Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/trinity-western-grad-attacked-for-being-christian-in-job-rejection-1.2791323?cmp=fbtl&utm_content=buffer07c7f&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer



For those who cant/didn't read the article:

Female College grad of a particular religious institute feels "attacked" for her religious beliefs when applying to a company, who rejects her on the basis that she "has no qualifications to work here"

"We embrace diversity."

Unless we don't like the group you're with.

Christians a thousand years ago would have been happy to merely have their job applications rejected by the vikings. She shouldn't complain.

I had no idea Vikings were so gay.

I hope they get hammered by the same all encompassing human rights legislation the rest of Canada enjoys.

 Mr Nobody wrote:
"We embrace diversity."

Unless we don't like the group you're with.

IMO, in this case it's more a "we embrace diversity, as such we will not hire you based on your own implied discrimination"

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Mr Nobody wrote:
"We embrace diversity."

Unless we don't like the group you're with.

IMO, in this case it's more a "we embrace diversity, as such we will not hire you based on your own implied discrimination"

Still, the implication is very vague. She's being rejected because she got a degree from group with a discriminatory policy. This does not imply she condones and imposes this discrimination, only that she does not fall under its discrimination. Now, I do not know the person and she could quite easily be homophobic. This is all assumption on my part.

Their statement is like saying all germans in WW2 were fascists.

Okay, that was weird.

Trinity Western is a bit of a legal sore spot right now that is almost literally "the jury is still out".
Our supreme court did find that barring them from the teacher's college was unconstitutional due to their practices: no evidence that discrimination would occur in the classroom.
So now the Barrister's society is taking a similar stance of needing to separate religion and state:
http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1220276-judicial-review-of-trinity-western-decision-begins-dec-17

Rejection Letter
So, Olaf... not sure what to say.
I think he meant well in trying to take a stance but kinda jumped on Bethany with both feet (some kind of past issue with that school or those like them? Unwarranted venting on a possible innocent).
He is very guilty of speaking his mind (being foolish) and leaving his company open for a media storm.
Should have asked why she thought she was qualified despite what was listed on the web site and left it at that.
Really made an appearance as a hypocrite.

Response
Bethany made some attempts at enlightening Olaf which was an awful lot of work (well done I might add)... who was rather unreceptive, which was to be expected.
I probably would have got on my high horse too but she decided to go for broke.
As she pointed out, the "God Bless" was a nice waving of the cape in front of the bull.

Olaf Response
That man lost his squirrely little mind.
"lam not a young First Nations boy sexually abused by a priest into submission for years while locked in a concentration camp [as in residential school), but a Viking with a Ph.D. In Norse History, So propaganda is lost on me."
Wow, he got to the heart of a major religious / native on-going issue that is about as Canadian as it gets... he has burned the bridge and salted the earth.
Threatening to do rude things to Jesus took it to an epic level that is painful to contemplate.

The other various emails make a point but still seem silly to engage in as a company.

I like Vikings, they seem like crazy fun people, but these ones seem to have little regard for consequence (still somewhat in stereotype) and appear to be on the wrong side of crazy and hypocrisy.

Oh well, I have "faith" in Canadian law and the Norse will be seeing a stiff pounding to the backside of the not pleasurable sort.

Hopefully. The Law has to apply to everyone equally or it is not a fair law.

Yeah, wow, that Viking guy is an donkey-cave. Hopefully he gets what's coming to him. You know for sure that if a similar company said "We're not going to hire you due to your beliefs in the Aesir" (or whatever it is Vikings believe) he would also have a completely justified case against them. They really should've just left it with "Sorry, you don't meet the qualifications" and left off the unnecessary dig at the University.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
I had no idea Vikings were so gay.

No. To the Norse, someone who took a passive role in gay sex was an argr, a grave insult that denoted unmanliness.

The actual meaning of the adjective argr or ragr [Anglo-Saxon earg] was the nature or appearance of effeminacy, especially by obscene acts. Argr was the worst, most derogatory swearword of all known to the Norse language. According to Icelandic law, the accused was expected to kill the accuser at once.[9]

Niðing is another Norse term that was aplied to homosexuals (only those in the passive role)

Níðings had to be scolded, i. e. they had to be shouted in their faces what they were in most derogatory terms

Niðings also were outlawed:

"Nobody is allowed to protect, house, or feed the outlaw. He must seek shelter alone in the woods just like a wolf."[21][24] "Yet that is but one aspect of outlawry. The outlaw is not only expelled from the kinship, he is also regarded henceforth as an enemy to mankind."[24]

So I would say true Norsemen make Christians look tolerant towards gay people.
Of course, as long as it did not yet have a beard, it was fair game. How cultural values can change...
It is especially funny seeing that the Norse were so hostile towards gays in medieval times but have become very tolerant now, whereas the Russians, who were very tolerant of homosexuality in the middle ages have become so anti-gay nowadays.

 Talizvar wrote:
aViking with a Ph.D. In Norse History

Am I the only one who chuckled a bit at this?

This seems like, IMO, someone who legitimatly did not get a job. I doupt the viking guy did the hiring, just the rejection. He then saw her affiliation with the university and decided to use her as a target for his rage.
Both are stupid to have continued it though

"unlike Trinity Western University, we embrace diversity, and the right of people to sleep with or marry whoever they want."

Clever clever Viking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
I had no idea Vikings were so gay.

No. To the Norse, someone who took a passive role in gay sex was an argr, a grave insult that denoted unmanliness.

The actual meaning of the adjective argr or ragr [Anglo-Saxon earg] was the nature or appearance of effeminacy, especially by obscene acts. Argr was the worst, most derogatory swearword of all known to the Norse language. According to Icelandic law, the accused was expected to kill the accuser at once.

I take it they were cool with Tops?

Errr, yep apparently. ROFL

"I do not want to be blessed by some guy... who has been the very reason for the most horrendous abuses and human rights violations in the history of the human race."

Amundsen then used an expletive to state that if he met God, he would have sex with him.

I am literally loling.

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
aViking with a Ph.D. In Norse History

Am I the only one who chuckled a bit at this?

Of all the things in the thread, why did you chuckle at that?


As far as the OP goes, if she didn't get the job because she didn't meet the qualifications, then whatever, but treating her that way because she got a degree from a certain university is insane, especially if they talk about how they love diversity so much in the next breath. Extremely unprofessional.

And him claiming that her signing her email "God bless" was an example of her forcing her religion on him is incredibly condescending to anyone in history who has actually had religious beliefs forced upon them.

 Hordini wrote:

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:

 Talizvar wrote:
aViking with a Ph.D. In Norse History

Am I the only one who chuckled a bit at this?

Of all the things in the thread, why did you chuckle at that?


As far as the OP goes, if she didn't get the job because she didn't meet the qualifications, then whatever, but treating her that way because she got a degree from a certain university is insane, especially if they talk about how they love diversity so much in the next breath. Extremely unprofessional.

And him claiming that her signing her email "God bless" was an example of her forcing her religion on him is incredibly condescending to anyone in history who has actually had religious beliefs forced upon them.

Because of the posts from the Company, the reason for not hiring her is now almost irrelevant. They are going to go down and go down hard. Good.

And Snorg "the VIking" is an ignorant idiot. Christianity didn't bring down your culture, but your culture sure tried to bring down a bunch of other ones. Besides, they're Norse, not Vikings. VTo go a viking is a thing to do.

I wouldn't of wanted to hire her since she came from a organization with a discriminatory policy. As a member of the LGTB community and possibly haveing people in my organization also from that community, I would be afraid of creating a uncomfortable atmosphere for those employees if I brought her on.

They handled it very poor way, and crossed a lot of lines. Mr.viking should lose his job over this.

I would of just warned her during the job she would have to work with LGTB, and maby even under them as your supervisors.

Saying that will most times chases off the rift raft.

Yep, they could have just mentioned that they supported the LGBT community and that she would probably have to work with members of said community.

Stating her religion as one of the reasons for not hiring her crosses into Religious discrimination and they should take a hit because of that!

Also, Mr Norse History PhD is a moron: a Viking is a raider, that is something that you do, its an occupation, not something that you are.

 Lockark wrote:
I wouldn't of wanted to hire her since she came from a organization with a discriminatory policy. As a member of the LGTB community and possibly haveing people in my organization also from that community, I would be afraid of creating a uncomfortable atmosphere for those employees if I brought her on.
They handled it very poor way, and crossed a lot of lines. Mr.viking should lose his job over this.
I would of just warned her during the job she would have to work with LGTB, and maby even under them as your supervisors.
Saying that will most times chases off the rift raft.

It used to be "business is business" and the "proper" viewpoint was to not care what people did in the bedroom.
Problem is the blurring of the line, it is more like a community or culture rather than just a business.
It is increasingly becoming important in an interview of "best fit" of values and I dare say tolerance.

It is a hard thing when faced with a good candidate that is a member of the LGTB community and the present workforce are a bunch of "good ol' boys" who have a difficult enough time treating heterosexual women properly.
Exposure is needed to ensure understanding, strong policies of behavior requirements, a warning of "we are trying to be more inclusive but it is at an early stage..." to the potential candidate.
None of the above here applies to the "Viking" company, they have a really strange brand of "tolerance".

 Lockark wrote:
I wouldn't of wanted to hire her since she came from a organization with a discriminatory policy.

Same here... but for me, you can add in her very unprofessional "opening"

Presumably, she had never spoken to, or emailed ANYONE at the company, so she's contacting a complete stranger, and essentially begging for a job/internship.

In what world would you, or ANYONE hire some dumb kid who begins a formal introduction with "Hi"?? Any time that I"ve ever gone for a job application, it's been "Dear" or "good morning/afternoon"

Pretty college grad is super mad gay vikings wouldn't hire her to be a raft guide.


Meanwhile, children die of ebola in Africa. ISIS jihadi's are beheading Kurdish women. Whatever lady, go find a different job. There's tons of people every day getting denied far more in a great many places. I would absolutely expect that anyone signing their emails "god bless", or any equivalent there of (from ANY religion) would create a hostile work environment. If you can't squash your personal god addiction and function as a secular professional, then you should probably seek employment with a company that values the expression of your religion.

Not a company run by gay vikings.

 Peter Wiggin wrote:
Pretty college grad is super mad gay vikings wouldn't hire her to be a raft guide.


Meanwhile, children die of ebola in Africa. ISIS jihadi's are beheading Kurdish women. Whatever lady, go find a different job. There's tons of people every day getting denied far more in a great many places.

And why are you posting in an internet forum instead of doing anything about ISIS and ebola in Africa? Shouldn't you be on a plane to either of those places to help correct those grave injustices being done to humankind?

 Lockark wrote:
I wouldn't of wanted to hire her since she came from a organization with a discriminatory policy. As a member of the LGTB community and possibly haveing people in my organization also from that community, I would be afraid of creating a uncomfortable atmosphere for those employees if I brought her on.

They handled it very poor way, and crossed a lot of lines. Mr.viking should lose his job over this.

I would of just warned her during the job she would have to work with LGTB, and maby even under them as your supervisors.

Saying that will most times chases off the rift raft.

So you would be uncomfortable around a Muslim, a Catholic, or an Evangelical? You're screaming EEOC complaint at that point.

So redneck organizations can make the same argument, that hiring LGBTs makes them uncomfortable...

 Frazzled wrote:

 Lockark wrote:
I wouldn't of wanted to hire her since she came from a organization with a discriminatory policy. As a member of the LGTB community and possibly haveing people in my organization also from that community, I would be afraid of creating a uncomfortable atmosphere for those employees if I brought her on.

They handled it very poor way, and crossed a lot of lines. Mr.viking should lose his job over this.

I would of just warned her during the job she would have to work with LGTB, and maby even under them as your supervisors.

Saying that will most times chases off the rift raft.

So you would be uncomfortable around a Muslim, a Catholic, or an Evangelical? You're screaming EEOC complaint at that point.

So redneck organizations can make the same argument, that hiring LGBTs makes them uncomfortable...

Your reading to much into my statement. The argument is more that if I was black or had black employees I wouldn't want to hire card carrying member of the KKK.

I have no problem with her religoin. My issue is she went to a school with a policy of teaching not the nicest view of the lgtb life styles. The fact she was part of this out spoken group. If she is out spoken of the same views it could create a hostile work environment.


I'm all for love and tolerance, but I'm not going to hire someone I have to fix.

 Lockark wrote:
Your reading to much into my statement. The argument is more that if I was black or had black employees I wouldn't want to hire card carrying member of the KKK.
I have no problem with her religoin. My issue is she went to a school with a policy of teaching not the nicest view of the lgtb life styles. This would give me concern that she could cause problems latter...
I'm all for love and tolerance, but I'm not going to hire someone I have to fix.

Here would be another way to look at things:

Accreditation (degree, ISO, some governing body) certifies a person or business performs or has systems to a certain minimum standard.
When that organization that accredits them is known for other practices, they are inferred on those they certify.

It makes employee and supplier selection easier since a document of evidence can be pointed to for criteria for hiring.

Refusal / rejection of a certain lifestyle is part of that University's system, they were trained and certified by those systems.
The ability to work well with those refused would be very much in question.

It would be logical for that to be a consideration in the selection process, it is not a "prejudice" it is demonstrable as the degree the person holds by that school.

gorgon's ruling:

Whiny Christian girl needs to shut her trap.

Self-styled "Viking" douchebag posers need their a$$es kicked thoroughly.

<bangs gavel>

 gorgon wrote:
gorgon's ruling:

Whiny Christian girl needs to shut her trap.

Self-styled "Viking" douchebag posers need their a$$es kicked thoroughly.

<bangs gavel>

This, pretty much.


They do have a point on christianity destroying the lovely Viking culture, though, albeit it's no reason to attack someone on it personally, now.

It's not as if Vikings didn't destroy anything themselves, so I think we can probably call it even at this point.

 Hordini wrote:
It's not as if Vikings didn't destroy anything themselves, so I think we can probably call it even at this point.

Yeah, but they didn't force their culture on everyone, nor did they destroy cultures

 thenoobbomb wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
It's not as if Vikings didn't destroy anything themselves, so I think we can probably call it even at this point.

Yeah, but they didn't force their culture on everyone, nor did they destroy cultures

Looks at history books...say what?