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.
Once again, we need to make a few distinctions here. In your first paragraph, for example: “I don’t like [blacks / whites / gays / straights / men / women / Catholics / Muslims / etc.,” then it’s wrong.
That is incorrect logic. Being black or white does not constitute sin, nor does it go against God’s Commandments. Being male or female does not constitute sin, nor does it go against God’s Commandments. Being gay or straight *may indeed
[/quote]
go against God’s Commandments *if, in fact, (and I cannot stress this enough) *one is openly gay. We have to determine how it is that the business owner *knows for certain *that the person seeking employment is, in fact, gay.
That being said, there are some instances where gender does play a role. For example, the Catholic priesthood is only available to men. Sisters and nuns must be female; brothers and monks must be male. Most people wouldn’t argue that. Age discrimination is perfectly acceptable (there are very few positions open to minors, and age limits on some other jobs. Those restrictions are generally set in place both for the good of the individual and the company.)
Your second paragraph assumes that the business owner is refusing employment to a homosexual while at the same time hiring unmarried cohabiting heterosexuals. That was never stated, nor was it implied. At my place of business, neither would be suitable for the job.
Your third paragraph really says more than you intended. You said, “…
don’t worry about what your employees are doing
to other people on their own time…” and you were quite correct in using the word “to.” I think you meant to say “
with other people” but “***to ***other people” is more accurate!
I think it is also important to make a distinction between tolerance and permissiveness. As Catholics, we are all called to holiness. We are all called to repentance. We are all sinners, yet we are not called to condone sin. Jesus did not say, “That’s okay - we all sin, so you just keep on sinning. I know you can’t help yourself… you were born with a tendency toward (fill in the blank).” He did say, “Go, and avoid this sin.” He condemned the Pharisees for their hipocrisy, while forgiving (not tolerating or condoning,
forgiving) thieves, tax collectors, and adulterers. However, he did not tell them to keep stealing, extorting, or cheating. When there are no consequences for sinful behavior, where is the motivation for conversion? I can accept the fact that some people are born with homosexual tendencies, but I am not going to condone it, celebrate it, or pretend I don’t see it. Nor am I going to allow homosexuals as a group to rise up and insist on the right to flagrant displays of homosexuality. Not all homosexuals do this, but it seems apparent that homosexuals are becomming more and more outspoken.
As you said, “The whole thing is a lot simpler, really.” However, I disagree with you in the way in which this is true. The whole thing is a lot simpler when homosexuals do not openly commit homosexual acts. If a person does not want to be discriminated against because of their homosexuality, all they need to do is make sure that their homosexuality is not so obvious that someone would 1. know about it, and 2. discriminate.
) he set the expectations for that department, and the whole advertising agency understood that and was fine with that. The creative staff – artists & copywriters – normally did not attend presentations (Pitches) to clients, so their intra-office behavior was not an issue for the agency.
But let’s limit it to unjust or arbitrary discrimination. In that way, I can correct what you say below.