Wait I don't know the guy very well, but from what I found online he's half black. What exactly is the issue?
Applying for agency/temp jobs at the moment, when I found one that sounded great until:
Can I email and show them my badge of faggotry to demonstrate I'm not one of the big bad hombres (/s) that apparently is such a strong influence on other peoples drug use/recovery?.... are recruiting for a substance misuse service in London. We are currently looking for support workers (women only) who can manage a caseload of 11 clients.
Jesus Christ
Best believe with the mood I'm in today that I googled that straight away.
Are there any circumstances in which an employer can specify, for example, the required race, gender, sexual orientation or age of job applicants?Yes, there are certain defined exceptions in the Equality Act 2010, known as occupational requirements. These, broadly, apply when a job can be performed effectively only by someone with a particular protected characteristic, eg either a man or a woman, a person of a specific racial or religious group, a person of a particular sexual orientation, a disabled person or a person of a particular age group.
To rely on the exception, the employer must show that, having regard to the nature or context of the work, having the particular protected characteristic is an occupational requirement and that the application of the requirement is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
For example, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, in the Employment statutory code of practice, states that "a women's refuge which lawfully provides services to women only can apply a requirement for all members of its staff to be women".
Who decides the gender? Can a FTM trans person work in a woman's shelter?
If a group of people decide that muslims intimidate them can they say no muslims for the job? Can people say that you need to have the lived experience of being a furry to work for a job?
That's some broad shit they have in there.
Not that Id be too forgiving of it if the rules only applied to privately funded businesses, but in the UK almost all healthcare related services are going to have some % of funding from the NHS (whether directly or indirectly).
So it becomes a state funded restriction that promotes equality based on factors that are hardly rigorous and testable clinical care guidelines.
The govt. oversteps it's bounds in what it can legislate for, and employers are overstepping their bounds in what they think they can ask of employees.
Union bosses from our parents and grandparent's generation must be rolling in their graves.
Justices Strike Down Law Banning Disparaging Trademarks
In a decision likely to bolster the Washington Redskins’ efforts to protect its trademarks, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that the government may not refuse to register potentially offensive names. A law denying protection to disparaging trademarks, the court said, violated the First Amendment.
The decision was unanimous, but the justices were divided on the reasoning.
The decision, concerning an Asian-American dance-rock band called the Slants, probably also means that the Washington Redskins football team will win its fight to retain federal trademark protection.
Assuming that there are no complications from transgender protection legislation that define the interaction or hierarchy between sex and gender, it's up to the shelter to determine whether presented gender or sex is determinative.
The reason shelters get to enforce these rules is that they have presented, and the courts have accepted, the rationale that male staff would be counter-productive to the core mission of the establishment if their presence would disturb the patients.
The obvious reason why being homosexual doesn't get you a free pass is that you being homosexual has nothing to do with the comfort of the women around you; it's precisely why you don't get to go into women's changing rooms or restrooms just because you are a homosexual male.
Now I'm sure that comment is about to invite a lot of transgender counterfactuals. Yes, many people against transgender bathroom rights seize upon this same logic to say they aren't comfortable with MTF people using women's rooms (or they just say that predator men will use it as an excuse to peep). The difference there is that a homosexual person is not being denied their identity if they by using a facility that conforms with their sex.
A religious organization can require its employees either a) be members of the organization's religion or b) at least adhere to certain lifestyle regulations (can be terminated if found to be co-habitating, pregnant out of wedlock, using prohibited substances, etc.)If a group of people decide that muslims intimidate them can they say no muslims for the job?
I know you're trolling, but yes because furry is not a protected classification so it is okay to discriminate either for or against them in employee screenings. The same way it is okay for modelling agencies and Abercromie to discriminate based on appearance when hiring models, a furry organization can be exclusive to self-identified furries and the rest of us can discriminate against furries because they are weird.Can people say that you need to have the lived experience of being a furry to work for a job?
It's legal to do things for bad reasons or no reason at all as long as the reasons aren't discriminatory (as defined by law). Anti-discrimination laws only prohibit screening based on certain enumerated protected classifications (religion, sex, color, race, national origin, etc.)
Things like women's shelters are an exception and the employer has to prove that screening applicants/employees based on this classification a business necessity.
Does it matter what % of black he is? A large part of your experience as a race is about how others see you and treat you as a result of that perception regardless of how you see yourself and to what extent you embrace or reject your ancestry.
Obama is half-black and people still lynched effigies of him and define him as black (for better or worse). Mulatto children of slaves didn't get half-person rights on account of being half-white.
If King gets treated as black by the majority of people he comes across, then he is effectively black even if it's only 1/4th or 1/8th of his blood. And this is from someone who thinks the notion of "being transracial" is stupid (because unlike gender, there are no inherent characteristics to race; there are definitely distinct cultural experiences, but those can be experienced by anyone living in a culture regardless of their race).
So does that make Rachel Dolezal black?
See: eminem
She certainly didn't have the experience of growing up black but she lived a number of years with people basically treating her as black and advocating for the black community as a member of that community. I won't say she is black insofar as I don't believe in the concept of being transrace, but she certainly has at least some shared life experience with African Americans and she is going through extremes to keep it that way.
The difference is that she, if she wanted to, has the option of escaping that experience (assuming her skin alterations and hair treatments are reversible) by looking white. That option isn't available to most blacks.
I'm not sure what you mean by race, but would it be fair to say that there are distinct ethnicities with physical characteristics unique to them? Wasn't the last few pages arguing about the perceived possible racial insensitivity of an inherent characteristic to a certain group of people?
Also what does obama having effigies being lynched have anything to do with him being mulatto? Or was the bush parentage more muddied than we have all been led to believe?
Spoiler: show