Poll: Religious groups allowed to discriminate

[Seanchaidh]

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.

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.

That is a nice theory. Reality is quite different.

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?

The political process is not something that responds to problems so much as it responds to interest groups and the like. Just because a law exists, or is even widespread, does not make it a good idea. The sort of political energy needed to overturn government discrimination turned to other ideas after it accomplished the needed changes in government.

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.

Ahem: why do I need to explain this? That is far from clear. But anyway...

The reason is that women and girls only recently have been encouraged to pursue such professions. These things are cultural. It is for lack of trying. If you want to change it, change the culture or start your own business.

You need to explain why women doing the same jobs with the same experiences as men get paid many percent less still today,

It probably has to do with social dynamics: people reward those who they feel more comfortable with or who they spend time out of work with. I'm betting, also, that the second shift [http://www.enotes.com/second-shift-salem/second-shift] plays a huge role. But that is not a problem caused by businesses nor is it one that can be solved by businesses. In fact, if the second shift is causing a woman to be a less productive worker, that is not something a business should have to deal with or compensate for... and they generally don't.

and the sorts of reasons why companies still get caught removing racial minority faces from PR leaflets even today.

I don't see the problem here. Companies should represent themselves how they want to be represented. If the market is such that it responds negatively to minorities, how can you expect businesses to do otherwise?

The "market solution" assumes that people are entirely rational and business orientated. They aren't.

And that's their prerogative. So make your own business and do better.

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.

Upon closer inspection, you'll find many of those problems were due to government discrimination or the presence of threats to those who would not discriminate, or that they are due to disparities in government services, not private employment opportunities.

 

[ItsAChiaotzu]

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?

Sorry, gay marriage is not being forced down your fucking throat, you don't have to gay marriages, why can't you just fucking let it happen?

People like you really piss me off.
The gay people aren't gonna come and fuck right in front of you, you know that right?

All you bigots just act as if by merit of people being gay in your country your being forced to be gay.

Bigot.

 

[Arsen]

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?

Sorry, gay marriage is not being forced down your fucking throat, you don't have to gay marriages, why can't you just fucking let it happen?

People like you really piss me off.
The gay people aren't gonna come and fuck right in front of you, you know that right?

All you bigots just act as if by merit of people being gay in your country your being forced to be gay.

Bigot.

Sorry, but just because everyone wishes to pretend as if gay marriage is a civil rights notion, and that I am not forced to marry another person, does not mean it "isn't being forced down my throat". I as a citizen should have the privelege and equal right to have my say within my society. All this constant yammering over gay marriage takes the spotlight off of real issues in the world.

Being a bigot means you are intelorant of another human being. I have no such intolerance to their wish, choice, and will to be homosexual, gay, lesbian, bisexual, whatever. On the other hand people seem to act as if my decision to not want that option being available is on the same lines of depriving someone else the right to society through race, age, nationality, etc...is the same thing. It's not. There's a higher moral stake being made here.

YES. I said that. If you want to be homosexual than so be it, however it does not fall under the same terminology as others...regardless if I "know what it's like to be gay" or not. The classic definition of the term marriage per civilization is a family unit being able to concieve a child, a male and a female, without science being involved just because "we can do it".

You want to talk about lack of tolerance? How about others tolerating the decisions of those who don' believe in the issue? Nice double standard there buddy. Just because I disagree with the issue does not make me a hatemonger nor an ignorant person by any means. Respect another persons decision as you would have others respect yours. This IS not in my eyes, the same as every other issue, it has a special distinction along many, many guidelines.

And just because I believe that does not make me a hateful, unaccepting human being who deserves to be dubbed a "bigot".

 

[mokes310]

If those groups recieve any state, regional or federal funding, no, they should not be allowed to discriminate against anyone.

If they are completly, 100% privately funded, then yes, they can discriminate against whomever they choose.

 

[ItsAChiaotzu]

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?

Sorry, gay marriage is not being forced down your fucking throat, you don't have to gay marriages, why can't you just fucking let it happen?

People like you really piss me off.
The gay people aren't gonna come and fuck right in front of you, you know that right?

All you bigots just act as if by merit of people being gay in your country your being forced to be gay.

Bigot.

Sorry, but just because everyone wishes to pretend as if gay marriage is a civil rights notion, and that I am not forced to marry another person, does not mean it "isn't being forced down my throat". I as a citizen should have the privelege and equal right to have my say within my society. All this constant yammering over gay marriage takes the spotlight off of real issues in the world.

Being a bigot means you are intelorant of another human being. I have no such intolerance to their wish, choice, and will to be homosexual, gay, lesbian, bisexual, whatever. On the other hand people seem to act as if my decision to not want that option being available is on the same lines of depriving someone else the right to society through race, age, nationality, etc...is the same thing. It's not. There's a higher moral stake being made here.

YES. I said that. If you want to be homosexual than so be it, however it does not fall under the same terminology as others...regardless if I "know what it's like to be gay" or not. The classic definition of the term marriage per civilization is a family unit being able to concieve a child, a male and a female, without science being involved just because "we can do it".

You want to talk about lack of tolerance? How about others tolerating the decisions of those who don' believe in the issue? Nice double standard there buddy. Just because I disagree with the issue does not make me a hatemonger nor an ignorant person by any means. Respect another persons decision as you would have others respect yours. This IS not in my eyes, the same as every other issue, it has a special distinction along many, many guidelines.

And just because I believe that does not make me a hateful, unaccepting human being who deserves to be dubbed a "bigot".

You are depriving them of the right to marriage... why is it not as higher moral stake? You just act as if they are below human beings, you make me sick.

What you believe is that you should have rights that other HUMAN BEINGS should not. That is the only thing that's wrong here.

You are a bigot, accept it, you are trying to deny people rights based on a difference between you and them that they cannot control.

Do you really think if it was a choice anyone would choose to be gay? Wouldn't that be the stupidest thing ever?

Besides, explain how it is being forced down your throat, what is it that Gay people are doing that directly affects your life? Nothing. So what's your fucking problem. Just grow up and accept that there are people in the world who, for a reason completely out of their control, are Gay, now why would you deny them a right just to cater to a ridiculous notion of superiority?

 

[saxist01]

Ugh, a religion thread...

The real question is why would they want to work for those people.

I agree, is this trying to tell me that gay (or other discriminated) people are trying to work FOR the church?

 

[Arsen]

Being a bigot means you are intelorant of another human being. I have no such intolerance to their wish, choice, and will to be homosexual, gay, lesbian, bisexual, whatever. On the other hand people seem to act as if my decision to not want that option being available is on the same lines of depriving someone else the right to society through race, age, nationality, etc...is the same thing. It's not. There's a higher moral stake being made here.

YES. I said that. If you want to be homosexual than so be it, however it does not fall under the same terminology as others...

Saying it does not fall under the same terminology as others is a form of intolerance (if it turns out you're wrong, of course). Not a "depriving someone else the right to society" level of intolerance, but the same level of intolerance as saying black people can't marry white people.

The classic definition of the term marriage per civilization is a family unit being able to concieve a child, a male and a female, without science being involved just because "we can do it".

We don't hold heterosexuals to the classic definition.

You want to talk about lack of tolerance? How about others tolerating the decisions of those who don' believe in the issue? Nice double standard there buddy. Just because I disagree with the issue does not make me a hatemonger nor an ignorant person by any means.

No, it doesn't. The issue is when you go and try and justify your decision--can you do so without resorting to hate and ignorance?

So not agreeing with the majority here constitutes "hatred and ignorance"? Any single thing a person who is against this that has their say is instantly brought down in today's society. That's the level of ignorance right there...not me simply disagreeing with another on the definition of marriage in my country.

I am not telling them they cannot get together, I am not demanding they halt their actions whatever they might be, I am not demanding that they believe in what I believe in, I am not taking away their right to be happy, I am not obstructing anything than a title that should be reserved for the basic levels of human biology. Stop being the real bigot here and accept the fact that some don't see eye to eye with you on this issue. THAT is true tolerance, not immediately interpreting another's opinion as immoral because of your own mentality.

And you can stop attempting to champion the right for them to marry when it goes against the basis of human life. It has nothing to do with "whether someone chooses to be gay or not". Marriage holds a higher definition than a mere breach of characteristics which many attempt to justify as "okay" when in truth it hinders real issues and true human progress.

Good day sir.

 

[Seanchaidh]

I am not telling them they cannot get together, I am not demanding they halt their actions whatever they might be, I am not demanding that they believe in what I believe in, I am not taking away their right to be happy, I am not obstructing anything than a title that should be reserved for the basic levels of human biology.

That is simply false. Marriage entails various benefits and rights that would not otherwise apply.

 

[Arsen]

I am not telling them they cannot get together, I am not demanding they halt their actions whatever they might be, I am not demanding that they believe in what I believe in, I am not taking away their right to be happy, I am not obstructing anything than a title that should be reserved for the basic levels of human biology.

That is simply false. Marriage entails various benefits and rights that would not otherwise apply.

Then that is simply on the law. It has nothing to do with marriage, since it falls outside the definition of it.

 

[-Orgasmatron-]

Well, that's Austraillia for you.

 

[Computer-Noob]

"In the case of religious education teachers or chaplains, this will be clear. However, in the case of office staff or the maths teacher it will need to be made explicit how religion is relevant to the job."

Math, God, and You 101.

State the end behaviour of the function

As -x->-?, x->God



Im sorry, but you dont need to be religious to be the teacher of a religionS class. Seems like it would be a rather biased class if you were, assuming you weren't under the same religion as these scum.

 

[cobra_ky]

I am not telling them they cannot get together, I am not demanding they halt their actions whatever they might be, I am not demanding that they believe in what I believe in, I am not taking away their right to be happy, I am not obstructing anything than a title that should be reserved for the basic levels of human biology. Stop being the real bigot here and accept the fact that some don't see eye to eye with you on this issue. THAT is true tolerance, not immediately interpreting another's opinion as immoral because of your own mentality.

i don't think you're a bigot, and i'm sorry people get so upset over this issue that they feel they have insult and berate people over it.

that said, i don't see how marriage has anything to do with human biology. marriage is a social and religious institution; there's nothing regarding marriage in our DNA.

And you can stop attempting to champion the right for them to marry when it goes against the basis of human life. It has nothing to do with "whether someone chooses to be gay or not". Marriage holds a higher definition than a mere breach of characteristics which many attempt to justify as "okay" when in truth it hinders real issues and true human progress.

what "real issues" and "human progress" would gay marriage hinder?

 

[jpoon]

I'm all for someone not allowing certain actions to be in a particular organization. Gay people thinking they has the golden tickets for the ride to Christians heaven, for instance. Let a group of religious zealots think whatever the hell they want. What really annoys me more is the weakness that political correctness forces upon people, it's quite sickening. I'll be damned if I act politically correct and allow myself to be forced to let someone else think for me! Think for yourself and stop being such a damn wussy when it comes to getting offended.

PC breeds weakness...