Is it okay for a catholic businessman to discriminate against gays?

  • Thread starter Thread starter benjammin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
FaithBuild18 said:
What discrimination is just?
Click to expand...
There are two definitions of discrimination: one is to discriminate against groups of people, and the other is to be selective.

So, I would be discriminating in hiring a bookkeeper by refusing to hire the guy who was convicted of embezzling or the gal who flunked math throughout school.

But I would be discriminating in the other sense if I refused to hire someone *just because *of membership in a group, *unless *there was a good reason to do so.

For example, I would not hire any deaf person to be a receptionist: that could be considered discrimination against deaf people, but obviously it wouldn’t work.

I would not hire a non-Catholic as a DRE…

I would not hire a Greek to work in a Turkish immigration center or vice versa…

…and so on and so forth.
 
Rob_in_Oregon said:
I have photographed 500 weddings in the last 37 years. Although I’m retired from it now, I turned away gay couples who wanted me to take pictures at their weddings, just saying that I wasn’t available. I wonder if that violates non-discrimination laws? What about my religious rights to not participate in activities that violate my beliefs?
Click to expand...
+1. This may fall under a religious liberty protection (if such a thing still exists) as this may directly be construed as approving the gay “marriage”. No one should be forced to have to do this. Politely declining is called for and charitable as well (one is not obligated to give a reason for the refusal).
slotty said:
Definately not and it goes against the teaching of the church

CCC 2358: They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

Why would you want someone whose not the best just because their sinful acts don’t irk you just as much?

Would it be ok to discriminate in the same way against say those who are fornicators?
Click to expand...
+1. For the original question, since the opening is for a good salesman, hiring this person does not constitute an approval of his lifestyle and it would be wrong and against Catholic teaching to discriminate against him based on sexual orientation.
 
Not a good idea; it’s a lawsuit waiting to happen.

As much as I hate anti-discrimination laws, you would potentially be violating those and that would be a sin, not to mention that it does not treat them with respect.
 
As I understand it, some jobs come with morality clauses, such as for a teacher in a Catholic school. Wasn’t there a recent case of a teacher who had IVF or something and got fired for it? Couldn’t a morality clause prohibit extramarital sex and affairs? This would effectively ban the openly gay, until gay “marriage” is shoved down our throats for good.
 
Never for any Catholic at all. Remember treat Other as you would want to be treated.So if you were gay would you want to be disciminized?Of course not.😛

Sincerely,
Ad Infinitum:thumbsup:
 
Faithbuild: What discrimination is just?

It depends. Sometimes while it may be “unjust” to the individual seeking employment, it is “just” toward the people receiving services from the employer. For example, if you were hiring firefighters, would you hire a pyromaniac? If you were hiring jewelry salespeople, would you hire a jewel thief?

Let’s go back to the original question. Would it be okay to discriminate against a homosexual? There are at least two important distinctions that must be made. I will illustrate the two that come to mind right away:
  1. How do you know they are gay? (If you can’t tell, then it shouldn’t make a difference. Once again, this goes back to my earlier distinction between OPENLY gay or not.)
  2. Will it have an effect on your clients, and if so, how so?
Someone else brought up race and sexual orientation in a rather negative way (I think they said, “Black AND gay - double whammy.” I can’t think of a situation in which the color of ones skin makes a difference, as that does not violate any moral teachings of the Church. Morality issues violate moral teachings. Do you see the difference?
 
FaithBuild18 said:
What discrimination is just?
Click to expand...
There’s nothing wrong with discrimination per se. If a restaurant owner is hiring a chef or sommelier, s/he’s looking for someone with a discriminatory palate. So, generally speaking, feel free to discriminate. What’s unjust is invidious discrimination.

Looking to hire a receptionist? Discriminate on the basis of ability to answer the phone and greet visitors.

Looking to hire a dental assistant? Discriminate on the basis of having the appropriate license, experience, manner with patients, and so on.

Looking to hire a pastor? Discriminate on the basis of agreeing with your theology, ability to preach, ability to counsel troubled souls, etc.

Can this person do this job? That’s the question any hiring person should be asking. Be as discriminatory as you can. Just don’t discriminate on the basis of stuff that has nothing to do with the job itself.

And please don’t drag Jesus into your wish to deny basic economic rights to people who for whatever reason you just don’t like (I’m speaking in general here; no reason to think the OP is like that).
 
Employers go onto to facebook right now to determine suitablilty for hire. An employer has a right and a duty to use discretion for the sake of the other employees.

If you are a Catholic business owner setting the behavior bar high forces you too make decisions.

One other point -what if this is a gay activist setting his sights on your business to change your policies so he can get partner benefits?
 
Thanks for the responses. I honestly didn’t know what the church taught on this. I just thought it was a good subject what with the whole chick fil a thing.
 
No, I do no think it’s OK to descriminate in this case. For one thing, unless the person’s wearing a shirt saying “I’m Gay”, there’s no way for an employer to know for sure that he/she is actually gay. And even in that case when you do know for 100% certainty that a person is gay, how can you be sure that they are actually committing sin?

Even beyond that, how would not hiring a gay person who is actively committing sodomy actually encourage said person to stop comitting sin? If anything, that gay person might be losing out on having a positive christian influence through his/her workplace that could lay the foundations for one day having a very holy life!
 
the Church issued a statement a few years ago that is was acceptable in hiring of teachers,of that means morally not legally.also the military. thirty-three years ago i tried to rent an apartment from an elderly Jewish woman in Albany,N.Y.,that would i have been sharing with my girlfriend.the woman berated me for about fifteen-twenty minutes,poking in the chest with her boney finger the whole time :o .i knew she was right then and i know she was right now. and i don’t care what civil law says,one has right to do that.for the most part it is no ones business who you want to do business with.
 
buffalo said:
Employers go onto to facebook right now to determine suitablilty for hire. An employer has a right and a duty to use discretion for the sake of the other employees.

If you are a Catholic business owner setting the behavior bar high forces you too make decisions.
Click to expand...
Sure – but determining “suitability for hire” begs the question. If “suitability for hire” means “A person who can do the job, and I don’t care which sins s/he performs on his/her own time,” fine. But if “suitability for hire” means “I don’t like [blacks / whites / gays / straights / men / women / Catholics / Muslims / etc.,” then it’s wrong.

buffalo;9597723 said:
One other point -what if this is a gay activist setting his sights on your business to change your policies so he can get partner benefits?

If you assume that of every gay person, then you have a long and paranoia-filled employment life ahead of you. You also are probably going to find yourself being asked “But you hired unmarried cohabiting heterosexuals; aren’t they going to try to get partner benefits?”

The whole thing is a lot simpler, really: don’t worry about what your employees are doing to other people on their own time, and carry on your own business. If they’re doing their jobs, keep them employed.
Click to expand...
 
Godfollower said:
Sure – but determining “suitability for hire” begs the question. If “suitability for hire” means “A person who can do the job, and I don’t care which sins s/he performs on his/her own time,” fine. But if “suitability for hire” means “I don’t like [blacks / whites / gays / straights / men / women / Catholics / Muslims / etc.,” then it’s wrong.

If you assume that of every gay person, then you have a long and paranoia-filled employment life ahead of you. You also are probably going to find yourself being asked “But you hired unmarried cohabiting heterosexuals; aren’t they going to try to get partner benefits?”

The whole thing is a lot simpler, really: don’t worry about what your employees are doing to other people on their own time, and carry on your own business. If they’re doing their jobs, keep them employed.
Click to expand...
Can’t buy it. A businessman has a right to determine the culture of his business.
[/quote]
 
buffalo said:
Can’t buy it. A businessman has a right to determine the culture of his business.
Click to expand...
What culture is that? Offhand, the only business I can think of needing “culture” is the pearl industry.

And, if you’re going to accept “I know what I want, and that’s no gays in my office,” then what principle can we apply to differentiate between “No gays allowed” and “No blacks allowed”? If you’re going to look to civil law for the answer, then you can’t discriminate against gays in most states in this country. If you’re going to look to the Church, then “They [homosexuals] must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided” (CCC ¶ 2358).

And I fail to see how a Catholic has the right to say “No gays allowed” from a business. How is that just?
 
Godfollower said:
What culture is that? Offhand, the only business I can think of needing “culture” is the pearl industry.

And, if you’re going to accept “I know what I want, and that’s no gays in my office,” then what principle can we apply to differentiate between “No gays allowed” and “No blacks allowed”? If you’re going to look to civil law for the answer, then you can’t discriminate against gays in most states in this country. If you’re going to look to the Church, then “They [homosexuals] must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided” (CCC ¶ 2358).

And I fail to see how a Catholic has the right to say “No gays allowed” from a business. How is that just?
Click to expand...
What principle? One is a matter of race, the other an issue of behavior.

Unjust discrimination - what is just discrimination?

here:
In fact, it comes from Pope Benedict himself, when, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he headed the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
“‘Sexual orientation’ does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder and evokes moral concern,” wrote Cardinal Ratzinger in a crucial document in 1992.
Legally enshrining “sexual orientation” in this way, he continued, “can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights,” and “can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality.”
 
Some Considerations Concerning the Response to Legislative Proposals on the Non-Discrimination of Homosexual Persons

*II. Applications

**10. **“Sexual orientation” does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. “Letter,” No. 3) and evokes moral concern.

11. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.*
 
But buffalo, if it’s a behavioral issue, that’s not discrimination by a category. That’s a decision that (for example) a person is behaving too casually within a formal workplace culture, etc. Or, a person is making inappropriate sexual inneundos (which could also apply to heterosexuals, obviously) which oppose the work culture. Or (as I said earlier) is disclosing private behavior in a public setting, inappropriately. Again, that could apply to people of any orientation, and would be equally unacceptable to a boss with high standards.

One really good way an employer can eliminate problems of this type is for the employer to say something in the interview about the work culture expected, about how private matters are assumed to be kept private, and how a certain decorum is expected. Generally, I don’t see where that would be a special problem for homosexuals. They tend to understand the importance of these distinctions and are sometimes even more careful than heterosexuals are, about that, whenever they work in mixed environments (which they do more often than not). And if that is not acceptable to them, having the employer signal that at the interview will make a candidate who wants to “share everything” decline an offer of employment there.
🙂
 
Discriminate?

I discriminate against Immoral behavior, not gays.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top