General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLots of closely held religious belief that women belong at home.
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
(34,648 posts)Brigid
(17,621 posts)That this isn't the 1950s.
Kath1
(4,309 posts)I was born in the 1950s but I don't want society to go back there. No way!
WhiteTara
(29,718 posts)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
(12,665 posts)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
(19,964 posts)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
(11,804 posts)If you have a large staff than you need to abide by non-discrimination laws. I could be wrong about this.
Bryant
Squinch
(50,955 posts)75 shareholders, but can have as few as a handful of shareholders. So no, no large staff needed.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)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
(50,955 posts)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
(11,804 posts)Squinch
(50,955 posts)closely held corporation.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)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
(50,955 posts)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
(11,804 posts)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
(50,955 posts)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
(12,665 posts)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
(50,955 posts)theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)I wish I had saved a link.
RKP5637
(67,111 posts)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
(32,076 posts)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
(67,111 posts)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)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
(31,828 posts)Scrotum Five - yep - sure is aok.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)TBF
(32,067 posts)newfie11
(8,159 posts)F*Ck that SH*T!!!!!
Kath1
(4,309 posts)A wake-up call to us, maybe?
newfie11
(8,159 posts)whistler162
(11,155 posts)Could you try translating what you "wonder/think" into maybe English.
Thank you.
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)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
(6,199 posts)not in the workplace.
RKP5637
(67,111 posts)don't try to push it on everyone else.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)One persons constitutional rights don't trump another's.
The same reason murder is not okay even if you declare jihad.