Woman "Attacked"/denied Job because of Christianity (?)

[StellaMarie]

Well, this just got weirder

http://www.ipick.ca/vancouver/amaruk-wi ... n-attack-2

OMG

Well, I feel kind of stupid. I was trying to understand where these dudes were coming from and "they" were probably a troll.

[Mama Mia]

If they are a fake company, I wonder what the purpose is? I would think if it was to steal applicants identity info, or deposits for trips, they wouldn't do something to draw attention to themselves -- but if they are doing op it for fun?, novelty? Etc.. It seems like a really elaborate set up. Very very strange.

[Firiel]

If they are a fake company, I wonder what the purpose is? I would think if it was to steal applicants identity info, or deposits for trips, they wouldn't do something to draw attention to themselves -- but if they are doing op it for fun?, novelty? Etc.. It seems like a really elaborate set up. Very very strange.

I'm really curious about this. I'm a bit worried that now that it's fraud (we all know fraud is wrong!), no one will follow up because it's not BAM POLITICAL CONTROVERSIAL religious discrimination.

[browncoatslytherin]

I'm really curious about this. I'm a bit worried that now that it's fraud (we all know fraud is wrong!), no one will follow up because it's not BAM POLITICAL CONTROVERSIAL religious discrimination.

if it's all a fraud, you would think they wouldn't try to draw attention to themselves in this kind of way...lol

[Firiel]

if it's all a fraud, you would think they wouldn't try to draw attention to themselves in this kind of way...lol

I know, right?

Maybe they are an elaborate troll?

I'm totes not surprised that other women applicants have gotten sexual e-mails/questions from them either.

[nelliebelle1197]

I did an image search on the "olaf" picture and it does indeed trace back to a pinterest board on beards. In fact, it looks like it was originally posted on a site in Cyrillic script, not Norse, which is based in Latin letters. I also did a pretty good search for the company on legitimate gay and outdoors travel sites plus about 40 pages of various google searches and nothing, no legitimate reviews, nothing. I only found a single post on an outdoor adventures forum where one person asked about their guide training program and received a single response praising the training. The website is beautiful but it loads really, really slowly, which made me suspicious as well.

[NoneandDoneinCali]

Wow. Just. Wow. :shock: I truly hope, for your sake, and the sake of any possible employees, that you are never in a position to make hiring decisions.

If you can't see how openly discriminatory virtually every word you wrote is....well, all I can say is you are going to make some litigious job applicant very happy. If you don't see how, substitute any other sort of group it's illegal to discriminate against, and insert name of a college / work experience that person might have had and see how it flies.

Of course it is perfectly appropriate to ask every applicant if they are comfortable working with diverse groups of people in a job that involves working with the public. You might include relevant questions for the job - like how would they handle crises or conflict or rude customers or whatever. But you can't go into it expecting person x to have to " prove" themselves any more than person y, simply because you have a bunch of assumptions about how person x will behave on the job based on their religion, rave, ethnicity, sexual orientation, national origin etc....Good Lord :angry-banghead: :angry-banghead:

Wow. Okay, I guess I'm not doing a great job of expressing myself if a "banging head" is your reaction. We are, in fact, permitted to have preferences in a hiring environment. Not discriminating and having a preference are different things. Do you think "college attended" is protected by anti-discrimination laws? I can guaranty a person from Bob Jones university has not received the same comprehensive education in clinical psychology that someone from a state school has. This is incredibly relevant to a position in my particular field. Yes, I ABSOLUTELY consider signing a bigoted, anti-LGBT pledge as a red flag when working with a population largely comprised of LGBT youth and drug offenders. People change, yes. Get some further experience at a NON-faith based counseling center (there is a whooole degree devoted to Christian counseling), THEN apply again. Do you think that finding out your therapist recently signed a homophobic pledge because it's "just a piece of paper" to get through college might be damaging to a young lesbian woman who is facing religiously-based repercussions for coming out to her family? We are open about our credentials and experience here, and welcome relevant questions from clients so they can feel comfortable with us. There are local religious schools that have excellent graduate level counseling programs - Pepperdine, for instance. I have a colleague that went there, and she received a very competitive education. She also wrote her thesis on transitioning male to female without undergoing sexual reassignment surgery. It's not the religion, it's the extremity of it. Signing that pledge is extreme. I'm a post-grad intern myself, and I receive excellent mentorship here. But we work independently with clients for the majority of our workweek, and have two hour advisory sessions (and, of course, as needed consultations). Our supervisors need us to come in with experience. I'm sure in other employment situations, it doesn't matter as much, but it's crucial here.

Like I said, I am not a hiring manager. Maybe I'm not using the proper terminology. I don't know where you got that I make a point of discriminating against color, gender etc lol.

[Mama Mia]

There are plenty of women who can do 8 pull-ups. It says there is no time limit.

It's for an extreme tour guide, yeah? I know nothing about that industry. But I'd imagine that this company, which specializes in it, would know what specific skill set is relevant. So let's not pretend we know what the most important physical requirements should be. Swimming skills won't get you far in the rapids. I'd think endurance and upper body strength (to pull yourself up on a rock or out of the current) might be more important.

This is also not a native English speaking country. Norway has a different business culture and are extremely socially liberal. I'm not Norwegian, so perhaps one of the Scandinavian posters on here can clarify that.

Frankly, I think the response was quite rude. Honestly, I would probably not give equal consideration to an applicant with a degree from an incredibly conservative Christian college with a purity pledge and anti-LGBT mission statement either. However, I wouldn't bait or antagonize them. I would merely find a reason (ANY reason) they weren't qualified, wish them well, and find someone who was a better fit in my hypothetical company. I doubt a very conservative Christian would be particularly happy working in the type of company I would (again, hypothetically) have either. What if that person decided to proselytize to your guests when they're 20 miles out from civilization? Think about how that would reflect on your organization.

However, this guy should have stuffed a sock in it. He may well face legal ramifications for being so outspoken and should have just said "we're going with a more qualified candidate" and moved on. There's no need to insult people.

ETA: I don't want to imply that it's okay to discriminate against Christians. It's not. My point is that a recent graduate from a very conservative school (I'm not even talking Notre Dame or Pepperdine) would probably not be a good fit at a company with openly gay employees/a very secular and inclusive mission statement. This guy should have gone about it differently.

Do you not even see how you are now just spinning your intent to discriminate into more socially acceptable terms? Now you're saying it's really just about the quality of education and because of the sort of agency you work for and the population they serve.

In this previous post you say right out that you would find a reason, any reason - not to hire them. That is pretty much the exact definition of discrimination.

Any employer asking an employee about their ability to get along with diverse groups is fine. If you work in mental health or with specific populations it's fine to ask more detailed questions about how they would handle specific situations and their style of working with clients etc....but that is not what this job was about. Which you know. It would be appropriate to ask an applicant for this job what their rafting or camping experiences were, and various other job related questions. Projecting the attributes and attitudes needed to successfully perform the job of mental health counselor for an organization specifically serving the LGBT population onto the job of Excursion Guide makes no sense.

And searching for reasons not to hire someone based on non-job related criteria is not being culturally competent.

[formergothardite]

So if a person recently graduated from a religious college where they signed a pledge stating that they did not believe in interracial marriage and/or that they believe in white supremacy do you not think that an employer would take that into consideration when hiring them?

[Mama Mia]

So if a person recently graduated from a religious college where they signed a pledge stating that they did not believe in interracial marriage and/or that they believe in white supremacy do you not think that an employer would take that into consideration when hiring them?

You can not, legally, as an employer, base any of your hiring decisions on non - employment based criteria that can be tied to a persons age, race, religion, ethnicity, disability, political affiliation, sex, or sexual orientation ( in some states- don't think that's federal).

If the person is working in a specific field where being able to effectively work with a specific population is an important part of the job the employer can try to ascertain if the employee would be a good match for that specific situation. So, for example, a mental health counselor working with LGBT youth might be asked about how they would handle specific situations related to that client base, or experiences with those situations. Or a women's shelter serving an immigrant population could require bi-cultural counselors.

But if it's not specific to the job, no the employer is not supposed to take the potential employees beliefs into account. You certainly can ask questions to make sure she would treat all customers and employees professionally and respectfully - but you really aren't supposed to base your hiring decisions on what their religious or political beliefs are. Those laws are important because they don't just protect some far-right anti interracial marriage anti everything Applicant. They also protect the 50 year old Latina woman who just married her wife in a Wiccan ceremony. And everyone else.

If someone can't do their job without letting their personal attitudes show, or demonstrates in the interview that they wouldn't handle working with some professionally, then they shouldn't have the job.

Of course, everyone knows that a great deal of who is hired is who will be a good fit with the particular work environment. But in screening and interviewing, personal beliefs about non-work related situations aren't supposed to be part of the process.

[NoneandDoneinCali]

You can not, legally, as an employer, base any of your hiring decisions on non - employment based criteria that can be tied to a persons age, race, religion, ethnicity, disability, political affiliation, sex, or sexual orientation ( in some states- don't think that's federal).

If the person is working in a specific field where being able to effectively work with a specific population is an important part of the job the employer can try to ascertain if the employee would be a good match for that specific situation. So, for example, a mental health counselor working with LGBT youth might be asked about how they would handle specific situations related to that client base, or experiences with those situations. Or a women's shelter serving an immigrant population could require bi-cultural counselors.

But if it's not specific to the job, no the employer is not supposed to take the potential employees beliefs into account. You certainly can ask questions to make sure she would treat all customers and employees professionally and respectfully - but you really aren't supposed to base your hiring decisions on what their religious or political beliefs are. Those laws are important because they don't just protect some far-right anti interracial marriage anti everything Applicant. They also protect the 50 year old Latina woman who just married her wife in a Wiccan ceremony. And everyone else.

If someone can't do their job without letting their personal attitudes show, or demonstrates in the interview that they wouldn't handle working with some professionally, then they shouldn't have the job.

Of course, everyone knows that a great deal of who is hired is who will be a good fit with the particular work environment. But in screening and interviewing, personal beliefs about non-work related situations aren't supposed to be part of the process.

I shouldn't have said outright that I'd find a reason not to hire a conservative CHristian from those schools. I tend to use stronger language on here than I would in (obviously) any professional capacity. As I said, it was poorly worded, and I clarified it in previous posts. Clearly, this topic has broadened from being solely related to working as an expedition leader.

I stand by the fact that someone whose entire educational history is from openly homophobic organizations is not a good fit with a secular, liberal, community counseling center whose primary populations are LGBT and persons with substance abuse disorders. Find somebody from Liberty University that already has 1500 hours of practical therapeutic experience working with diverse and minority populations outside of any conservative religious institution (there are plenty of Christian counseling centers out there if that's what they want to do, it's actually offered as a separate degree), and they would, of course, be considered. Barring that - no. The graduate from Berkeley, UCLA or Notre Dame are always going to get priority, because those programs are known to include specific training and academics aimed at diversity.

[Mama Mia]

Yeah, well obviously they probably wouldn't be a good fit in that SPECIFIC situation. That is why employers are allowed to ask sensitive questions IF they directly relate to the job, and how the applicant would handle themselves on the job.

But discriminating against someone based on their perceived religious or political views , when it has no bearing on the job, is, thankfully, illegal.

[NoneandDoneinCali]

Yeah, well obviously they probably wouldn't be a good fit in that SPECIFIC situation. That is why employers are allowed to ask sensitive questions IF they directly relate to the job, and how the applicant would handle themselves on the job.

But discriminating against someone based on their perceived religious or political views , when it has no bearing on the job, is, thankfully, illegal.

We are really not in any disagreement, but I disliked the implication that I lack cultural competency and felt compelled to make a 20 page rant to explain myself. I am really not anti-religion. Unfortunately though, in some situations it is relevant. I really wish it wasn't. We used to take MFT interns (post-grad practicum towards becoming licensed as a psychotherapist) from the local conservative (but accredited) Baptist college, until we found that, not only was there a code of conduct that included only heterosexual relationships for everyone including grad students, but each of the three interns placed (at least in my time here, I've been here for 14 months) attempted to do conversion therapy and/or began and ended group sessions with prayer. Now, those graduates are only considered if they have taken a class on LGBT issues at another institution (their diversity class ONLY discusses reparative therapy, which actually does not meet state licensing guidelines, so technically they will not be able to get their licenses until they've done that anyways). None have since applied. THat school is doing a real disservice, not only to humanity in general and lesbian and gay clients in particular, but to their own graduates, who will not meet requirements for their licensing exam.

Wow. I just cannot write less than 1 million words today.

[nelliebelle1197]

What it really boils down to is that where a candidate went to school will have an effect on whether they get an interview. I hire a position that comes open every few years. I need someone sharp, organized and progressive who can understand our work because they have to write convincingly about what we do and why it is valuable. I toss resumes in a second from people with degrees from those for profit diploma mills and I would have tossed this woman's resume in a second. I would toss resumes from people whose main work experience came from Focus on the Family or a development office at a conservative organization.

When we are hiring attorneys and casehandlers, grads from places like Liberty's law school or Oakbrook would not make the cut for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that they are competing against lawyers with Harvard ( 3 of our 60 lawyers are Harvard grads), Duke (2 of 60), Emory (15 of 60), University of Georgia (3 of 60), University of Chicago (1 of 60), Chapel Hill (1 of 60) and other top law schools on their diplomas. A Federalist Society member would not be a fit, either.

Resumes tell you who people are. That is why you have to submit one to a prospective employer. It is not discrimination to weed the people out whose experience and education lead you to believe they do not fit, whatever the reason. Discrimination in the US only applies to specific, protected classes. Last time I looked, graduating from a lousy, bigoted college does not put you in a protected class.

[Mama Mia]

What it really boils down to is that where a candidate went to school will have an effect on whether they get an interview. I hire a position that comes open every few years. I need someone sharp, organized and progressive who can understand our work because they have to write convincingly about what we do and why it is valuable. I toss resumes in a second from people with degrees from those for profit diploma mills and I would have tossed this woman's resume in a second. I would toss resumes from people whose main work experience came from Focus on the Family or a development office at a conservative organization.

When we are hiring attorneys and casehandlers, grads from places like Liberty's law school or Oakbrook would not make the cut for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that they are competing against lawyers with Harvard ( 3 of our 60 lawyers are Harvard grads), Duke (2 of 60), Emory (15 of 60), University of Georgia (3 of 60), University of Chicago (1 of 60), Chapel Hill (1 of 60) and other top law schools on their diplomas. A Federalist Society member would not be a fit, either.

Resumes tell you who people are. That is why you have to submit one to a prospective employer. It is not discrimination to weed the people out whose experience and education lead you to believe they do not fit, whatever the reason. Discrimination in the US only applies to specific, protected classes. Last time I looked, graduating from a lousy, bigoted college does not put you in a protected class.

You're right, if you're setting a bar of " all applicants must have graduated from a prestigious university" and screen out everyone who graduated from anything less. But if you are interviewing applicants who graduated from XYZ Secular Unaccredited Diploma Mill - but not from XYZ Religious Unaccredited Diploma Mill - you could have a problem in most work situations,

But I think talking about employment situations where clearly having a particular philosophy and worldview is a job requirement, as in both examples given, is very different than most jobs. It's certainly different than the original situation where the potential employee would of been an extreme Adventure Guide. In that case, as long as she can be polite and respectful to everyone -- her personal religious and political views are about as relevant as if you were having applicant mental health counselors and lawyers running an obstacle course and demonstrating upper body strength by doing pull-ups.

[formergothardite]

You can not, legally, as an employer, base any of your hiring decisions on non - employment based criteria that can be tied to a persons age, race, religion, ethnicity, disability, political affiliation, sex, or sexual orientation ( in some states- don't think that's federal).

If the person is working in a specific field where being able to effectively work with a specific population is an important part of the job the employer can try to ascertain if the employee would be a good match for that specific situation. So, for example, a mental health counselor working with LGBT youth might be asked about how they would handle specific situations related to that client base, or experiences with those situations. Or a women's shelter serving an immigrant population could require bi-cultural counselors.

But if it's not specific to the job, no the employer is not supposed to take the potential employees beliefs into account. You certainly can ask questions to make sure she would treat all customers and employees professionally and respectfully - but you really aren't supposed to base your hiring decisions on what their religious or political beliefs are. Those laws are important because they don't just protect some far-right anti interracial marriage anti everything Applicant. They also protect the 50 year old Latina woman who just married her wife in a Wiccan ceremony. And everyone else.

If someone can't do their job without letting their personal attitudes show, or demonstrates in the interview that they wouldn't handle working with some professionally, then they shouldn't have the job.

Of course, everyone knows that a great deal of who is hired is who will be a good fit with the particular work environment. But in screening and interviewing, personal beliefs about non-work related situations aren't supposed to be part of the process.

I realize that you aren't supposed to do that, but are you honestly going to tell me that if you were looking at job applications and saw that one person had just graduated from a college where they signed a pledge in support of white supremacy and that they were against any interracial marriages, that would not impact how you viewed their application at all?

[Dark Matters]

Looks like there is something hinky about the company - a hoax?

patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/10/10/the-story-of-the-canadian-wilderness-guide-who-experienced-anti-christian-discrimination-is-a-hoax-kind-of/

[nelliebelle1197]

You're right, if you're setting a bar of " all applicants must have graduated from a prestigious university" and screen out everyone who graduated from anything less. But if you are interviewing applicants who graduated from XYZ Secular Unaccredited Diploma Mill - but not from XYZ Religious Unaccredited Diploma Mill - you could have a problem in most work situations,

But I think talking about employment situations where clearly having a particular philosophy and worldview is a job requirement, as in both examples given, is very different than most jobs. It's certainly different than the original situation where the potential employee would of been an extreme Adventure Guide. In that case, as long as she can be polite and respectful to everyone -- her personal religious and political views are about as relevant as if you were having applicant mental health counselors and lawyers running an obstacle course and demonstrating upper body strength by doing pull-ups.

Absolutely not. The fact that a diploma mill is religious does not give its graduates protection as a special class. I can't not hire someone because they are crazy fundie, but I can reject their application because I don't think the school from which they graduated and work experience combined makes them a fit with my company. It is not different because you have no idea whatsoever what the clientele of this so called company may be or what the job might require in terms of conversation and interaction with said clientele. They do not have to hire her or interview her. Period. Your argument is basically saying that she is entitled to the job. She is not. She is not even entitled to a rejection letter.

I think you are conflating individual protection from discrimination of protected classes with looking at an application and rejecting it because you know the person will not fit within a company. You have kind of dug yourself in with this argument.

I can't put it in my hiring notice or my HR manual, but I can certainly use my discernment when it to choosing applicants. Graduating from a religious college does not put you in a protected class.

[nelliebelle1197]

Looks like there is something hinky about the company - a hoax?

patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2014/10/10/the-story-of-the-canadian-wilderness-guide-who-experienced-anti-christian-discrimination-is-a-hoax-kind-of/

I posted an article on the previous page from Canada and the results of web digging I did. The whole thing is bizarre.

[DGayle]

All the Christians complaining about how it's prosecution that they can't proselytize on the clock need to take a look at this and explain how them now being allowed to use employer-paid time to preach is in any way the same as being denied a job to begin with.

[Mama Mia]

I think it's really missing the point to include these work environments where it is obvious that people must share a specific world view in order to do their job effectively, with the vast majority of jobs where all that is required is to be respectful and interact appropriately with everyone. Unless the Extreme Adventures catered only to a specific market - the staff would need to be equally polite to the LGBT group one week and the ATI group the next week. And everyone in between.

I'm going to reword the arguments I'm hearing and apply it to another protected class.

---Obviously I wouldn't write it into our official hiring practices, but of course everyone is going to get an idea of who the person is when they apply based on groups they joined and where they went to school. I am going to find a reason (ANY reason) to screen out the applicant from a Historically Black College. I will consider applicants from similarly ranked schools, but it isn't discrimination to just toss resumes from Historically Black Colleges, because saying I can't reject based on that is the same as saying I have to hire every applicant from a Historically Black College. Maybe, possibly, if they have much, much higher qualifications than the other applicants I might interview them. But I would be very worried about how good of a match they would be with our company culture. They would really need to prove themselves and that they can fit in, and still I don't think they would be appropriate or know how to handle acting professionally. I doubt they could interact well with a diverse group of people.

Or --

I don't have a problem tossing resumes from someone who was aCtive in the LGBT Advocacy group on campus. All of our employees so far have been heterosexual, I think anyone else would have a really hard time fitting in. Also, it could hurt our customer base if she decided to start talking about same sex marriage out in the wilderness.

[StellaMarie]

That's simply not an apples to apples comparison.

Trinity's policy is openly discriminatory towards the LGBT community (among others). Keep in mind that they didn't only forbid same-sex relationships among their students, but their staff as well. And, while we're far from the original issue at this point, the student did in fact agree with her school's policy.

People do not have a right, in the United States, to engage in discriminatory behavior under the guise of religion. It's a cute tactic that people are using, by the way, to attack gay marriage and other rights -- and thankfully (IMO), finally, it's not working.

And, I have to say, that whether or not I'm the target of a group that is anti-gay, anti-Semitic, racist, misogynistic, etc., I don't want to work in an environment where that view is tolerated. This isn't a specific concern to certain jobs; people are entitled to feel safe in their work environments. And no smart employer will hire someone who holds such views with a hope that they'll "behave appropriately" -- if for no other reason than that an employer can be liable in the event of workplace discrimination.

[NoneandDoneinCali]

How many times are you going to quote me, Mama Mia? I've clarified my meaning and honed it down to specific employment situations throughout SEVERAL posts. As Nellie Belle said recently (and I said like 40 posts ago), the college you attend does not represent a protected class. Why should someone who was fine attending a school that openly espouses discrimination and hate speech get an equal shot at a job where clients are specifically trying to recover from being around harmful ideologies and acrimony? I sincerely hope the students from those places have a change of heart, but it will not be at the expense of marginalized, at-risk, vulnerable clientele. And I don't mean just our LGBT youth, I include ALL of the mentally ill folks that come to us for help, or any similar situation (medical clinic, legal advocacy, social work, etc).

You really can't extrapolate the situation I've described and use it to show generalized discrimination, unless you have a solution to institutionalized racism and homophobia. I am personally unwilling to put my clients' emotional needs on the block in the hopes that the next under-educated college intern will "behave themselves."

[Mama Mia]

Fine, I will quit quoting you. Particularly as I have said, repeatedly, that your particular situation is not the norm and of course you would have different requirements. If you had a bad experience with one particular school of course you wouldn't hire more interns from that school - or ones with the same curriculum.. But yes, refusing to hire someone based solely on their religious or political beliefs ( no matter how much you disagree with those beliefs) is, in fact, illegal.

That law protects a wide range of people. It protects Muslims, Jews, Wiccans, and Athiests. The same law that protects a homophobic bigot ( as long as they keep those views out of the workplace) - also protects the man who has transitioned from being born female and the Woman who wants to add her wife to the company insurance. ( depending on state of course) . And the 50 year old who is having a hard time getting hired because you can tell her age by the years she's worked.

But clearly you think it's fine for employers to discriminate as long as it's against a group they don't agree with. That would be the ironic part a previous poster referred to.

[nelliebelle1197]

Okay.

I sent this question to a prominent labor lawyer friend of mine and he responded right away and will not, hopefully, bill me $600.

I am not reposting his response as I don't think he would like a verbatim repost. BUT, the gist is yes, rejecting an application based solely on your assumptions about someone's religion based on their college is discrimination. However, if you reject them because they philosophically feel some way and it could impact performance or their ability to work in an environment, then it is not. For example, if an anti-choice nurse is hired or interviewed at an abortion clinic and loses his job or is not hired because he cannot perform his duties because of his belief that abortion is wrong, that is not discrimination. Regardless, litigation for these types of rejection would be next to impossible because it simply can't be proven in most cases why the individual did not get the job unless some idiot puts it in an email.

So I guess I am wrong. Mama Mia, I do understand better now where you are coming from, but I think the issue is that you were presenting your argument as if the attendance at the college gave the person protection in a class. It does not. The person is protected, such as it is, from discrimination based on assumption that her association with said university automatically disqualifies her if that is the only factor in rejection. My friend made it very clear that while this is the letter of the law, it really does not matter much because in the US, proving you did not get a job because a hiring manager does not like your college is impossible.