overkill0084
New member
My answer:
Not that you know of.
It's like asking what your polical leaning is, irrelevant.
Not that you know of.
It's like asking what your polical leaning is, irrelevant.
Will We Be a Protected Class?
- Thread starter Will Beararms
- Start date
Aguila Blanca
Staff
Of course there's a precedent for granting such status statutorily. That's exactly how it has been granted (established), for ALL the classes that are currently "protected." The government has enacted laws (statutes) that mandate, "Thou shalt not discriminate against anyone on the basis of his or her race, religion, color, creed, age, gender, etc."csmsss said:
You have a point that all of those factors (other than homosexuality, which I am not 100% prepared to accept is a factor of birth/genetics rather than education and environment) are factors we are born into, but that's not what makes them protected classes. What makes them protected classes is that somebody wrote a law saying they are protected. That IS "precedent for granting such a notion statutorily." I was born being blond with blue eyes, but blue-eyed blonds are not a protected class. Nor is there a general prohibition against discriminating against people based on hair color (well, maybe the general prohibition on "color" would cover this), eye color, left-handedness,knock-kneedness, pigeon-toedness, or any of a number of other factors.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
That's exactly right. That's how any class becomes a protected class -- a law is passed protecting the class.Aguila Blanca said:
Discrimination is not illegal. You do it all the time. Every time you decide to shop in this store rather than that, you have discriminated. Every time you decide to buy this rather than that, you have discriminated.Don P said:
Businesses discriminate all the time too, and legally. Apple stores discriminate against people who want to buy a PC by only selling Apple computers. Many restaurant discriminate against Orthodox Jews or Muslims by not strictly following the dietary laws of those religions. Many restaurants also discriminate against persons not wearing shirts and/or shoes by not admitting them. Tiffany discriminates against poor people in the prices they charge. Businesses also discriminate whenever they hire one person instead of another who has applied for the job.
Discrimination is merely choosing one thing over another or rejecting a possible choice. Discrimination is the very essence of freedom and private property. It is the right to choose. It is the right to exclude. It is the right to decide how you want to use your property.
Discrimination is perfectly legal, unless some law makes it illegal. There are laws that make discrimination illegal on various, specifically identified and defined bases, illegal -- at least if you're a business open to the public or an employer or in some other specified category.
It may be unlawful discrimination not to hire a pregnant woman, either because of laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gender or laws requiring reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities. However, those laws also take into account that in some cases gender could be a bona fide occupational requirement or that gender or physical disabilities could disqualify a person for a job if they would be unable therefor to perform the duties of the job and their inability can't reasonably be accommodated.
My personal take may be splitting hairs, but I believe it is technically accurate and correct.
"MR 44AMP, do you own a handgun?"
No.
The fact is that I do not own "a handgun". I own dozens of handguns, but I am under no moral or legal responsibility to tell anyone that, if I choose not to.
I am telling the truth. The fact that someone else may inferr something in error from what I said is not my responsibility, as I see it.
Now if they asked if I owned any handguns, then I would have to give a different (and if possible sarcastic) answer.
"MR 44AMP, do you own a handgun?"
No.
The fact is that I do not own "a handgun". I own dozens of handguns, but I am under no moral or legal responsibility to tell anyone that, if I choose not to.
I am telling the truth. The fact that someone else may inferr something in error from what I said is not my responsibility, as I see it.
Now if they asked if I owned any handguns, then I would have to give a different (and if possible sarcastic) answer.
armsmaster270
New member
There is no CA law (yet) where you have to answer that question.
cerberus65
New member
I think is how it would have gone down with me:
Interviewer: "Mr. K, do you own a handgun?
Me: Laughing, "what does that have to do with anything?"
Interviewer: "Mr. K, do you own a handgun?
Me: Laughing, "what does that have to do with anything?"
Thankfully, my chosen career tends to encourage gun ownership... But, if the question were asked of me...
- Mr. JG, do you own any firearms?
Mr./Mrs./Ms. Interviewer, do you read newspapers, magazines, or books?
- I'm not sure how that's relevant to the question I just asked you.
And I'm not sure that you asking me about if or how I exercise my Constitutionaly-guarenteed Rights is relevant to this interview.
- Please just answer the question Mr. JG.
Would you like to know what (if any) religious organizations I am affiliated with as well? Because if you want to know if or how I exercise one right, you'll probably want to know about the rest of them, correct?
- I think we're done here.
You bet your ass we are.
EDIT: The only job interview I can think of where that would be an appropriate question is if you're applying for a job at a gun shop, shooting range, etc... And that would be to gauge your experiences and knowledge of particular types of firearms. But the odds of a non-gun owner applying at one of those places is slim to none, so it would likely just be a point of conversation and not officially part of the interview...
- Mr. JG, do you own any firearms?
Mr./Mrs./Ms. Interviewer, do you read newspapers, magazines, or books?
- I'm not sure how that's relevant to the question I just asked you.
And I'm not sure that you asking me about if or how I exercise my Constitutionaly-guarenteed Rights is relevant to this interview.
- Please just answer the question Mr. JG.
Would you like to know what (if any) religious organizations I am affiliated with as well? Because if you want to know if or how I exercise one right, you'll probably want to know about the rest of them, correct?
- I think we're done here.
You bet your ass we are.
EDIT: The only job interview I can think of where that would be an appropriate question is if you're applying for a job at a gun shop, shooting range, etc... And that would be to gauge your experiences and knowledge of particular types of firearms. But the odds of a non-gun owner applying at one of those places is slim to none, so it would likely just be a point of conversation and not officially part of the interview...
Last edited:
aarondhgraham
New member
I had all kinds of "smart" answers in readiness,,,
But I really could have used that job,,,
So I went with a polite refusal,,,
I knew it wouldn't work.
The reason I posted the event was just to vent,,,
I have a Master's Degree in Education,,,
I have 8 years experience tutoring,,,
In short I am very well qualified.
But because the superintendent of the board is a rabid anti-gunner,,,
I won't even be considered for the position,,,
I might contaminate a young mind.
There's nothing actionable in the event,,,
It just bums me out is all.
That part-time paycheck would have bought a lot of ammunition.
Aarond
But I really could have used that job,,,
So I went with a polite refusal,,,
I knew it wouldn't work.
The reason I posted the event was just to vent,,,
I have a Master's Degree in Education,,,
I have 8 years experience tutoring,,,
In short I am very well qualified.
But because the superintendent of the board is a rabid anti-gunner,,,
I won't even be considered for the position,,,
I might contaminate a young mind.
There's nothing actionable in the event,,,
It just bums me out is all.
That part-time paycheck would have bought a lot of ammunition.
Aarond
Aguila Blanca
Staff
And the sad thing is that, due to an administrator's prejudice over something totally unrelated to the position, the kids will be deprived of exposure to someone who would probably be a good teacher.
I'm old enough to have attended a day camp, run by two prep school teachers, that included riflery and archery in the daily activities -- for girls as well as for boys. Learning to use firearms was NORMAL in the 1950s. There was a small shooting range in a corner of a town-owned field that also housed softball fields. The softball fields are still there, but the town now has an ordinance that prohibits even carrying a loaded firearm on ANY town-owned property (even if you have a state permit).
It doesn't help solve anything, but I have to wonder how we have fallen so low within my lifetime?
I'm old enough to have attended a day camp, run by two prep school teachers, that included riflery and archery in the daily activities -- for girls as well as for boys. Learning to use firearms was NORMAL in the 1950s. There was a small shooting range in a corner of a town-owned field that also housed softball fields. The softball fields are still there, but the town now has an ordinance that prohibits even carrying a loaded firearm on ANY town-owned property (even if you have a state permit).
It doesn't help solve anything, but I have to wonder how we have fallen so low within my lifetime?
I don't think so...
a lot of questions on job applications are violations of federal law and if someone wanted to could probably sue...
just like the big sign at Home Depot that says they test all applicants for illegal drug use... can't do it. If you are hired you can be tested but not when you apply.
the gun question is the same... if you can prove you were not hired because of how you answered the question... a good lawyer could get him or herself a nice sum and let you have a small part of it.
a lot of questions on job applications are violations of federal law and if someone wanted to could probably sue...
just like the big sign at Home Depot that says they test all applicants for illegal drug use... can't do it. If you are hired you can be tested but not when you apply.
the gun question is the same... if you can prove you were not hired because of how you answered the question... a good lawyer could get him or herself a nice sum and let you have a small part of it.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Care to cite some legal authority for that assertion?blume357 said:
Since the electronic application age is upon us, companies are getting away with law violations and improper questions routinely. In fact, some applications ask for your birth date. That is clearly illegal but if you 1) Falsify the birth date, you get fired. or 2) Try to leave it blank, the application is not complete and will not submit.
Age discrimination is rampant in hiring now and they get by with it. I got to the point where I wasn't even nice about it when I saw it. I'd tell them to stuff their job!
Flash
Age discrimination is rampant in hiring now and they get by with it. I got to the point where I wasn't even nice about it when I saw it. I'd tell them to stuff their job!
Flash
The legally protected classes are age, gender, religion, disability, sexual orientation, race,etc. and are legally defined with various restrictions and applications. Political opinion, is not a protected class like religion. And in our society, currently, gunownership, (for any and every reason) is a political statement, not a religious one.
And we worked a long time just to get that. Gun ownership as a political statement gives us an avenue (albeit a very narrow one) outside of the 2nd Amendment argument.
A private firm or individual is free to hire or not, anyone the care to, so long as they do not violate those limits specified in law. Individuals acting as agents of the government have much more defined rules, one of which is that nothing that is not prohibited by law should have any bearing on the selection of one qualified individual over an other. Equal treatment under the law is supposed to be the guiding concept.
I once had a govt paid for Health and Risk Analysis survey, all the usual questions, and NONE about firearms at all. When the results came back, one of the suggested behaviors to reduce my risk in life was to "avoid handguns".
I complained. For once, it did some good. A general letter of apology got issued, and the company contracted for the survey did not get the next year's contract, and I never saw anything from them at work again.
If you get turned down for a school position, only because you "admitted" to owning a gun, AND you have a reasonable chance of proving it, you ought to seek legal council. If it is a private business that does business with the govt, same thing. Otherwise, write it off and move on.
But short of having video or a signed statement saying that you were not considered because you own a gun, its real tough to prove to a court, unless they admit it. And that isn't really likely, is it?
And we worked a long time just to get that. Gun ownership as a political statement gives us an avenue (albeit a very narrow one) outside of the 2nd Amendment argument.
A private firm or individual is free to hire or not, anyone the care to, so long as they do not violate those limits specified in law. Individuals acting as agents of the government have much more defined rules, one of which is that nothing that is not prohibited by law should have any bearing on the selection of one qualified individual over an other. Equal treatment under the law is supposed to be the guiding concept.
I once had a govt paid for Health and Risk Analysis survey, all the usual questions, and NONE about firearms at all. When the results came back, one of the suggested behaviors to reduce my risk in life was to "avoid handguns".
I complained. For once, it did some good. A general letter of apology got issued, and the company contracted for the survey did not get the next year's contract, and I never saw anything from them at work again.
If you get turned down for a school position, only because you "admitted" to owning a gun, AND you have a reasonable chance of proving it, you ought to seek legal council. If it is a private business that does business with the govt, same thing. Otherwise, write it off and move on.
But short of having video or a signed statement saying that you were not considered because you own a gun, its real tough to prove to a court, unless they admit it. And that isn't really likely, is it?
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Agreed, because persons age 40 and older are a class specifically protected by statute.ROGER4314 said:
Rufus T Firefly
Moderator
I would just lie like crazy....
I don't own a gun, I don't attend church, I don't follow our constitution, I believe everyone should get citizenship if they come over the border.
I think that makes you a Liberal on the application. If I missed anything, you guys can fill in the blanks!
Maybe a US Citizen Carry Card with DNA! Just so they know it is us and not some bad guy like Bin Larder.....
I actually don't worry much. I am sure people are fed up with Liberals and the liberals that mean well are seeing how they are being used and responding intelligently.
I don't own a gun, I don't attend church, I don't follow our constitution, I believe everyone should get citizenship if they come over the border.
I think that makes you a Liberal on the application. If I missed anything, you guys can fill in the blanks!
Maybe a US Citizen Carry Card with DNA! Just so they know it is us and not some bad guy like Bin Larder.....
I actually don't worry much. I am sure people are fed up with Liberals and the liberals that mean well are seeing how they are being used and responding intelligently.