501c3 at risk due to opposition to sodomite ceremonies

[Jose Fly]

The black waitress worked there, she sued over forced hair color, not over being discriminated against for being black or for not being hired, apples and oranges.

Geez, you don't even read very well. The very first sentence in the article I linked to...

"An arbitrator has awarded $250,000 to a former Hooters waitress and found the chain's "image policy" discriminates against African-American waitresses."

The suit i referenced is over business model. They can discriminate against those who do not have the required equipment for the business model.

Unless the model puts them in violation of anti-discrimination laws.

You can discriminate based on age for things like pilots and drivers,

Out of safety concerns.

you can discriminate based on disability for physical labor jobs

Out of ability to perform the duties.

you can discriminate based on religion for churches and religious schools

Not public businesses.

and you can discriminate based on sex where sex appeal is the primary service

But not in violation of anti-discrimination laws.

All have been upheld in courts.

And courts have also ruled that public businesses must provide their services to gays.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Geez, you don't even read very well. The very first sentence in the article I linked to...

"An arbitrator has awarded $250,000 to a former Hooters waitress and found the chain's "image policy" discriminates against African-American waitresses."

You are who cant seem to read past a headline, try reading one of the articles, she sued because of a person in her particular workplace (she had a job there) who wanted her to change her hair color back to black after she dyed it blond, and it was because the person (not business model or policy) stated that african americans do not have blond hair, and to change it, and when she refused, she was fired. She was obviously hired because she met criteria to be a waitress there, and that criteria of business model didnt have anything to do with hair color, but with her "assets" as a hooter girl.

Totally apples and oranges to the discussion, next time try reading past a headline you like, she was discriminated by another employee who was creating other than business model, totally different issue.

 

[Jose Fly]

You're so desperate to avoid acknowledging the fact that your argument is wrong, you're making yourself look ridiculous.

Guess who paid the settlement? Hint...it wasn't "a person in her particular workplace", it was Hooters. And in the ruling, it was specified that the chain's "image policy" does not grant it the right to discriminate based on race, contrary to what you claimed.

 

[Angel4Truth]

You're so desperate to avoid acknowledging the fact that your argument is wrong, you're making yourself look ridiculous.

Wrong about why she was fired? :rotfl: keep showing you cant read.

Farryn Johnson, who is African-American, was fired from her Baltimore restaurant job in August 2013 because "Hooters prohibits African-American Hooters Girls from wearing blond highlights in their hair," according to a lawsuit.

While other women were allowed to highlight their hair, the restaurant manager told Johnson she couldn't be at work with blond streaks because it didn't look "natural" on African-Americans, the suit said.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...ed-250-000-racial-discrimination-case-n337396

Guess who paid the settlement? Hint...it wasn't "a person in her particular workplace", it was Hooters. And in the ruling, it was specified that the chain's "image policy" does not grant it the right to discriminate based on race, contrary to what you claimed.

yes hooters paid it because companies are responsible for the actions of their employees, duh.

Again, this wasnt over being denied a job for not having hooters assets, it was over an idiot who worked there that went over the line since there was no policy on hair color. Different situation totally.

 

[Jose Fly]

Wrong about why she was fired?

No, wrong about "business models" trumping anti-discrimination laws.

Again, this wasnt over being denied a job for not having hooters assets, it was over an idiot who worked there that went over the line since there was no policy on hair color. Different situation totally.

And it shows that a business' "model" doesn't trump anti-discrimination laws.

 

[Angel4Truth]

No, wrong about "business models" trumping anti-discrimination laws.



And it shows that a business' "model" doesn't trump anti-discrimination laws.

Wrong, it was never a hooters business model that a person cant have blond highlights in their hair.

 

[Jose Fly]

Wrong, it was never a hooters business model that a person cant have blond highlights in their hair.

Ok, let's grant that for the sake of argument. Do you think had it been Hooters' business model, they would have won the case?

 

[Angel4Truth]

Ok, let's grant that for the sake of argument. Do you think had it been Hooters' business model, they would have won the case?

Irrelevant to the point and argument completely, they would have to have a hair color business model overall - then yes, they would be able to discriminate based on that - issue in your case (oranges) was that some could do it and some couldnt, which is inconsistant and not business model, but blatent misapplication of a false guideline.

 

[Jose Fly]

Irrelevant to the point and argument completely, they would have to have a hair color business model overall - then yes, they would be able to discriminate based on that - issue in your case (oranges) was that some could do it and some couldnt, which is inconsistant and not business model, but blatent misapplication of a false guideline.

Of course it's relevant. You've been arguing that business models trump anti-discrimination laws.

So if Hooters had a rule for all its restaurants that black waitresses were not allowed to change their hair color, do you think that would be legal?

(Obviously if the rule was that no waitress could change their hair color there wouldn't be any discrimination to contemplate. In order for it to be relevant to your POV, there must be discrimination.)

 

[Angel4Truth]

Of course it's relevant. You've been arguing that business models trump anti-discrimination laws.

So if Hooters had a rule for all its restaurants that black waitresses were not allowed to change their hair color, do you think that would be legal?

Youre not getting it, they cant make a rule just about black women that doesnt apply to other women. That was the problem in the case you mentioned, but they can make a rule that applies to all women there equally based on model. (that they are women and have certain "assets" to be servers there.)

 

[Jose Fly]

Youre not getting it, they cant make a rule just about black women that doesnt apply to other women.

And by the same token, a business can't make a rule just about gays that doesn't apply to others (in jurisdictions that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation).

Thanks for your time. :wave:

 

[Angel4Truth]

And by the same token, a business can't make a rule just about gays that doesn't apply to others (in jurisdictions that prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation).

Thanks for your time. :wave:

well yes they can, what led to the precedent of them being able to discriminate based on business model was being sued by gay men who wanted to be servers there even though they didnt have the needed "assets".

Thank you for your time There are tons of cases where legal discrimination exists and ive already provided examples of it happening based on business model and it being upheld.

 

[Jose Fly]

well yes they can, what led to the precedent of them being able to discriminate based on business model was being sued by gay men who wanted to be servers there even though they didnt have the needed "assets".

Not the same thing. Their policy is based on "bona-fide occupational qualification", which means the entire point of being a Hooters waitress is to tantalize male customers. And even then, Hooters settled out of court.

The same can't be said for the issues that have arisen regarding gays.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Not the same thing. Their policy is based on "bona-fide occupational qualification", which means the entire point of being a Hooters waitress is to tantalize male customers. And even then, Hooters settled out of court.

The same can't be said for the issues that have arisen regarding gays.

Another case that doesnt deal with what i mentioned. Whats new.

 

[musterion]

Leftists are always in favor of ad hoc law that supersedes other laws and established principles.

 

[Dialogos]

The answer to your question is "no," and if you understand what a 501(c)3 is (and how the institutions you mentioned actually operate) you'll understand why.

What makes you think I don't?

I sit on the board of directors for 2 nonprofits, one is Christian, the other isn't.....

 

[Granite]

Well, a blast from the past! The thread's been resurrected.

Your concern here's misplaced. And if churches really are so terrified then maybe they can pay up just like everyone else. Put their money where their mouth is, so to speak.

 

[bybee]

Churches should never have taken advantage of this tax break in the first place.

They also should be paying property taxes... it makes no sense that they tend to have some of the best locations all over the country and yet pay no taxes to support the roads and schools.. etc.

On the other hand people who send their children to parochial schools still pay taxes and support the public schools. This holds true for Home Schooled children as well.
Studies have been done which show that if Churches were to discontinue all of their charitable work the government couldn't handle the resulting need.

 

[Granite]

On the other hand people who send their children to parochial schools still pay taxes and support the public schools. This holds true for Home Schooled children as well.
Studies have been done which show that if Churches were to discontinue all of their charitable work the government couldn't handle the resulting need.

I would just love to see such a study.

 

[Tinark]

I'm not much in favor of tax exemptions for certain organizations. The whole system has proven too prone to abuse, and I can't think of a good reason why an organization should just inherently carry exemption from taxation because of what it does. Are poor people really that much less worthy that we'll tax them, but not a Super PAC?

Donations to a super PAC are not a tax writeoff. Donations to a homeless shelter are.