I was watching a news segment the other night about how Hooters is once again being sued for sexual discrimination, and once again, it is not a woman suing but a man. Apparently Hooters has had several such suits brought by men wanting to wear the "Company Uniform", and has beat them every time. I suppose they have been fortunate in finding Judges that realize most Hooters patrons don't want their cheesy fries delivered by some harry guy named Gunther.

It made me wonder about the few discrimination suits that have been brought, and won, against church organizations for refusing employment to the openly GLBT crowd. I keep trying to figure out, whats the difference? There is no question it is discrimination, but should the KKK be forced to employ blacks, the PLO be forced to hire Zionists, or GLAD be forced to hire the folks who pushed through Prop 8? The whole gay marriage thing has some people up in arms, turning the thing into a civil rights issue (Right to marry?), but somehow, it seems that if we loose the right to be discriminate, especially when it comes to employment, we are lost. Can someone please explain this to me?

" some harry guy named Gunther."

I know it's unintelligent to get involved with politics, but isn't this stereotype a little bit too much the thing which belongs in archives? Furthermore, I expect you could get a lot of very convincing transexuals who, properly attired and made up, would be indistinguishable enough from the usual waitress (who after all is characterised by external gloss, not by any essential chromosone-based womanhood) to make the said customers continue to drool the same amount they're used to. Why should it matter? They don't actually have sex with their customers. It's not a strip joint is it?

As for your question... I can't answer it, since it's rhetorical. However it does seem odd that you think it's legitimate for the KKK to employ ANYONE. Surely they should in fact stop existing?

Originally Posted by witnesstheday

Furthermore, I expect you could get a lot of very convincing transexuals who, properly attired and made up, would be indistinguishable enough from the usual waitress (who after all is characterised by external gloss, not by any essential chromosone-based womanhood) to make the said customers continue to drool the same amount they're used to.

/Shudder

Originally Posted by witnesstheday

However it does seem odd that you think it's legitimate for the KKK to employ ANYONE. Surely they should in fact stop existing?

What I think is illegitimate is to ask people to quit having opinions(including you). You may not like Zionists, and that is your choice, but I don't think you should be able to be sued if you decided not to hire a Zionist just because he/she was a Zionist. I personally think the positions and the beliefs of the KKK are the result of ignorance, but those beliefs are theirs to have (so long as they don't beat or lynch anyone). Though morality is somewhat cultural, both Christian and Muslim cultures treat homosexuality as immoral. It seems a court ruling upholding a discrimination suit against a religious organization for refusing to hire a homosexual could be considered trampling on the freedom of religion, and yet apparently such cases have been upheld(I need to look this up).

I personally believe in the almighty dollar, so if you think having an all homosexual staff is going to boost your sales in your Castro district bar, go ahead and discriminate and refuse to hire "straight" folk. That's just me. Personally, I think we have way too many law suits in the "civilized world"

is the "civilized world" the one where they shudder at homosexuals, transexuals and so on, I wonder? Intriguing. Intriguing.

It seems a court ruling upholding a discrimination suit against a religious organization for refusing to hire a homosexual could be considered trampling on the freedom of religion

That's like saying that if I buy a gun and shoot your head off, when your wife tries to have me sent to jail it tramples my belief in my right to murder you and thus is a violation of my freedom.

Should we allow religions to stone people to death also? They do this. Stopping mad people stoning people to death in the name of god is also, therefore, a form of "trampling on the freedom of religion"

I personally believe in the almighty dollar

That has ALWAYS been clear.

Originally Posted by witnesstheday

is the "civilized world" the one where they shudder at homosexuals, transexuals and so on, I wonder? Intriguing. Intriguing.

Actually, the civilized world is where disputes are resolved by civil actions instead of phyiscal altercations or extra-legal means(thus the quantity of law suits). The /shudder at the idea of the Hooters girls being transexuals was just me. Sorry if that offends you .

Originally Posted by witnesstheday

That's like saying that if I buy a gun and shoot your head off, when your wife tries to have me sent to jail it tramples my belief in my right to murder you and thus a violation of my freedom.

Um no, its not. You see, me disliking you doesn't effect you. In fact, me refusing to hire you because I dislike you or disagree with you may actually benefit your personal safety. On the other hand, blowing someones head off with a gun most definitely effects them in a very personal way. The inability to to tell the the difference between these things could make you a detractor from a society that is civil.

me refusing to hire you because I dislike you or disagree with you may actually benefit your personal safety

balls.

the people who refused to hire me because i'm an indo-arab single male of "terrorist profile age" caused my life to be painful, poverty-ridden, many other unpleasant things and basically rubbish. When I ran a test and found James Jarvis can get a job using my name, really easily, because his degree from oxford, his 10 years hands on experience of the web and entrepreneurism and his wide and profitable variety of skills and disciplines make him not just a good employee, but also, apparently, attractive to the female employment agents (on that front, i find gay men usually are far less discriminative about my race! I guess they know the wrongfulness of prejudice. I guess that's why I'm so unhomophobic in the end... being at the same butt-end of society as them - it was in fact a gay man who was the ONLY agent who got me any jobs - i went to loads of agents. they were all too stupid to realise that a man with my qualifications CAN see when racism is an attitude embraced by a person i'm talking to). Me, however, I'm everything James Jarvis is but with the wrong name. Sadly he doesn't exist. So to finish that sentence - when I ran that test what hurt me most was that although I KNEW I deserved lots of jobs and was not getting them due purely to discrimination, my mother felt that I actually was not good enough to get a job, she still thinks that. It hurts me that people like you make my mother underestimate me. But hey.

So you are wrong. Not letting me have a job because of my colour, or sexuality, etc, IS HARMFUL TO MY LIFE, very much so. Very very much so. I don't dislike you - the only kind of nazi I dislike is one who manages to conceal their nazi mentality, you have never done that. From day one I liked you - you are very good p.r. for the pro-equality camp.

Originally Posted by witnesstheday

James Jarvis can get a job using my name, really easily, because his degree from oxford, his 10 years hands on experience of the web and entrepreneurism and his wide and profitable variety of skills and disciplines
....
I'm everything James Jarvis is but with the wrong name. ...
So you are wrong. Not letting me have a job because of my colour, or sexuality, etc, IS HARMFUL TO MY LIFE, very much so.

Aside from the fact your rant is WAY off topic, I would argue that the degree from Oxford/Harvard, 10 years of hands on experience and good references from previous employers are what would get the man the job, regardless of his name. As an example, I would refer you to Barack Hussein Obama. No insult meant to whatever your schooling, experience, and references may be.

Now what does all that have to do with homosexuals needing to work at churches that preach homosexuality as a sin?

I would argue that the degree from Oxford/Harvard, 10 years of hands on experience and good references from previous employers are what would get the man the job, regardless of his name.

those are MY qualifications. i sent out lots of applications in my own name, and the same number (to other companies) as James Jarvis. he was ME, i.e. MY qualifications but with a "white" name. He had several job interview offers (which he couldn't reply to since he didn't really exist). Mine didn't receive any interest WHATSOEVER. He had one female agent actually trying to come on to him.

Anyway. I wanted to delete my rant and replace it with this brief point but now I'll just supplement it:

you are saying that it is NOT harmful to someone's life to rob them of a job they can do, simply because of their race or gender or orientation of some sort.

i said that if i commit ANY crime, it ought to be punished, citing murder as the obvious most extreme crime. the fact is, not giving someone a job because of who they are rather than because of whether they can do it is a crime and illegal - any countries still failing to police it are just slow. no one calls that legal, anywhere in the world.

ooh another rant.

you are, again, saying that it does not affect me personally if you refuse me a job based on my race or orientation - you said that. i am saying - you said what you said. reality says, what you said is utterly racist, utterly homophobic, indeed no doubt chauvinist but it's the one thing you don't seem to do as openly as the rest.

anyway. I should stop drawing attention to your terrible racist views. no doubt it is better for you to deal with it privately and eliminate it. it's no big shame. lots of people learn to not be racist. i myself used to have a knee-jerk mis-trust of blonde girls. but then some blonde girls made me feel really at ease, and i realised i could trust them and it didn't matter what colour they are! Still, shouldn't dwell on thoughts of being at ease with blonde girls at 4am... well, I suppose it's alright if you're gay or a heterosexual woman.

Homophobia is a programmed response - you can easily undo it. We all learn it - well, anyone older than about 4. So that's all of us. Same as male chauvinism. We ALL are programmed to do it - anyone reading this who is older than 4, that's genuinely true. Maybe some of you were deprogrammed well, eg by your own mother or, much less likely, father, but society constantly tries to programme all of us. The world is still absurdly "wrong". In a word. Just "wrong". And you, CBRN, are a good example of what's wrong with it. So thank you. I am going to give you rep points for your homophobic thread now, since it is a great contribution to open-source thinking. here you have gladly, and in the true spirit of honesty, revealed that the reason you take the right wing political views you do is that you have a number of very ingrained fears about the world which lead you to behave irrationally at all times. We can fix this in our society - everyone here knows 100 people like you, and we now all know a little bit more about how to deal with it. Here come those points.

Employers checklist. Lets see...
Education: Oxford, undergrad-adequate, graduate - excellent.
Work Experience: 10 years of related work experience, good good.
References: at least one previous employer you decided to let know he was a "tosser", uh .....
Hobbies: Supporter of the terrorist organization Hamas.

And you think it is the last name? Here is another job tip. QUIT APPLYING AT HOOTERS!

Regarding the rest of your rant, I can understand if your current employment situation has left you with a bit of a christ complex(sorry for the christian reference). Its clearly clouded your ability to distinguish between general racial/sexual orientation job discriminiation, and an employer's right not to hire someone who is completely unsuitable for the job description (Gays as advocates that homosexuality is immoral, Blacks as white supremecists, guys as Hooters girls, etc). Nevertheless, the irony of a Hamas supporter calling me a racist was not lost on me. Thanks for the TP .

It was recently brought to my attention by a legal expert that you are not a nazi. The term he used for you instead, however, would not be permissable in a court room so I think it'll get ****'d out. It begins with D and has 8 letters and between them the refer to 2 separate parts fo the body, the second one also doubling as the tag above the body tag in basic html.

but i'm not sure why i'm bothering to hold up my side of this conversation - I suppose someone had to point out that homophobia is a sick and diseased thing, and public homophobia is definitely a blot on society needing removing.


your recent post, btw, sums up how shallow and stupid you are. the employers received a single CV - the same cv - one of which was sufficient to get Jarvis 3 interviews and a ho. The other cv was the same cv, and had TWO WORDS DIFFERENT - my name. And was ignored. there was nothing anywhere on any network with my name on it to give anyone any information about me. in fact the cv contained references to my websites, so any checking of the facts would have led to the same "background" in both cases - i.e. the work i had done was visible but my name, as a developer, is usually well buried in the soil (occasionally idiotic binges of hormonal activity lead me to start trailing my name in public but I soon wise up and before long google craps it back out into the void and i'm just an anonymous nobody with 2 or 3 references on google which tell you NOTHING about me - but my references were very good. as myself i didn't get ASKED for my references. they only asked James Jarvis for his references).

Your post demonstrates that i should not talk to you because

(a) you must be 15 or something, to be that thick? but 15 and selling costa rican golf holidays or whatever doesn't make sense so it must be...
(b) you are an immensely prejudiced man, riddled with unpleasantness and greed and fear and loathing

My my, look who has resorted to personal insults. You keep bringing up your CV and I keep pointing out the topic of the thread, which your CV has little or nothing to do with. You want to talk about being the victim of prejudice instead? Fine.

If someone really didn't hire you in the UK based solely on the basis of having a muslim name, I think that is atrocious. All this time I was under the impression that the U.K. had a much better handle on the issue of prejudice than those of us on the "other side of the pond", especially considering England did away with slavery long before the U.S.. I've got two friends, both of whom are naturalized citizens of the U.S. from Persia, (They dont refer to themselves as Iranians for reasons you can guess at). One owns a VERY successful nightclub in Southern California, the other works in management consultanting for one of the big five. They both have very Muslim names, just like president "Hussein" Obama. Neither cries about being descriminated against. Perhaps England has just become a den of xenophobia since people with muslim names set off bombs in their train stations.

Another thing. Something doesn't quite jive with your story. Were you to truly send off the EXACT SAME CV to the same set of companies, with only the name being different, it seems that any HR manager would pick on the fact that they were duplicates and smell a skunk. If you sent them to different companies, your survey could hardly be considered scientific unless you solicited many companies(hundreds) and averaged out the numbers.

That said, I won't entirely discount your conclusions, regardless of how scientific the means by which you arrived at them. An employer seeing the name Mahmoud on a resume that even mentions palestine might get a completely different review than the same resume having the name James. I can only imagine what it was like for someone with the last name Sumitomo applying for a job in the U.S. in 1945. Just because your paranoid, doesn't mean they arent out to get you.

Now, can we PLEASE talk about Hooters Girls?

there is one thing that I know about them, they are hot

Now, can we PLEASE talk about Hooters Girls?

I think you should refer this issue to a porn site. I reckon since this is a site populated by many women, it is not really appropriate to use it for being lecherous and drooling over breasts. It's not like there's a shortage of places you can do that on the web.

Gay bashing, lechery, what else does this almighty dollar of yours lead you into?

I once text-messaged a picture of a Hooters Girl with her arm around me to my girlfriend. She didn't think it was very funny.

Originally Posted by witnesstheday

I think you should refer this issue to a porn site. I reckon since this is a site populated by many women, it is not really appropriate to use it for being lecherous and drooling over breasts.

Not sure how you got from Hooters to porn, since Hooters is in the business of selling beer and chicken wings, though I suppose a Hooters wouldn't go over too well in Saudi Arabia.

Since you brought up porn(and then attempted to defend the female readership of this forum from "porn speak"), it struck me that a fat and hairy guy named Ron Jeremy is a top seller. Maybe there is something to those guys suing Hooters.

You should also note that over 40% of porn viewers are women, both as part of a couple, and individually. I don't have any numbers on how many Hooters girls like the attention, but I would guess that number is safely over 50%. From reading your posts, it sounds like you wouldn't mind being objectified by the opposite sex.


@wayfarer: Did it have the desired effect.. or were you drunk?

Originally Posted by witnesstheday

I think you should refer this issue to a porn site. I reckon since this is a site populated by many women, it is not really appropriate to use it for being lecherous and drooling over breasts. It's not like there's a shortage of places you can do that on the web.

Gay bashing, lechery, what else does this almighty dollar of yours lead you into?

I go to Hooters about once a month.. My wife loves their wings and I love the ribs and onion rings.. Not all of us think about the boobs like you do..

my god. feydakin and cbwm are to be pitied.

btw, who said "let's PLEEASE talk about hooters girls now?"

so let me see. why would you want to talk about hooters girls? did you want to discuss the chicken wings they are going to bring to your table?

bigoted idiots.

I know full well that most of the sane women on this forum, by now, are vomiting at the thought of how you two behave. If I persist in talking to you (since there's OBVIOUSLY no point - you have NO minds, either of you, no capacity for reasoned argument, indeed) it's just to make myself look good by not being of your opinion. Which would be really vain. So I hereby quit. You two are BEYOND help, beyond belief, and just disgusting. I've seen a lot of disgusting attitudes. But you two are close to the worst.

It's good that both of you are REALLY badly placed economically right now and will definitely be crushed by the recession. Meanwhile I'm getting rich. I think I'll talk to a few women about opening up a Peckers franchise all over the USA - I bet your wife will love the cucumber and falafel salads there, feydakin

saudi arabia my arse.

for the record, (not for you two worms, but for my peers here, male and female alike), i 100% oppose all islamic laws relating to gender and aim to use my force of personality and capacity as an upstart to help the women of the muslim world liberate themselves. but here's another thing that doesn't square with feydakin's pathetic attempt to pretend it's ME that's the chauvinist idiot...

http://www.webmaster-talk.com/genera...tml#post828576
(rise of the muslim woman - i wrote that, that's my work - and when i talk to muslims about it, a lot of them are just as much bigot idiots as you two right wing recession-hit numpties)

"Now, can we PLEASE talk about Hooters Girls?"

how can you pretend you are not a lecherous chauvinistic idiot? WHO would say that but such a man?

ANd it's right there on the same page. Are you STUPID? Do you realise how most of the women AND men on this site, seeing what you have put there, are laughing at how sick you are? Me I'm weeping. People like you make the lives of a lot of women hell.

Jesus, we're going to have to change the name of this part of the forum to the "Politics, religion, and SEX/PORN" wing.

Originally Posted by witnesstheday

my god. feydakin and cbwm are to be pitied.

If I needed pity, you'd hear me talking about how oppressed I am.

I had originally intended to respond to your post by re-directing you to the thread creation post, but I suspect the reason we keep arriving at this derail is because you feel places like Hooters represent a prejudice that shouldn't exist. So lets talk about that.

Originally Posted by witnesstheday

I think I'll talk to a few women about opening up a Peckers franchise all over the USA - I bet your wife will love the cucumber and falafel salads there, feydakin

Almost a terrific idea, though I don't think falafel would be a big hit. My wife is ranting at me right now telling me she would go to a restaraunt with the all male wait staff dressed up somewhat provocatively as Firemen, Lumberjack, Policeman, Businessmen, etc. The food could be paninis, high end deserts with the drinks being lemon drops, cosmopolitans, apple martinis, and fine wines. Shes telling me the wait staff would have to all be fit, and somewhat noticably muscular. It might even be good to throw in the token waiter dressed as a "Dork" . If you really want to capitalize on some existing branding, you could call the place WOODYS, instead of peckers, and have a little beak jutting out from the inside of one of the "O"s.

OK, now you have a winning idea for a restaurant chain that would work in major metropolitan areas. Is there something wrong with that? Do the men working at such a restaurant need to be rescued from chauvenism, or the women who would frequent such an establishment need to be classified as "Bigots"?

I've got news for you. Sex based marketing has been here forever, and is here to stay. The idea of denying a natural and healthy desire for Sex is an aspect of many religions that I detest, though as you point out, Muslims are WAY behind the curve on this one.

P.S. Any VC people out there who like my wife's "Woodys", send me a PM and lets get this thing going!

I think it's pretty cool how it's ok for "Him" t enforce his personal views on everyone and declare anyone that doesn't agree with "Him" somehow evil..

It really is possible to go to a place like Hooters and enjoy the food.. I think I see "His" problem now..

And for the record : http://www.eatatpeckers.com/

I do enjoy how every post of "His" tells me how bad off I am, how poorly I will do.. So much hatred from one person.. I wonder how he lives with the guilt of being so evil all the time??