Crew Wanted: Stewardess-experienced

[pickpaul]

"No I do not.

OP didn't breach equal opportunity, all he did was to make sure from the get go that he was looking for a stewardess (woman)"

If you can't see the contradiction in the above quote, you are beyond help. To be clear, my only statement has been that it is illegal, which it is.

PC complaints and strawmen arguments about a group of 20 women doesn't change federal law which applies to all empoyers, even individuals.

[Van Der Beek]

Originally Posted by pickpaul

If you can't see the contradiction in the above quote, you are beyond help.

If you can't get context and common sense, you are beyond help. Pertaining the law; what is legal and what is right are often times not the same thing.

I'll repeat this one.
So where we end up is here; He will at the end of the day hire who ever he wants to hire, difference is that he was honest about it in his post, whereas PC nonsense would force him to lie, just so that people can feel better about themselves. They've even managed to turn feelings into a legal issue.

Originally Posted by pickpaul

strawmen arguments about a group of 20 women

That wasn't a strawman argument but more of an example of how it works in real life. Only ONE will get the job, ONE will get it, well that is discrimination against the other 19, why? Because they may all have the same qualifications. So how to chose without discriminating then if they all have the same qualifications? Oh my alert general you can't!

Stay tune for a new law that will try to solve that "issue" to.

Ninja edit.
Could have been worse I suppose, he could have been looking to hire a wet nurse. I think he would have specified for a woman for that job also. It may go against the law of equal opportunity of course, but hey....

[pickpaul]

Originally Posted by Van Der Beek

If you can't get context and common sense, you are beyond help. Pertaining the law; what is legal and what is right are often times not the same thing.

So you are conceeding my point that it is illegal.

I never passed moral judgement, I simply made the point it is illegal which it is.

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by pickpaul

So you are conceeding my point that it is illegal.

I never passed moral judgement, I simply made the point it is illegal which it is.

As an offer for a 1 week business contract between 2 private entities, it's not illegal and it would cost far more to fight this than it's worth.

The OP could simply claim, 'my wife likes to dine naked'.

It's called "Bona Fide Occupational Qualification". Same reason there are no Hooter's 'waiters'.

[pickpaul]

So you are saying it is a legal requirement and it's not illegal.

Pick one.

Sent from my SM-G925T using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by pickpaul

So you are saying it is a legal requirement and it's not illegal.

Pick one.

Sent from my SM-G925T using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

I am saying a 1 week contract for a service between 2 companies does not carry the same discrimination rules a employer carries. I'm also pointing out there are gender specific full-time employments.

I gave the example of Hooters. Following your advice, they are illegal.

How about Victoria Secret's lingerie models?

[darylat8750]

"These lawsuits involving gay weddings are attempts to create a legal precedent that being a member of a legally recognized minority sexual orientation makes you a member of a protected class."

That is exactly the point. White anglo saxon heterosexual males are not part of a protected class. If a male answered that ad and he wasn't a member of a protected class he would just be told he didn't fit the description in the ad. He could sue if he wanted to and if he won the suit there wouldn't be anyone left in the US that wasn't a protected class.

[pickpaul]

Originally Posted by DotDun

I am saying a 1 week contract for a service between 2 companies does not carry the same discrimination rules a employer carries. I'm also pointing out there are gender specific full-time employments.

I gave the example of Hooters. Following your advice, they are illegal.

How about Victoria Secret's lingerie models?

The role of model is rather different than serving food and drinks and cleaning which does not qualify for an exemption from the law.

[pickpaul]

Originally Posted by darylat8750

White anglo saxon heterosexual males are not part of a protected class.

You are just as protected from discrimination as a man under the law.

The ad is for a woman. My whole point is legally you cannot discriminate against men in this situation.

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by pickpaul

The role of model is rather different than serving food and drinks and cleaning which does not qualify for an exemption from the law.

It's a contract for service between 2 companies.

[pickpaul]

Originally Posted by DotDun

It's a contract for service between 2 companies.

I'm sorry, where in the original post did it mention looking for a company to provide a service? It is seeking a female individual.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by DotDun

I am saying a 1 week contract for a service between 2 companies does not carry the same discrimination rules a employer carries. I'm also pointing out there are gender specific full-time employments.

I gave the example of Hooters. Following your advice, they are illegal.

How about Victoria Secret's lingerie models?

You are confusing legal with not likely to be prosecuted.

Cops watch speeders all day long but it's impractical to pull every one of them over. The fact you didn't get pulled over doesn't mean it was legal to break the speed limit.

Duration of the contract or scale of the employer are irrelevant to the legality.

In order to specifically require a specific gender, you would need an absolute rock solid impossibility for the wrong gender to perform the job, which is a very tough standard.

[Stumble]

Originally Posted by darylat8750

"These lawsuits involving gay weddings are attempts to create a legal precedent that being a member of a legally recognized minority sexual orientation makes you a member of a protected class."

That is exactly the point. White anglo saxon heterosexual males are not part of a protected class. If a male answered that ad and he wasn't a member of a protected class he would just be told he didn't fit the description in the ad. He could sue if he wanted to and if he won the suit there wouldn't be anyone left in the US that wasn't a protected class.

Actually as a white heterosexual male you are a member of a number of protected classes. You cannot be denied a job based on race (white) anymore than an African American can be denied on his. You cannot be denied on the basis of sex (male) the same as a woman cannot be denied on the basis of her sex. And in some states you could not be denied on the basis of sexual orientation (heterosexual) the same as a gay person can't be discriminated against for theirs. The fact that discrimination against white heterosexual males is so rare doesnt effect the legal protections offered you if you were to be discriminated against.


As for this issue. We simply do not have enough information to know if the sexual discrimination at play is illegal or not. Presuming the vessel is US flagged the default federal law requires the company (or vessel) to employ at least 15 people before the law applies. However some states have lower minimums, some states have no minimum number of employees while most have retained the Federal 15 minimum. So in this case there is no way to know.

There is also a secondary issue that if the owners are claiming the vessel as a second home then there is also a residency exception. Basically employment discrimination laws don't apply to someone's home.


Finally if this does fall under the anti-discrimination laws and the conduct is illegal (though probably doubtful) an applicant who failed to get the job on the basis of sex can file a complaint with the EEOC (or state equivilant). Recovery unlike most claims is not just for lost economic damages (salary) but also typically included attorney's fees, court costs, expert witness testimony fees, fines to the state, and commonly punitive damages. So the penalty for violating the law can be quite severe.


As for this SJW nonsense. At what point did it become an negative to seek justic in this country? All of the same claims were made ad nauseum about the black civil rights movement, the sufferagette movement, that are being made now about people seeking equal rights for the LGBT community.

[rabbi]

No one mentioned what legislation applies.
Some countries might allow you to post a job strictly for a one-legged gay transsexual . Who cares...

At the end the employer decides who gets the job. If he wants a female then all males simply waste their time when applying for the job.
Has anyone ever challenged Hugh Hefner for not hiring male bunnies??

[sailpower]

Originally Posted by Stumble

You cannot be denied a job based on race (white) anymore than an African American can be denied on his. You cannot be denied on the basis of sex (male) the same as a woman cannot be denied on the basis of her sex. And in some states you could not be denied on the basis of sexual orientation (heterosexual) the same as a gay person can't be discriminated against for theirs.

So, say in the case of non live in nannies, parents can not specify only female for their daughters? They must open the job up to males even when the job entails dressing/undressing the girls and bathroom supervision?

Is that just an unintended consequence and too bad for the parents and their daughters?

Wonder what happens when the Bunny Ranch in Nevada is required to hire male escorts for their heterosexual male clients?

Surely there has to be some saneness left?

Back to the OP, if the position requires sharing a cabin with an existing crew who is female is the OP as an employer still required to consider males?