Bush violates Civil Rights Act

[theHawk]

OK, no problem.

From Article VI Section 3

"... but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

There you go.


As you are probably aware, there is more law than the Constitution. When Bush swears to uphold Constitution he also swears to uphold the laws of this land - one being the Civil Rights Act - which SPECIFICALLY prohibits using religion or lack of religion as a basis for hiring or not hiring someone.

It does not PROHIBIT using religion for hiring, READ it. It says DISCRIMINATING is prohibited. You might be able to argue that another person was discriminated against for not making the list, but you'd have to prove that. How is it that affirmative action is not in violation of this Act and appointing someone for this reason is? The way you are reading into it, everyone, everywhere is always being discriminated against.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

It does not PROHIBIT using religion for hiring, READ it.

Uh - YEAH IT DOES.

It says DISCRIMINATING is prohibited.

This statement contradicts your first statement.


Do you even understand what the word "discriminate" means?

(from dictionary.com)
discriminate - To make distinctions on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit; show preference or prejudice:

Notice - PREFERENCE or PREJUDICE. If an employer shows preference for people because of their religion, race, or national original, or sex, accept as provided by law, that is an illegal form of DISCRIMINATION.


You can't hire someone because they are Christian anymore than you can not hire someone because they are Christian.


He is also bound by the CONSITUTION not to impose a religious test for office.

 

[manu1959]

Uh - YEAH IT DOES.




This statement contradicts your first statement.


Do you even understand what the word "discriminate" means?

(from dictionary.com)
discriminate - To make distinctions on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit; show preference or prejudice:

Notice - PREFERENCE or PREJUDICE. If an employer shows preference for people because of their religion, race, or national original, or sex, accept as provided by law, that is an illegal form of DISCRIMINATION.


You can't hire someone because they are Christian anymore than you can not hire someone because they are Christian.


He is also bound by the CONSITUTION not to impose a religious test for office.

then i guess congress is guilty of discrimination as they will be doing the hiring

 

[no1tovote4]

I wonder if all the people that voted for Bush who voted because he is Evangelical violated this Act....

 

[SpidermanTuba]

then i guess congress is guilty of discrimination as they will be doing the hiring

If the Senate bases their decision on her religion - then yes they are. The Constitution specifically prohibits this. Do you have evidence that they are?

 

[theHawk]

Uh - YEAH IT DOES.




This statement contradicts your first statement.


Do you even understand what the word "discriminate" means?

(from dictionary.com)
discriminate - To make distinctions on the basis of class or category without regard to individual merit; show preference or prejudice:

Notice - PREFERENCE or PREJUDICE. If an employer shows preference for people because of their religion, race, or national original, or sex, accept as provided by law, that is an illegal form of DISCRIMINATION.


You can't hire someone because they are Christian anymore than you can not hire someone because they are Christian.


He is also bound by the CONSITUTION not to impose a religious test for office.

Then I guess the law itself contradicts itself
once again, read :



Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, (1) it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to hire and employ employees, for an employment agency to classify, or refer for employment any individual, for a labor organization to classify its membership or to classify or refer for employment any individual, or for an employer, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining programs to admit or employ any individual in any such program, on the basis of his religion, sex, or national origin in those certain instances where religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise, and (2) it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for a school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning to hire and employ employees of a particular religion if such school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning is, in whole or in substantial part, owned, supported, controlled, or managed by a particular religion or by a particular religious corporation, association, or society, or if the curriculum of such school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning is directed toward the propagation of a particular religion.

And who in this case gets to determine if religion is a bona fide occupational qualification ? That would be the Prez....

 

[SpidermanTuba]

I wonder if all the people that voted for Bush who voted because he is Evangelical violated this Act....

No. Reasons for citizens casting their votes is an exception to the act. At least, I've never heard of anyone getting in trouble for it. Its reasonable to assume any Court would rule that is an exception.


On the other hand - the Constitution is specific. Also - the Civil Service Act, which applies specifically to government employees, prohibits discrimination based on religion (with obvious exceptions, such as the position of Chaplain for the Army)

 

[no1tovote4]

No. Reasons for citizens casting their votes is an exception to the act. At least, I've never heard of anyone getting in trouble for it. Its reasonable to assume any Court would rule that is an exception.


On the other hand - the Constitution is specific. Also - the Civil Service Act, which applies specifically to government employees, prohibits discrimination based on religion (with obvious exceptions, such as the position of Chaplain for the Army)

First of all it was a rhetorical question posed as a humorous break....

But if you insist:

So if the President should violate Posse Comitatus because there is no legal controlling authority, at least according to you he should, then what is the problem here?

Assuming you were able to prove that he disregarded other candidates because their religious beliefs were not the same and that he wasn't simply talking about her life as the sentence wording indicates.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Then I guess the law itself contradicts itself
once again, read :



Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, (1) it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to hire and employ employees, for an employment agency to classify, or refer for employment any individual, for a labor organization to classify its membership or to classify or refer for employment any individual, or for an employer, labor organization, or joint labor-management committee controlling apprenticeship or other training or retraining programs to admit or employ any individual in any such program, on the basis of his religion, sex, or national origin in those certain instances where religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise, and (2) it shall not be an unlawful employment practice for a school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning to hire and employ employees of a particular religion if such school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning is, in whole or in substantial part, owned, supported, controlled, or managed by a particular religion or by a particular religious corporation, association, or society, or if the curriculum of such school, college, university, or other educational institution or institution of learning is directed toward the propagation of a particular religion.

And who in this case gets to determine if religion is a bona fide occupational qualification ? That would be the Prez....

Please tell me you aren't serious.

Perhaps you learned in your HS Civics class that its the courts which intepret the meaning of the law, NOT the President. And considering the Consitutution specifically states no religious test will be imposed for ANY public office, its pretty easy to see which way they would rule.

It would be great if the employer himself could determine what a "bona fide" reason would be - wouldn't it! Then the act would be compeltely uneforcible and useless.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

First of all it was a rhetorical question posed as a humorous break....

But if you insist:

So if the President should violate Posse Comitatus because there is no legal controlling authority, at least according to you he should, then what is the problem here?

Assuming you were able to prove that he disregarded other candidates because their religious beliefs were not the same and that he wasn't simply talking about her life as the sentence wording indicates.

You don't have to prove that. Using your logic, someone who hired only white employees because they were white could simply say "I'm not discriminating against blacks - I hire white employees because they are white, but I don't not hire black employees because they are black"




It says it RIGHT HERE IN THE CONSITUTION

"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to ANY Office or public Trust under the United States."



Are you saying that he is inviolation of this and the Civil Rights Act - but he can get away with it? Is that your position?




It has been truly entertaining to watch you folks try to rationalize your illogical beliefs that even though the Constitution says no religious test can be imposed - one can be imposed. Some of you have even maintained its OK to hire someone because they are a certain race or religion, but not OK to not hire them. Its hilarious. In fact - one of the good things about the Bush administration is the endless lengths his supporters will go to in order to logically justify his lies, inconsistencies and in this case, violations of law. Its been getting more and more ridiculous as his administration goes on. I especially enjoyed this one. I'm told he said somethign other than what he said and that the Constitution does not mean what it says - brilliant!

 

[manu1959]

You don't have to prove that. Using your logic, someone who hired only white employees because they were white could simply say "I'm not discriminating against blacks - I hire white employees because they are white, but I don't not hire black employees because they are black"

It says it RIGHT HERE IN THE CONSITUTION

"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to ANY Office or public Trust under the United States."

Are you saying that he is inviolation of this and the Civil Rights Act - but he can get away with it? Is that your position?

what is your proof that bush picked her because of her religion?

 

[archangel]

The Civil Rights Act prohibits employers - or the one doing the hiring for the employer - from discriminating base on religion, race, or national origin. Bush has clearly stated Miers' religion to be part of the reason he nominated her - a clear violation.

another one with a reading comprehension problem....your own statment argues against you...the clue being..."from discriminating"(against)...to state one is a religious person is not saying they will or not be chosen based on their belief...just that she has a belief....you really picked a bad point to argue! :2guns:

 

[no1tovote4]

You don't have to prove that. Using your logic, someone who hired only white employees because they were white could simply say "I'm not discriminating against blacks - I hire white employees because they are white, but I don't not hire black employees because they are black"

However by showing that there were better-qualified blacks that applied for the position you could actually prosecute them. If you could not show that you could not prosecute them because of that.

It says it RIGHT HERE IN THE CONSITUTION

"no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to ANY Office or public Trust under the United States."

And amazingly nobody said that they used one. You use a sentence in which he speaks of her life and not her qualifications and attempt to stretch it over her qualifications and say that THIS is why he hired her.

Are you saying that he is inviolation of this and the Civil Rights Act - but he can get away with it? Is that your position?

No, I am not saying that. I SAID, (as if you can read this one any better than the last one) ASSUMING that you are right.... etc.

Reading comprehension is clearly not an intellectual property of which you can be proud.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

what is your proof that bush picked her because of her religion?

That he included it in a list of her qualifications.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

another one with a reading comprehension problem....your own statment argues against you...the clue being..."from discriminating"(against)...to state one is a religious person is not saying they will or not be chosen based on their belief...just that she has a belief....you really picked a bad point to argue! :2guns:

'

To include that fact that she is religious in a list of her qualifications is clearly stating that part of the reason you chose her was because of her religion.

 

[no1tovote4]

That he included it in a list of her qualifications.

Read the sentence that you keep posting. In that sentence he speaks of her life, not of her qualifications. You keep attempting to stretch a portion of the conversation in which he was talking about something other than qualifications. He was answering two questions at once, in this sentence he speaks of her life to give information about her, then he lists her qualifications for the job in other sentences.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

However by showing that there were better-qualified blacks that applied for the position you could actually prosecute them. If you could not show that you could not prosecute them because of that.

Just because you can't be prosecuted for something doesn't mean yuo haven't violated the law. People get away with crimes all the time - in fact the majority of workplace discrimination cannot be proven in a court of law - does this mean it doesn't happen?

And amazingly nobody said that they used one. You use a sentence in which he speaks of her life and not her qualifications and attempt to stretch it over her qualifications and say that THIS is why he hired her.

So the list of things after the statement "People ask why I picked Harriet Miers" isn't a list of qualifications? The fact that she is one of the 50 best female lawyers in the nation isn't a qualification? His statement that she is qualified, has NOTHING to do with her qualifications? UNBELIEVEABLE.

Reading comprehension is clearly not an intellectual property of which you can be proud.

So the things that someone says after the statement "People ask why I picked so and so" quite logically have NOTHING to do with the reasons why that person was picked? Is that your position?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Read the sentence that you keep posting. In that sentence he speaks of her life, not of her qualifications. You keep attempting to stretch a portion of the conversation in which he was talking about something other than qualifications. He was answering two questions at once, in this sentence he speaks of her life to give information about her, then he lists her qualifications for the job in other sentences.

He says religion is a big part of her life. That's one of the qualifications he lists. You're simply trying to parse his words in a way that suits your position - its obvious to any unbiased reader that the list of things about a person which come after the statement "People asked why I picked so-and-so" are REASONS why you picked that person.

 

[dilloduck]

He says religion is a big part of her life. That's one of the qualifications he lists. You're simply trying to parse his words in a way that suits your position - its obvious to any unbiased reader that the list of things about a person which come after the statement "People asked why I picked so-and-so" are REASONS why you picked that person.

And that reason is perfectly legal. give up.

 

[archangel]

'

To include that fact that she is religious in a list of her qualifications is clearly stating that part of the reason you chose her was because of her religion.

even if GW did mention her religion as part of her qualifications...it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever...as long as he did not discriminate against her for this...just a simple point of law...mind ya!