour company? I've read the documents and it isn't something that springs immediately to mind.
UnDefinitive said:
That is an Ad Hominem attack.
Even if it turns out to be more factual than opinion the situation for the employer does not clarify as communication continues.
Silence is golden. Keep spouting off and it can cost you some green.
Will it increase the profile of the tour company? I've read the documents and it isn't something that springs immediately to mind.
Seeler
Well-Known Member
Thank you for providing connections to the back-and-forth correspondence that is the basis of this discussion. This is the first time I read it.
However, I do not see how this proves that she was intentionally applying for a position without meeting the basic requirements. Almost everyone I know, and almost every job posting I've ever read, tries to match their resume to the listed requirements in hopes that their application will be close enough or compare favourably against other applications. Thus my husband applied for a job that required an experienced truck driver when he had occasionally driven the pick-up truck at his previous job--and he drove large concrete mixer trucks for the next 25 years. Before that he applied for a job that required a bilingual person, although his French was very shaky. They tested his English (he has an Acadian name). He got the job and managed to pick up the necessary French phrases as most of the work was done in English.
I've also applied for jobs where my paper qualifications didn't exactly match the job description.
And often I've seen people apply and be hired when 'five years working in the field' was considered equivalent to having completed a course.
So a hypothetical young person looks at an ad for the job she has always dreamed about. She is fresh out of university with a biology degree. She's had some experience in volunteer work or summer employment. She loves the outdoors, adventure, working with people. She is bilingual. That's 90% of the minimum requirements. So she's a bit shaky on the others, but eager to learn. Everybody learns on the job. If she can just get her foot in the door ... So she applies. All the company has to do is throw her application into the pile of those that 'do not meet minimum requirements' and have the junior secretary send out their usual rejection letter.
I don't see any dishonesty here.
revsdd
Well-Known Member
Totally agree with previous comments. I see no evidence suggesting that this young woman knowingly applied for a job that she wasn't qualified for (and I'd want to know what the qualifications were that she didn't meet since I really don't see anything obvious before even believing that the company wasn't motivated more by religious bias than anything, since the attacks the company made on the young woman's religious beliefs call THEIR credibility into question.) But I think that UnDefinitive's personal insinuation about Ms. Paquette is unfair and uncalled for. And, although I believe HRCs can be abused, I think she has a legitimate complaint here.
revjohn
Well-Known Member
From Amaruk's own site.
From the pdf shared by UnDefinitive the cover letter fails misreably. Still nothing in the cover letter leaves her open for any kind of comment on her Christianity.
Nothing in these minimum requirements which would automatically disqualify a Christian or that a Christian would not be able to meet for reasons of faith. If the applicant meets these minimums and is rejected because of being a Christian then it is discrimination. If the applicant fails to meet these minimums and the employer insists on making the rejection a matter of the applicants faith that is blatantly discriminatory.
Particularly when all that would be required is a simple line saying because you do not have a valid driver's license we will not consider your application and even that is a company going above and beyond.
Finally, this little tid-bit
If the applicant was not pre-selected for whatever reason there will be no contact.
And yet, here we have communication between Amundsen and Paquette.
End there and there is no problem. Of course Amundsen doesn't end there and that is what gives rise to the allegation of discrimination.
Amundsen should have not contacted Paquette if she truly is unqualified. Everything she sent should have been pitched into the garbage or deleted.
By not actually focusing on any actual requirement in the exchange Amundsen is clearly communicating that it is Paquette's faith that is the impediment.
Unwittingly Paquette may have supplied Amundsen with the win in any suit.
Even if I had qualified?
Does she or does she not have the minimum qualifications?
Amaruk said:
From the pdf shared by UnDefinitive the cover letter fails misreably. Still nothing in the cover letter leaves her open for any kind of comment on her Christianity.
Amaruk said:
Nothing in these minimum requirements which would automatically disqualify a Christian or that a Christian would not be able to meet for reasons of faith. If the applicant meets these minimums and is rejected because of being a Christian then it is discrimination. If the applicant fails to meet these minimums and the employer insists on making the rejection a matter of the applicants faith that is blatantly discriminatory.
Particularly when all that would be required is a simple line saying because you do not have a valid driver's license we will not consider your application and even that is a company going above and beyond.
Finally, this little tid-bit
Amaruk said:
If the applicant was not pre-selected for whatever reason there will be no contact.
And yet, here we have communication between Amundsen and Paquette.
Amundsen said:
End there and there is no problem. Of course Amundsen doesn't end there and that is what gives rise to the allegation of discrimination.
Amundsen should have not contacted Paquette if she truly is unqualified. Everything she sent should have been pitched into the garbage or deleted.
By not actually focusing on any actual requirement in the exchange Amundsen is clearly communicating that it is Paquette's faith that is the impediment.
Unwittingly Paquette may have supplied Amundsen with the win in any suit.
Paquette said:
Even if I had qualified?
Does she or does she not have the minimum qualifications?