Poll: Religious groups allowed to discriminate
- Thread starter Shaoken
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Damn, ticked the wrong box.
I generally disaprove of religions and will rarely, but sometimes, go out my way to disprove/discourage them.
However, I do still respect people's beliefs (after all my berating) and begrudgingly respect the views of sed religion.
I hate to say it, but if a religion says something is banned, that very same thing probably won't be welcomed into that religion, and this should be the case - its upto the Religion/Religious Leaders to allow things it previously "banned" into the Religion.
(if that makes sense)
I generally disaprove of religions and will rarely, but sometimes, go out my way to disprove/discourage them.
However, I do still respect people's beliefs (after all my berating) and begrudgingly respect the views of sed religion.
I hate to say it, but if a religion says something is banned, that very same thing probably won't be welcomed into that religion, and this should be the case - its upto the Religion/Religious Leaders to allow things it previously "banned" into the Religion.
(if that makes sense)
They are, they are, they are jsut because we dont see it does not meant it isn't happening just look to our happy desert friends in Saudi Arabia the middle ages theocratic hellhole. Not that I disagree with you but we should take care os it never reaches that point, if christians don't like you because your gay well why would you want to be a damned christian >_>Arsen said:
Firstly, anti-discrimination laws do not force employers to hire certain people. They prevent employers from rejecting candidates due to certain criteria that are irrelevant to the candidate's ability to carry out the job. The difference is important.Nutcase said:
Secondly, work is not just a trade of time against money.
The transaction of work for money is what allows people to afford accommodation, food, and whatever else. Thus to not give someone work is to deny them the ability to afford the necessities and luxuries of life. Someone with the ability to employ therefore has power, more strictly the power to determine who can feed themselves and who cannot.
This being the case, it is entirely reasonable and moral to ensure that, all people being equal and having the same rights in the eyes of the law, everyone's access to jobs - and thus the means to support themselves - should be dependent on their ability to carry out jobs, not anything else.
Hmm, what problem?Nutcase said:
Who said anything about forcing some one hire based on ethnicity/religion/sex? That's completely different from refusing to hire because any of those things.Nutcase said:
Qualification should be all there is when choosing between applicants. Other things should be neither a plus or minus.
Uh. Sorry abou not hasving time to read the whole thread so this may have already ben posted buttt.
If a religious person is allowed to turn away an applicant because of their sexuality or what have you, how come I don't have the right to turn away some-one who is religious, or some-one who holds certain religious views. It has to work both ways. For instance.
A gay person goes to get a job at a shop that is run by I dunno, lets say Muslims/Christians/Hindus etc, they're allowed to be tuned away point blank because of their sexuality.
A Muslim/Christain/Hindu goes to get a job working fo a gay man, they try to turn them away point blank and BAM! Lawsuit etc.
It's just not fair and not right. Religion is personal and business is not so they should be kept seperate, why can't people see that!!
If a religious person is allowed to turn away an applicant because of their sexuality or what have you, how come I don't have the right to turn away some-one who is religious, or some-one who holds certain religious views. It has to work both ways. For instance.
A gay person goes to get a job at a shop that is run by I dunno, lets say Muslims/Christians/Hindus etc, they're allowed to be tuned away point blank because of their sexuality.
A Muslim/Christain/Hindu goes to get a job working fo a gay man, they try to turn them away point blank and BAM! Lawsuit etc.
It's just not fair and not right. Religion is personal and business is not so they should be kept seperate, why can't people see that!!
The problem is it already is said with goverment policy, it is spelled our right in the constitution. The debate is over a "civil union" being equal to a marrige. I don't think it is, simply by the fact that you have straight couples getting married, and gay couples getting unionized, sure doesn't sound equal does it? Sounds like the gay couple got a job.Seanchaidh said:
You can criticize all you want, you can even talk with a person like you where saying. What I was talking about was forcing them to follow your way becasue you feel it is morally superior. We agreed on that apparently, you just took a different interpretation of my words. I just got a little tired of all shortsighted bashing going on here and might have got a bit overzealous about setting people straight. Hopefully that did not end up with to many people confused about the points I was trying to make.
If your religon says that gays and lesbians shouldn't be allowed to get a job they're perfectly qualified to do, then there's something wrong with your religion.
two problems with your logic. One is that arranged marriages generally discriminate against other cultures by forcing children to marry within a particular ethnic group. The other is that your definition of anti-discrimination laws is completely inaccurate. anti-discrimination laws need not involve either money or jail time.The_AC said:
Separation of state and church is a part of our Constitution. So is Religious freedom.RavingPenguin said:
This is where State is starting to interfere with religion in an entirely well meaning manner but is also risking a breach of our constitution.
Religions are essentially built upon discrimination 'If you aren't one of us then you're going to hell!'. Once you stop them from discriminating based on their beliefs they are no longer free to practice their religion.
The Australian Labor party is essentially a bunch of fascists from what I've seen so its no surprise. Look up their internet filter, censorship laws, anti-association laws in Vic (you can go to jail for being friends with someone who is associated with a club which has members convicted of crimes).
because it's an asymmetric relationship, and because one's rights end where the rights of another begin. in this case the right of minorities to make a living and support their families is more important than the employer's right to discriminate against them.Nutcase said:
EDIT: missed this page before. <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/18.146233.3333553>Agema already put it better than i could have.
As far as I'm concerned, everyone has the right to hate, discriminate, love, marry, or avoid whoever they want, on the private level. No one should be able to force anyone to be friendly with anyone else. There are plenty of people I don't like in this world, and I'm sorry, but if there were suddenly laws passed that stated that I HAD to nice and friendly with them, well... I'd probably go to jail. The best I can do is be professional.
On a public or larger level (Corporate, state, federal, etc.), everything has to remain completely neutral. No hate OR love. Most corporations and organizations have fraternization rules (forbidding office romances and what not) as well as your anti-descrimination laws. Anything above private level, I totally support this as well. It allows all jobs to be performed with minimal hassles, as cold and harsh as it may seem.
Now, even on the private level, as I stated, people should be allowed to like/dislike whoever they want, that still doesn't give them permission to take away any rights to anyone else. Beatings, murder, rape, cross burnings, lynchings, whatever, should NEVER be tolerated.
So if the Super Awesome Club of the Really Cool People says No Gays/Blacks/Jews/Whites/Hispanics/Catholics/Martians allowed (That's right, Asians get a free pass in this hypothetical scenario), and they are only funded with private money (No state/federal funds, etc.), then they can include/exclude whoever they want. One of the great freedoms of America, and I fully support this. I don't have to agree with their choices, but I'll respect and support their choice to excersize this freedom. Unfortunately, religions are basically really large Clubs that don't take federal dollars to support. Totally private, so they're entitled to whatever they choose to do.
Personally, I think it's a dick move to exclude any group of people for the sole reason they belong to said group. But I'm not about to force my opinions and beliefs on someone else and tell them how to run their group. I'll just avoid them because I don't agree with how they do things. Guess that means I descriminate, since I won't let them join the Super Awesome Club of the Dingo.
Damn... I'm a hypocrite. I'm going to have to rethink this post now...
On a public or larger level (Corporate, state, federal, etc.), everything has to remain completely neutral. No hate OR love. Most corporations and organizations have fraternization rules (forbidding office romances and what not) as well as your anti-descrimination laws. Anything above private level, I totally support this as well. It allows all jobs to be performed with minimal hassles, as cold and harsh as it may seem.
Now, even on the private level, as I stated, people should be allowed to like/dislike whoever they want, that still doesn't give them permission to take away any rights to anyone else. Beatings, murder, rape, cross burnings, lynchings, whatever, should NEVER be tolerated.
So if the Super Awesome Club of the Really Cool People says No Gays/Blacks/Jews/Whites/Hispanics/Catholics/Martians allowed (That's right, Asians get a free pass in this hypothetical scenario), and they are only funded with private money (No state/federal funds, etc.), then they can include/exclude whoever they want. One of the great freedoms of America, and I fully support this. I don't have to agree with their choices, but I'll respect and support their choice to excersize this freedom. Unfortunately, religions are basically really large Clubs that don't take federal dollars to support. Totally private, so they're entitled to whatever they choose to do.
Personally, I think it's a dick move to exclude any group of people for the sole reason they belong to said group. But I'm not about to force my opinions and beliefs on someone else and tell them how to run their group. I'll just avoid them because I don't agree with how they do things. Guess that means I descriminate, since I won't let them join the Super Awesome Club of the Dingo.
Damn... I'm a hypocrite. I'm going to have to rethink this post now...
Bigotry is any instance of forcing beliefs down another's throat. Such as: "(insert religion) MUST reform to allow porn, gambling, drugs, other religions, pedophilia, (insert cannot-live-without vice) or not only will I not join, but I will hound that religion until every practitioner is a pariah." Or: "(insert ethnicity/gender) has been on top far too long. Forget equality, now it's their turn to suffer." Or "only lifeless retards play WoW."
If a religion says "buttsecks=bad" and you disagree, do not join that religion. If a religion outright denies its members a basic human right, however, this is a concern.
To be fair, religious groups should only enforce their doctrines on their practitioners! Outreach is for the sole purpose of finding members. Once they join, preach all you want, but don't make yourself a nuisance to outsiders. Bigotry and overzealousness are close siblings.