Since it took you 36 hours to respond with that witty retort, perhaps it was that you are just too dense.
Now that we've traded insults, and I'm not so tired to reply, this is the point of my post regarding exceptions to the 'off limits' rule that you espouse.
If you are hiring someone to work in your hardware store, car dealership, or to cut your grass, perhaps that person's private life should be off limits. And there are good arguments to say that they really have no bearing on the job.
OTOH, In the area of hiring for jobs involving advocacy I see a huge exception. You already agreed with me in the case of releigion. A Baptist church shouldn't have to hire an agnostic or a Wican and they should be able to narrow their search to those of the same faith.
However, you don't think that same exception should apply to politics. Should the ACLU not be able to ask my political beliefs? Should the ACU not be able to ask if I support abortion, gun control, and government solutions for the everyday problems of society? Should Chuck Schumer not be able to discover if the tax aide he hires is a member of the John Birch Society? Should an opponent of special benefits for someone based on their preference for having sex not be allowed to know if a homosexual is applying for a job as a legislative aide?
You are looking at this from the standpoint of was the law IS. I am saying that the law is WRONG!
Not being allowed to determine who it is that you are hiring when hiring a person who opposes your beliefs and would be detrimental to your advocacy is wrong. And a falsified application could be grounds for dismissal. Even though I disagree with the left on everything, they should be free to hire only those who adhere to their policies and beliefs. And if I am the head of a family values advocacy group, I should be able to screen my employees to see if their behavior will reflect badly on my group and be able to fire them if it doesn't.
You assume that everyone has a right to any and every job they want. They don't. It's the employer's job and he should be able to create his own criteria and that is especially true when it comes to advocacy in politics. The potential for damage is too great.
No, dear. Some of us have a life other than FR. It is particularly amusing that you counted the number of hours between the time you posted and the time I posted.
You already agreed with me in the case of releigion.(sp)
Indeed. The freedom to practice religion in any way we see fit is protected by the constitution. In other words, you cannot reasonably compare the hiring practices of a religious group to the hiring practices of elected officials.
However, you don't think that same exception should apply to politics.
Nope, I don't, because Senators, et al, are public employees. Therefore, their hiring practices are not covered by the constitutional freedom of religion clause.
Should the ACLU not be able to ask my political beliefs?
Sorry, but to try to compare private organizations to elected officials is silly. The ACLU is a private organization - of course they can ask you.
Not being allowed to determine who it is that you are hiring when hiring a person who opposes your beliefs and would be detrimental to your advocacy is wrong.
If the Senator asked the guy in writing if he was gay, and he answered in writing that he was not, then yes, he can be fired - for lying on his application. However, that is not the case. The subject wasn't brought up, and the individual was attempting to be discrete. He did not 'out' himself - he was forcibly 'outted'.
You assume that everyone has a right to any and every job they want.
Please copy and paste where I ever said that.
:::::crickets:::::