• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Beans & Rice & Rot?

Overall, it seems this guy is really much the same as a TV or radio preacher in many ways. He's got a following of listeners and people turn to him for hope and advisement when they're in trouble, and he judges his staff for things like premarital sex and other minor infractions he doesn't view as moral. He has decided that his followers don't need their stimulus checks which can amount to more than some people take home after taxes in a month and that they should easily be able to live on 90% of their income. Many of them are having trouble living day to day in some cases, while he has his house for sale for $16M so he's completely out of touch with their lifestyles.

All indications are that his company must feel/operate like a cult of sorts. Your co-workers and their families become your family, they help you move in, probably check out your belongings while doing so and peer into your lifestyle. Co-workers and their families search your facebook and your spouse's social media and report back to the company when anything is amiss or when they're not mentioned in a good light so that can be 'dealt with'. You're shamed for wearing masks and following scientific guidance, and are expected to attend company events that are more like spiritual revivals. Before working there, you must disclose, basically to strangers, much about yourself, including your sources of income, current financial state, cost of your house payments and how much you spend on other items as you must show them your household budget and prove you can live within your means, based on how much (or little) Ramsey's company will be paying you. You then sign a contract, or so it may seem, basically giving control of even your sex life to the company. It's actually all a bit scary if true, and there are plenty of tales from those who "got out" that, if they're to be believed, sound at times like tales of those who escaped from Jonestown or Branch Davidian. OK, maybe those examples are excessive, but regardless, it doesn't sound like a way many people would be comfortable working and living.
 
Last edited:
From what I have read elsewhere in her case she saying that it’s discriminatory specifically against women because there can bevisible evidence of her having sex without a license. A male employee can be sleeping with his girlfriend, or having one night stands, and the employer is none the wiser for it. For that matter, the plaintiff could’ve had an abortion and Dave Ramsey would have been done the wiser
 
TheBigA said:
He was ultimately fired, wasn't he? Are there different standards? In a theocracy, yes.

You think this Supreme Court isn't going to support the rights of a religious business owner? Remember the baker who said making a wedding cake for a gay couple is against is religion? The baker won.
Click to expand...
Point well taken TBA, however, the "baker" story wasn't employment-related. Same "principle" perhaps, but a different scenario nonetheless.
 
Mikey Radio said:
Overall, it seems this guy is really much the same as a TV or radio preacher in many ways. He's got a following of listeners and people turn to him for hope and advisement when they're in trouble, and he judges his staff for things like premarital sex and other minor infractions he doesn't view as moral. He has decided that his followers don't need their stimulus checks which can amount to more than some people take home after taxes in a month and that they should easily be able to live on 90% of their income. Many of them are having trouble living day to day in some cases, while he has his house for sale for $16M so he's completely out of touch with their lifestyles.

All indications are that his company must feel/operate like a cult of sorts. Your co-workers and their families become your family, they help you move in, probably check out your belongings while doing so and peer into your lifestyle. Co-workers and their families search your facebook and your spouse's social media and report back to the company when anything is amiss or when they're not mentioned in a good light so that can be 'dealt with'. You're shamed for wearing masks and following scientific guidance, and are expected to attend company events that are more like spiritual revivals. Before working there, you must disclose, basically to strangers, much about yourself, including your sources of income, current financial state, cost of your house payments and how much you spend on other items as you must show them your household budget and prove you can live within your means, based on how much (or little) Ramsey's company will be paying you. You then sign a contract, or so it may seem, basically giving control of even your sex life to the company. It's actually all a bit scary if true, and there are plenty of tales from those who "got out" that, if they're to be believed, sound at times like tales of those who escaped from Jonestown or Branch Davidian. OK, maybe those examples are excessive, but regardless, it doesn't sound like a way many people would be comfortable working and living.
Click to expand...
I have a feeling that someone will blow the whistle on Ramsey and say he is not really a "Christian" but is really a Jerry Falwell Jr. Type person if it's confirmed. For now he's going to be questioned over this gender discrimination allegation here.
 
Mikey Radio said:
Overall, it seems this guy is really much the same as a TV or radio preacher in many ways. He's got a following of listeners and people turn to him for hope and advisement when they're in trouble, and he judges his staff for things like premarital sex and other minor infractions he doesn't view as moral. He has decided that his followers don't need their stimulus checks which can amount to more than some people take home after taxes in a month and that they should easily be able to live on 90% of their income. Many of them are having trouble living day to day in some cases, while he has his house for sale for $16M so he's completely out of touch with their lifestyles.

All indications are that his company must feel/operate like a cult of sorts. Your co-workers and their families become your family, they help you move in, probably check out your belongings while doing so and peer into your lifestyle. Co-workers and their families search your facebook and your spouse's social media and report back to the company when anything is amiss or when they're not mentioned in a good light so that can be 'dealt with'. You're shamed for wearing masks and following scientific guidance, and are expected to attend company events that are more like spiritual revivals. Before working there, you must disclose, basically to strangers, much about yourself, including your sources of income, current financial state, cost of your house payments and how much you spend on other items as you must show them your household budget and prove you can live within your means, based on how much (or little) Ramsey's company will be paying you. You then sign a contract, or so it may seem, basically giving control of even your sex life to the company. It's actually all a bit scary if true, and there are plenty of tales from those who "got out" that, if they're to be believed, sound at times like tales of those who escaped from Jonestown or Branch Davidian. OK, maybe those examples are excessive, but regardless, it doesn't sound like a way many people would be comfortable working and living.
Click to expand...
Have the courts actually decided if corporations can have religious beliefs?
 
gr8oldies said:
Have the courts actually decided if corporations can have religious beliefs?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how this would play out from a corporate or HR perspective, but while I can understand a company shying away from employees who'd committed a crime or were found guilty of breaking certain types of laws, firing at least a dozen employees because you found out they had premarital sex may be a bit extreme. While he's running a company and happens to have strong views about how his employees conduct themselves both at work and in their personal time and private lives away from the office, it's not a religion or church. Causes for dismissal may also be outlined in the paperwork his staff sign when they're hired, which I believe was discussed a bit earlier in this thread.
 
Last edited:
Several years ago the Supreme Court agreed that a religious organization, school, or broadcaster can legally discriminate against hiring someone who isn't a follower.
 
Here's the thing I don't get. The woman who filed suit against Ramsey certainly knew what the situation was. If there were all these personal questions in order to be hired as well as a required culture and moral code, it seems to me she knew very well the request would likely mean her dismissal. Why would anybody opposed to Ramsey's way ever want to be an employee there?

It's really no different than the baker that refused to make the cake for the same sex couple. Why on earth would the same sex couple want that baker when there are many others that could do likely just as good of a job. You sue him when you would not give him your business because of the baker's religious convictions? Why sue except to try to do harm and be mean. Just chalk it up to a person you don't chose to deal with and move on. If it was me, I'd say I'm not doing business with a guy that has a problem with me and I wouldn't let the door hit me on the way out.

In at least the Ramsey situation the woman can't claim she didn't know. She chose to go against policy or at the very least, take that risk. As it seems, she chooses to not subscribe to Ramsey's employment requirements, so why would she take the job in the first place?

I'm not saying Ramsey's perceived workplace is perfectly legal or that I support it but rather that his company, his rules. You don't like the rules or refuse to follow hem, then just don't go to work there. And should the situation change after you're hired, brush up the resume and get the heck out of there.
 
Last edited:
b-turner said:
It's really no different than the baker that refused to make the cake for the same sex couple. Why on earth would the same sex couple want that baker when there are many others that could do likely just as good of a job.
Click to expand...

That was exactly the question the judge asked during the trial. Was this the only bakery in town? Were there other places available? Why not go there?
 
b-turner said:
It's really no different than the baker that refused to make the cake for the same sex couple. Why on earth would the same sex couple want that baker when there are many others that could do likely just as good of a job.
Click to expand...
TheBigA said:
That was exactly the question the judge asked during the trial. Was this the only bakery in town? Were there other places available? Why not go there?
Click to expand...
Taking this thread off the original topic (sorry). While I don't fundamentally disagree with either of your comments - I was invited to a same-sex wedding last year where the couple did exactly that...When they called their potential baker, reception location, DJ, caterer, photographer, etc. they just explained up front that it was for a gay wedding and asked those vendors if they were comfortable with that. In their case, all the companies they called were happy to do their wedding, but had that not been the case, they were planning to move on to the handfuls of other companies that would. That said, I think in the case where the couple sued the baker, they felt discriminated against and felt that a baker saying "We don't serve gays" was no different than a company saying "We don't serve black people". In their eyes they saw it as simple discrimination and chose to fight it. I'm also guessing they had no trouble finding a lawyer to take the case, because had that lawyer taken their case and won, it'd possibly be a high-profile feather in their cap.

To put it bluntly, they saw a baker saying "We don't serve gays, why don't you go find a baker who doesn't share our feelings on same-sex marriage" as the equivalent of "Black people can't sit at the front of the bus, why don't you move to the back of the bus where there are plenty of seats available for black people".
 
Last edited:
RadioPatrol said:
I have a feeling that someone will blow the whistle on Ramsey and say he is not really a "Christian" but is really a Jerry Falwell Jr. Type person if it's confirmed. For now he's going to be questioned over this gender discrimination allegation here.
Click to expand...
... as it should be. Unfortunately, Phoenix-based KTAR (one of Ramsey's shills) refuse to report this story.
 
b-turner said:
Here's the thing I don't get. The woman who filed suit against Ramsey certainly knew what the situation was. If there were all these personal questions in order to be hired as well as a required culture and moral code, it seems to me she knew very well the request would likely mean her dismissal. Why would anybody opposed to Ramsey's way ever want to be an employee there?

It's really no different than the baker that refused to make the cake for the same sex couple. Why on earth would the same sex couple want that baker when there are many others that could do likely just as good of a job. You sue him when you would not give him your business because of the baker's religious convictions? Why sue except to try to do harm and be mean. Just chalk it up to a person you don't chose to deal with and move on. If it was me, I'd say I'm not doing business with a guy that has a problem with me and I wouldn't let the door hit me on the way out.

In at least the Ramsey situation the woman can't claim she didn't know. She chose to go against policy or at the very least, take that risk. As it seems, she chooses to not subscribe to Ramsey's employment requirements, so why would she take the job in the first place?

I'm not saying Ramsey's perceived workplace is perfectly legal or that I support it but rather that his company, his rules. You don't like the rules or refuse to follow hem, then just don't go to work there. And should the situation change after you're hired, brush up the resume and get the heck out of there.
Click to expand...
Problem is, those rules didn't apply to Ramsey's male sidekick Chris Hogan, until his extra-marital affairs went public. Now Ramsey was forced to can him, which is why he's now in damage-control mode.
 
Mikey Radio said:
To put it bluntly, they saw a baker saying "We don't serve gays, why don't you go find a baker who doesn't share our feelings on same-sex marriage" as the equivalent of "Black people can't sit at the front of the bus, why don't you move to the back of the bus where there are plenty of seats available for black people".
Click to expand...

That's not exactly apples/apples. Choosing another baker isn't equivalent to the back of the bus.
 
Kelly A said:
Several years ago the Supreme Court agreed that a religious organization, school, or broadcaster can legally discriminate against hiring someone who isn't a follower.
Click to expand...
The woman/plaintiff worked there for four years. Ramsey also fired 12 other "subordinates" for so-called "immoral" reasons. However, it didn't apply to Hogan-- until this month.
 
Last edited:
The Media Observer said:
The woman/plaintiff worked there for four years. Ramsey also fired 12 other "subordinates" for so-called "moral" reasons. However, it didn't apply to Hogan-- until this month.
Click to expand...

So in other words, she knew the consequences of her actions when she had premarital sex. And last time I checked, the female of the species is the one who carries the baby, right? This is why fathers treat their daughters differently than their sons.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom