No1

joined 1 year ago
[–] No1 13 points 1 year ago

The relevant text says:

" Are there any exceptions to who is covered by Title VII’s religion provisions?

Yes. While Title VII’s jurisdictional rules apply to all religious discrimination claims under the statute, see EEOC Compliance Manual, “Threshold Issues,” https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/threshold.html, specially-defined “religious organizations” and “religious educational institutions” are exempt from certain religious discrimination provisions, and a “ministerial exception” bars Title VII claims by employees who serve in clergy roles.

Religious Organization Exception: Under Title VII, religious organizations are permitted to give employment preference to members of their own religion. The exception applies only to those institutions whose “purpose and character are primarily religious.” Factors to consider that would indicate whether an entity is religious include: whether its articles of incorporation state a religious purpose; whether its day-to-day operations are religious (e.g., are the services the entity performs, the product it produces, or the educational curriculum it provides directed toward propagation of the religion?); whether it is not-for-profit; and whether it affiliated with, or supported by, a church or other religious organization.

This exception is not limited to religious activities of the organization. However, it only allows religious organizations to prefer to employ individuals who share their religion. The exception does not allow religious organizations otherwise to discriminate in employment on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. Thus, a religious organization is not permitted to engage in racially discriminatory hiring by asserting that a tenet of its religious beliefs is not associating with people of other races."

[–] No1 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] No1 32 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Yes. Religious institutions are allowed to discriminate based on religion. This is one of those things that makes total sense if you give it some thought. It would be pretty unconstitutional to force a religious group to employ people who are opposed to their religion.

[–] No1 2 points 1 year ago

He's crazy good. Unbelievable talent.

[–] No1 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

First off, this isn't a tax going uncollected. The president can't say 'This thing I want to do is going to now be considered a tax so I can now not collect it." At this point, it's clear you're not engaging in good faith, as you're falling straight back to using character attacks rather than arguments, so have a nice day.

[–] No1 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

None of what you said is accurate or good arguments.

  1. You're wrong in this instance, but a lot of people who have votes to gain have been saying this, so I understand why you think that.

The people saying that the President is allowed to wipe out student loans broadly are based on a misreading of the Higher Education Act of 1965 at 20 USC 1082(a)(6) . https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title31/subtitle2/chapter13&edition=prelim

The mentioned part of that act provides the provides the president (via the Secretary of Education) with the authority to:

“...modify, compromise, waive, or release any right, title, claim, lien, or demand, however acquired, including any equity or any right of redemption.”

But that quote is taken out of the broader context of the act. The preamble to that section limits the authority to operating within the scope of the statute.

It means that Congress can authorize a loan forgiveness program, (see Public Service Loan Forgiveness, Teacher Loan Forgiveness or the Total and Permanent Disability Discharge), which then means the U.S. Secretary of Education can forgive student loans as authorized under the terms of those programs.

Without authorization by Congress of a specific loan forgiveness program, the President does not have the authority to forgive student loan debt. The Supreme Court unanimously decided that all the way back in 2001 in Whitman v. American Trucking Assns., Inc. when they put limits on what exactly Congress can delegate to the executive branch.

Also, the part of the Act referred to in the preamble is Part B of Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, which applies only to loans made under the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program.

There is similar language in Part E for the Federal Perkins Loan program. There is no similar language for Part D for the William D. Ford Federal Direct Loan (Direct Loan) program.

  1. I was protesting when the banks were bailed out. I was also protesting the business "loans" being forgiven. Attacking someone's argument by building a strawman of who you want the others reading this to believe they are is a logical fallacy.

  2. My point is exactly this. We're treating a ruptured appendix with Advil.

  3. See point 1.

[–] No1 10 points 1 year ago

I'm all for this becoming an active SpaceX community. I've never moderated before, but I can help if we get to a point where it's needed.

view more: ‹ prev next ›