Poll: Religious groups allowed to discriminate

[JaredXE]

Ugh, another religion thread.

In short, no one should be discriminated against for something they have no call over, I don't care if it is against your religion. If your religion (I don't care what one) preaches intolerance and hate against a segment of the populace due to something they were born with(and according to the faithful, god made everybody), then your religion is dumb and you are dumb to follow it's practices and I would never hire you for a job.


Oh, I'm sorry if I offended somebody because of my beliefs, but it's my beliefs, handed down to me from god, who made me and gave me a brain to use.

 

[theultimateend]

I like how the word "discriminate" is used openly as a word for every single thing people disagree with these days.

Until gays are being beaten on a daily basis, killed on many occassions, and barred from eating at a pub... THEN we can use the term.

THIS is just people disagreeing over homosexuality.

I would give you the links to the many people beaten, harrassed, murder, etc. for being gay, but what is the point? You seem to be dead set against acknowledging what is right in front of you, so I will just post this:
You are wrong.

By that I mean on a level equal to what Black Americans and the NAtive Americans have gone through. If America is not for gay marriage then it shouldn't be forced down out throats yet. Why no one respects this is simply beyond me.

I do not hate gays, nor do I treat them any differently. But certain beliefs are certain beliefs and to dub it discrimination because of the technicality of the term is just immature.

Edit - Wait, is this set in America?

I've often found it odd that folks judge someone's misfortune by those of others. "Sure he lost his leg but he didn't get AIDS so he should just shut the fuck up."

Really? This person is not allowed to feel wronged, to feel terrible, because they probably do.

Because in the end, when people make a statement like this, they don't actually believe it. They just want to shut conversation down and not deal with the issue.

I'm sure if the subject was discrimination against African Americans or Native Americans, that would meet with the same kind of dismissive talk about how it wasn't discrimination on a level equal Jews or something.

One thing I forgot to add is that all those events he mentioned started somewhere.

They started with simple disagreements. Slowly acts of dehumanization were used to help ease the populace into treating the group of people as something less than human. Once this setup was established it was (and always is) just a matter of time before something utterly unbelievable happens.

Usually many people vanish and in ways that few, if any, people deserve.

They don't call gay people fags because they like to smoke cigarettes, they call them fags because at one point shallow minded extremists used homosexuals like kindling and lit them on fire for being heretics/sinners.

It's just a matter of starting off small, even Hitler knew that.

 

[Guitarmasterx7]

Eh, I'm undecided. Part of me says, "No, discrimination is wrong" but if they forced churches to do something that would be a in violation of rights. I dunno, in a professional or public environment discrimination has no place, but if an individual wants to be intolerant, that's their prerogative, as ignorant as it is. I don't know, the church is a large establishment(/corporation for everyone as cynical as me) but by no stretch of the imagination is it professional. It all comes down to whether you value freedom or equality more.

Eh, to be honest I couldn't give a shit less being as I'm neither Christian nor gay so it doesn't really affect me. Though one question has been niggling away at me and that's the issue of why the fuck do gays even... you know... care. I would think that they would want no part affairs from a religion that says they're going to hell for having a genetic/uncontrollable mental difference from other people. I mean, even if they BELIEVED it, they would then believe that no matter what they're going to hell anyways, so why waste your time and money at church when you could be doing better things with people who accept you?

 

[Seanchaidh]

Sarcasm aside think about things from their point of view: The life style choice violates a basic part of the fundamentalist Christian religious beliefs for you to march and tell them they are wrong, and sick for believing that is not your place. They have a right to as many bat-shit insane beliefs as they want as long as they do not violate any laws. Being of course private, and non-profit they are not covered under a lot of the discrimination laws that businesses are, and I don't think they should be.

Whoa, there. It certainly should be said. What it should not be said with, though, is official government policy. We should absolutely criticize bat-shit insane beliefs. We should not, however, force people to believe otherwise. We should persuade them otherwise.

 

[teh_gunslinger]

If it goes against your God(s) then you shouldn't have to allow them entry to your church.

But what is the opinion on the matter if I refused to hire or allow religious people entry on the grounds that they offend me, goes against my morals and I have a strong dislike for crazy people?

Not saying I do, but religious people often seem pretty quick to scream discrimination and harassment when challenged.

 

[Cavouku]

I thought we found loopholes to the Bible V. Gay debate, has this not reached the populous?

No, because discrimination shouldn't be included in a religion. I don't think so. And if so, general civility should come first.

This isn't good, etc., I am sorta' "religious", or at least I believe, and to cover the bases; no saying religion's the cause of all wars, and is evil, and never ever makes any sense, alright? Open up and think from every angle. Just as a disclaimer, because it always shows up.

 

[Cavouku]

I think what I love about this whole discrimination thing is that why they are bashing Homosexuals they are breaking the very commandments they belive in. If they dont agree with it thats their problem but when they are running around with "God Hates Fags" signs and showing up at a homosexual kid's funeral and having signs that say "God killed your son because he was Gay" that is when there is a huge problem. I find it amazing that religous people can do this and there is seemingly no consequence

I think religion is the most dangerous weapon out there at times, it turns people against one another and for what a 6000 year old book that talks of a man walking on water?!?

If your religious I dont mean to offend you but keep your religion to yourselves practice it in your own way(not saying that every one that is religous is a Bible-thumper)

Those people aren't Bible-thumpers, they're people who've scanned through it and used things for their advantage on things they personally dislike.

 

[Agema]

If you're talking about a religious organisation hiring a priest, it's fair enough for the organisation to demand the priest fulfills the doctrinal requirements of his faith, as it heavily impacts on his or her ability to carry out the job.

If you're talking about a secretary doing the typing and filing for a faith-based organisation, for the most part I don't think it's acceptable to discriminate, as the marital status/sexuality/etc. of the secretary in no way compromises his or her ability to do a secretarial job.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

If a tenet of a religion is that certain types of people cannot be a part of that religion without renouncing certain ways/actions, it is not exactly discrimination. You can disagree with something somebody does without thinking they're less of a person. You can even exclude them from your group, which is basically what a religion is. It's a faith-based group of like-minded individuals. It's not a public organization. Or it shouldn't be. They don't HAVE to accept anyone they don't want to into said group.

Like, if I made a religion around pigeon worship, and I said you had to have been in the military to join. Not everyone has. It's not their fault in most cases if they haven't. But it's my group and my whim. That's the tenet of my made-up religion. Anyone who wants to say they believe MY religion has to adhere to my rules. I wouldn't think any less of people who hadn't been in the military, they just couldn't be in my religion.

Personally, I think anyone who's a part of a religious organization ON ANY LEVEL should believe in and adhere to the tenets of that faith. Anytime anyone from a religious organization does or says anything, they're representing an entire faith. How can they do that properly if they don't believe it themselves? The image they give will not be the true one at all.

 

[Seanchaidh]

If a tenet of a religion is that certain types of people cannot be a part of that religion without renouncing certain ways/actions, it is not exactly discrimination.

Uh, yes it is. But it's also acceptable discrimination.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

If a tenet of a religion is that certain types of people cannot be a part of that religion without renouncing certain ways/actions, it is not exactly discrimination.

Uh, yes it is. But it's also acceptable discrimination.

I only meant that it's not "discrimination" in the political buzzword sense of the word. I mean, people can be "discriminating" about who's allowed in their private group without putting on KKK hats or brandishing "God Hates Gays" signs. "Discriminating" used to mean somebody who was just really selective.

You can love people and not like something they're doing. And if it's against the tenets of your religion, I think telling them "you can't keep doing this and join my religion" is a fair sight away from lighting them on fire.

 

[Chipperz]

It sure as hell is. How about this. I think Johnny Serial killer deserves to live in your home, and you need to take care of him. How fucking happy are you about that? Wait, you find what he did morally wrong? Well screw you and your beliefs this is morally superior big brother talking here. We say what you can and cannot find socially acceptable around here!

I try, try to stay out of religious threads, but damn, man! You're my new favourate "gun toting, Conservative American"!

Yeah... It's pretty much the same thing. I don't agree with their interpretation of a faith that says "love everyone" as "love everyone, except people you don't like", but hell, it's their choice to be wrong.

Also, I'm really enjoying the people who are going on about not being religious makes you more rational, and then respond to any counter-arguments with "NYAH-NYAH! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! I HAVE MY FINGERS IN MY EARS!" Really gives the militant atheist community that air of dignity that they've been looking for all these years.

 

[Seanchaidh]

If a tenet of a religion is that certain types of people cannot be a part of that religion without renouncing certain ways/actions, it is not exactly discrimination.

Uh, yes it is. But it's also acceptable discrimination.

I only meant that it's not "discrimination" in the political buzzword sense of the word. I mean, people can be "discriminating" about who's allowed in their private group without putting on KKK hats or brandishing "God Hates Gays" signs. "Discriminating" used to mean somebody who was just really selective.

Oh. I try my best to disregard political buzzwords.

 

[polygon]

I'm going to be highly amused when Christian schools are forced to hire gay teachers because of this.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

It sure as hell is. How about this. I think Johnny Serial killer deserves to live in your home, and you need to take care of him. How fucking happy are you about that? Wait, you find what he did morally wrong? Well screw you and your beliefs this is morally superior big brother talking here. We say what you can and cannot find socially acceptable around here!

I try, try to stay out of religious threads, but damn, man! You're my new favourate "gun toting, Conservative American"!

Yeah... It's pretty much the same thing. I don't agree with their interpretation of a faith that says "love everyone" as "love everyone, except people you don't like", but hell, it's their choice to be wrong.

Also, I'm really enjoying the people who are going on about not being religious makes you more rational, and then respond to any counter-arguments with "NYAH-NYAH! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! I HAVE MY FINGERS IN MY EARS!" Really gives the militant atheist community that air of dignity that they've been looking for all these years.

Could these be two of the better opinions I've seen on The Escapist regarding religion?

Just wanted to give you two the unofficial Samurai Goomba Conservative Preacher Seal of Approval.

 

[Axeli]

There's absolutely no reason religion should give anyone an excuse to not follow the laws and rules of society.

Seriously, give me one good explanation to why believing in unproven and unlikely things puts you so much above everyone else.

I'm pretty sure do to 'Separation of Church and State' that religious organizations are not government property. And if they're private property they should be able to tell whoever they want to GTFO.

This is so common misconception about equality. No, goverment is definitely not the only one that has to follow it.

Otherwise, by your logic, it would mean that companies should be able to refuse to hire blacks, gays, muslims, women, etc. Or restaurants should be able to refuse to serve people based on ethnicity.

It does not work like that.

 

[cobra_ky]

No one is forced to send their children to a faith based school. Its an option the parents chose. They make these choices spesificly so they can be taught in a faith based enviroment. At the end of the day you need somone who partakes in that faith in order to teach the values taught by the religious institution.

If you are gay, there is no reason why you should be hired by a FAITH based institution that does not share the same values, as you cannot teach them.

This isn't about discrimination but about who can teach morals and values of a faith better. A practitioner, or somone who isn't.

the article specifically states that teachers would be exempt. all the organization has to do is demonstrate that a particular religious background is an inherent requirement for the job.

I believe that people should have the right to hire or fire anyone they want for any reason they want. I also believe that people have the right to buy or sell to anyone they want for any reason they want. Not only that, but I believe that people have the right to believe whatever they want to believe for whatever reason they want. I even believe that people should be able to decide who comes on their property for whatever reason they want.

Freedom is a good thing.

so what happens when every grocery store and restaurant in Australia decides they won't sell to gays anymore? They have the freedom to starve?

 

[Shaoken]

If you're talking about a secretary doing the typing and filing for a faith-based organisation, for the most part I don't think it's acceptable to discriminate, as the marital status/sexuality/etc. of the secretary in no way compromises his or her ability to do a secretarial job.

I think the arguement is that these religious groups will try and keep gays and single mothers away from non-faith related jobs like secretaries, or maths teachers, or office staff. And I'm guessing said Religious Groups will fight to keep the right to exclude them.

But yeah, I don't see gays or single mothers lining up to teach religion in a catholic school, so in other words this law will be used for nothing else but to discriminate against gays and single mothers by every religious body for every job they offer.

 

[Nutcase]

There's absolutely no reason religion should give anyone an excuse to not follow the laws and rules of society.

True. The problem lies in those laws and rules.

I'm pretty sure do to 'Separation of Church and State' that religious organizations are not government property. And if they're private property they should be able to tell whoever they want to GTFO.

This is so common misconception about equality. No, goverment is definitely not the only one that has to follow it.

Otherwise, by your logic, it would mean that companies should be able to refuse to hire blacks, gays, muslims, women, etc. Or restaurants should be able to refuse to serve people based on ethnicity.

It does not work like that.

It should work like that, and in many places, it does. Do you have a right to force blacks, gays, muslims and women to work for you? No. Why would they have a right to force you to hire them?