Poll: Religious groups allowed to discriminate
- Thread starter Shaoken
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Your interpretation ignores economic behavior. If a company wants to limit itself to a certain race of worker regardless of the qualifications of others, then it will fall to competition from companies that don't do that and who can therefore afford to have a better qualified workforce on the same or less payroll. It isn't a problem that needs government intervention to be solved, and government intervention of this particular sort often gives rise to frivolous lawsuits as well as increased fixed costs from legal fees just to deal with the details of the legislation. A litigious person dismissed because of their attitude or their performance can, in fact, argue that race played the dominant role in the firing and win money. That is an awful waste. I like the market solution much better.Agema said:
The police are a government entity with state-sanctioned monopoly power and so shouldn't be able to discriminate because of that, not any "right to work." Dealing as it does with the enforcement of laws, which themselves ought not be discriminatory, police departments should be required to hire based on qualifications only with racial diversity perhaps as a secondary consideration. But that's a rare exception. If it gets government money it should abide by government hiring practices. But if it doesn't, it is a private endeavor that should be left to its owners and managers.
Dude, what else is it? They are legally allowed to reject people from working for them based soley on if they are a single-mother or gay. That's the textbook diffinition of discrimination.
Unless you think that a business that refuses to hire gays and single-mothers specifically because they're gay or single mothers, is not actually discrimination. If so, what the fuck would you call it? A strong way of saying "We don't like you?"[/quote]
Discrimination actually does imply a legal aspect, i.e. if the US federal government says that as a Jew I'm not allowed to have a job, THAT's discrimination. If the Catholic Church says I can't be a priest because I'm Jewish, that's just a matter of their rules. I can always just stay a Jew. When it exists completely private of legal protection, condemnation, support, or recognition, there can be no such thing as discrimination (but I'm about to counter that exact point, so read on).
That said, many religious organizations receive political support; many claim that the Boy Scouts have become a mouthpiece for radical Mormons, but they receive government support in the form of discounts and use of public spaces. The question of what is and isn't discrimination becomes massively more complicated when government DOES get involved.
Finally, social norms complicate matters further. du jure (I probably misspelled that) discrimination can exist via common social conventions. In short, if everyone makes black people go to the back of the bus, then there need not be a legal authority enforcing it. A large part of the race problem in the deep south that still faces some tension is the problem that in many cases racism is simply the way things are, leading to informal discrimination. My opinion is that it can take decades, and potentially centuries, to get rid of this form of discrimination, and government intervention is rarely beneficial (I regard it as a neutral effect). Yes, the Catholic Church may hate homosexuality, but in 100 years they might not. Forcing them to accept homosexuality may lead to a sort of "hollow hope" type of situation.
Yeah....no, you're wrong here. That's just extreme forms of discrimination.
Unless you think that a business that refuses to hire gays and single-mothers specifically because they're gay or single mothers, is not actually discrimination. If so, what the fuck would you call it? A strong way of saying "We don't like you?"[/quote]
Discrimination actually does imply a legal aspect, i.e. if the US federal government says that as a Jew I'm not allowed to have a job, THAT's discrimination. If the Catholic Church says I can't be a priest because I'm Jewish, that's just a matter of their rules. I can always just stay a Jew. When it exists completely private of legal protection, condemnation, support, or recognition, there can be no such thing as discrimination (but I'm about to counter that exact point, so read on).
That said, many religious organizations receive political support; many claim that the Boy Scouts have become a mouthpiece for radical Mormons, but they receive government support in the form of discounts and use of public spaces. The question of what is and isn't discrimination becomes massively more complicated when government DOES get involved.
Finally, social norms complicate matters further. du jure (I probably misspelled that) discrimination can exist via common social conventions. In short, if everyone makes black people go to the back of the bus, then there need not be a legal authority enforcing it. A large part of the race problem in the deep south that still faces some tension is the problem that in many cases racism is simply the way things are, leading to informal discrimination. My opinion is that it can take decades, and potentially centuries, to get rid of this form of discrimination, and government intervention is rarely beneficial (I regard it as a neutral effect). Yes, the Catholic Church may hate homosexuality, but in 100 years they might not. Forcing them to accept homosexuality may lead to a sort of "hollow hope" type of situation.
Wow, you have a very uncharitable view of Australians. Are they really so horrible a people that they would actually allow people to starve to death simply for their sexuality?cobra_ky said:
I was going to read the whole thread, but I read this, and figured that anything I could say has been said here.Arsen said:
People get so up in arms about churches of various faiths 'discriminating.' They have the right to (in the U.S. anyhow). That's freedom of religion, and it includes the freedom to exclude. If people don't like a particular faith because it discriminates, there are plenty of others to choose from - or choose none at all.
I have to say I agree with this ruling... as sad as it makes me.
Under the Australian constitution you do NOT have many rights what so ever. One of the few things they do have is the fact the government, any branch of it, can NOT tell you how to worship. This would have to, by extension, mean that the church is free to discriminate however it wants to as the government can not tell it how to run any element of it's existence.
By constitutional law!
Now... if they took it to a referendum, as required by law to make constitutional level changes, to force discrimination laws onto church we would probably see the first ever referendum in Australia to be passed. Ok maybe not, but damn it, that is the way the law demands this get passed so it should be how it is done. I really hate, though normally when looking at US laws, how many constitutional breaches are allowed and encouraged. The whole thing has made me want to protect what little rights we have down here as hard as possible.
Even if I don't agree with them, as in this case.
Personally though: I second the 'why would I want to work for the bigots' post above. Why the hell would anyone want to be employed in a church structure that endorses homophobia?! Particularly a homosexual.
Under the Australian constitution you do NOT have many rights what so ever. One of the few things they do have is the fact the government, any branch of it, can NOT tell you how to worship. This would have to, by extension, mean that the church is free to discriminate however it wants to as the government can not tell it how to run any element of it's existence.
By constitutional law!
Now... if they took it to a referendum, as required by law to make constitutional level changes, to force discrimination laws onto church we would probably see the first ever referendum in Australia to be passed. Ok maybe not, but damn it, that is the way the law demands this get passed so it should be how it is done. I really hate, though normally when looking at US laws, how many constitutional breaches are allowed and encouraged. The whole thing has made me want to protect what little rights we have down here as hard as possible.
Even if I don't agree with them, as in this case.
Personally though: I second the 'why would I want to work for the bigots' post above. Why the hell would anyone want to be employed in a church structure that endorses homophobia?! Particularly a homosexual.
I don't see why not.
Its their religion. Let them do it over there.
If they don't want you there, why do you want to be there?
Its their religion. Let them do it over there.
If they don't want you there, why do you want to be there?
Dude, 60% of us are for Gay Marriage. The government just doesn't think that is important >.>Lazier Than Thou said:
On a whole I don't think homophobia is as serious a problem in Australia than it is in other western countries. Although there is a fair amount of racism in some places...
Maybe you should have read the thread first. Should the church have the right to turn away people who want to join their church? Sure. Should they have the legal right to refuse a job to a qualified person based soley on them being gay or a single mother, in a position that has no religious signifigance besides being apart of a religious group? (ie, a single mother as a maths teacher in a Catholic school) All other businesses are legally barred from rejecting a person soley because of their sexual orintation, age, gender, etc. etc. Why should religious businesses be any different?LCP said:
As far as I'm concerned they can leave the rights we grant to religious with the churchs/places of worship. Treat their businesses the same as you would treat anyone elses.
Ushario said:
Firstly, we're not talking about employment law, not the rights of a church to decide whether an individual is a worthy adherent of its religion. Secondly, the separation of church and state cuts both ways: whilst the state does not interfere in an individual's right to practice any religion he chooses, religions get no special perks in the eyes of the law.tsb247 said:
The state entirely has the right to define what the religious can and can't do. You can make a case for stoning adulterous wives in Christianity, or chopping the hands off thieves in Islam. Some nutters might demand the religious freedom to do human sacrifices. That being the case, do you really want to argue that someone's right to freely practice religion takes precedence over national law, and that it's unconstitutional to stop them doing certain things?
Giving the religious different laws undermines the separation of church and state: it is determining secular law in terms of religion. Secondly, by permitting conduct to the religious denied to the non-religious, it is a clear breach of the concept that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law.
That is a nice theory. Reality is quite different.Seanchaidh said:
It evidently was a problem that needed government intervention: that's why virtually every developed nation (and many undeveloped ones) have anti-discrimination laws. Do you think they made them up for shits and giggles?
You also need to explain why that, despite women and blacks having full employment rights for so long, there were virtually none in top positions of law, business and government for decades, and even now they are an unrepresentative minority. You need to explain why women doing the same jobs with the same experiences as men get paid many percent less still today, and the sorts of reasons why companies still get caught removing racial minority faces from PR leaflets even today.
The "market solution" assumes that people are entirely rational and business orientated. They aren't. Considering decades upon decades of pre-anti-discrimination law time these problems existed, I dare say that even if the "market solution" worked, it takes such a long time that it's hard to justify discrimination being permitted to continue for the necessary generations or centuries necessary for everyone to learn better.
Indeed. The same goes for gay people insisting on being able to marry in a church as a christian wedding. The bible contains passages telling the reader to KILL homosexuals, and that it is the right thing to do because God doesn't like homosexuals.feather240 said:
Now opinions may differ on what God wants or doesn't want, but why the hell would you want to have antyhing to do with an organisation that thinks you are less than human and that your death would be a good thing?
Sure, it can be hard to be picky about jobs sometimes but come on! No self respecting homosexual should work for or have anything to do with the christian church, it is THAT simple...
KarumaK said:
I agree with these thought but actually the church (at least in my country) collects taxes and it gets a looot of help from the government. Money-wise.axia777 said:
I don't know if you guys have heard of this incident when a scout organization refused to take in boys who were homosexuals. The organization got a lot of subsidies from the government and after this got into the light the government told them that they will have to stop giving them subsidies if the organization doesn't start taking in homosexuals as everyone should be allowed to join a public organization their sexuality being whatever it may be. As a result the organization was forced to take in even the boys who were homosexuals so that they would get the subsidies.
So I think (again, at least in my country) the government should tell the church to let gay couples marry and even let them be priests because it's illegal to discriminate people. If not, then the government can just stop giving money to the church. See what they would think about homosexuals then.
I say they have the right to tell me Gays are an abomination, and I have the right to tell them they are following an imaginary sky fairy and are nuts.
I've seen this stance before. It's generally contrasted by a desire for government to fix things when they go wrong, yet sod off when things are going well. And of course the 'blaming the government for doing exactly what we asked them' period we went through in the US following the recession setting in.LCP said: