New law would FORCE everyone to hire gays

[Mirdath]

Rather than dismissing it out of hand as a “religious principle”, explain how natural law is not a universal application of principles that guide the choices of men and the laws that govern societies?

**1956 **The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties: (CCC)

That’s a selection from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a document whose sole function is to explain and instill, uh, religious principles.

…I rest my case.

Since I think I can safely assume I’ll be called out on that (in spite of it being a perfectly legitimate answer) let me elaborate:

Natural law is, as far as Catholics are concerned, a universal application of laws and all that happy stuff. Most people happen to disagree; therefore, as a representative government is to represent everyone and not just Catholics, it cannot be founded upon a principle to which most people do not subscribe.

love4mary – I agree entirely. Quotas are not the answer. This law does not set any kind of quota; it merely protects people from discrimination.

 

[GreenJeans]

A new bill (HR2015), introduced in the House of Representatives by homosexual Congressman Barney Frank, would FORCE organizations such as the Boy Scouts, Veterans of Foreign Wars, day care centers, the Catholic Church, adoption agencies, public schools, municipalities and a host of other businesses and organizations to hire homosexual applicants.

This bill would make it illegal to fire, refuse to hire or refuse to promote an employee based on his or her sexual orientation or “gender identity.” Such acts would be considered CRIMES subject to severe penalties.

Click here to read the entire proposal.

*SEC. 6. EXEMPTION FOR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS.

(a) In General- This Act shall not apply to any of the employment practices of a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society which has as its primary purpose religious ritual or worship or the teaching or spreading of religious doctrine or belief.*

The full bill is in the Thomas site and is very short. It applies only to employers and has the exemption cited above.
www3.capwiz.com/afanet/webreturn/?url=http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.2015:

 

[Black_Jaque]

This would be bad news for the Boy Scouts. They’re neither a religious or a military organization.

Are we talking getting fired for one’s sexual orientation? Or are we talking getting fired for one’s perverted sexual activity?

Say a homosexual man was admitted to be a Scoutmaster (since there’s no paycheck is it really hiring?). But the man was chaste and gave no indication that he had these sexual tendencies. Then one day he’s seen making out with another man in public.

The next day he’s dismissed from his duties as Scoutmaster.

Was he dismissed for being homosexual? Or was he dismissed for engaging in immoral behavior in public?

 

[Riley259]

I do not believe that someone should be refused a job based on their sexual orientation. However, I do support the right of religious organizations to not hire someone based upon their sexual orientation.

I agree. There should be exceptions.

 

[cor]

Natural law is, as far as Catholics are concerned, a universal application of laws and all that happy stuff. Most people happen to disagree; therefore, as a representative government is to represent everyone and not just Catholics, it cannot be founded upon a principle to which most people do not subscribe.

“Natural law” is a concept that I believe preceded the Catholic Church in time. Natural law is the moral law that arises out of the nature of created things and thus can be apprehended by the light of natural reason (i.e. through philosophy rather than relying on religious authority). Many non-Catholics agree with this philosophical concept and I would say that contrary to what you suggested, most people in the United States subscribe to it. That doesn’t mean that everyone who subscribes to the existence of natural law will agree with one another about whether something is permitted or forbidden by the natural law. For example, some say that contraception is forbidden by the natural law whereas most say it is permitted. I’m not sure if most would say homosexuality is forbidden by natural law, but again I’m quite confident that most would say natural law exists.

 

[m134e5]

And how does sexual behavior preferences have anything to do with i.e. clerical work? This is not an issue that would even come up during regular work discussions.

“Hey Bob, have that finance report done?”

“not yet because I’m gay”

…

If you’re working for the Church you also have to live a lifestyle that follows the teachings of the Church.

There are ways to not hire someone- for whatever reason you want- without getting caught for it. You have to make sure the job description is very specific, and it helps to look for people to offer the job to- rather than just open it up for anyone who notices that there is a job opening.

 

[mgrobertson79]

Some of the comments on this thread serve as evidence that laws protecting the rights of gays are sorely needed.

They do not deserve nor should they get special treatment for their sexual deviancy. There is nothing that makes them special. I think we need a law that makes us all equal. Oh wait, we have that already. This is a load of bull stuff and I am surprised anyone is buying in to it. Homosexuality is a mental disorder, it was listed as such until about 40 years ago and nothing with the behavior has changed. No one is born gay or lesbian, it is a conscious choice made and a habit acquired though those choices. The Church says it is intrinsically disordered and I will not adjust my views from that because some politician’s or group of liberal no it alls say so. I don’t hate gays, I only wish they would stop acting like they are better than everyone else as well as shoving their sexuality on the world, it’s beyond old now.

 

[Mirdath]

Are we talking getting fired for one’s sexual orientation? Or are we talking getting fired for one’s perverted sexual activity?

In my case, it would most definitely have been orientation. I can see exhibitionism being grounds in many cases, but not public displays of affection.

“Natural law” is a concept that I believe preceded the Catholic Church in time. Natural law is the moral law that arises out of the nature of created things and thus can be apprehended by the light of natural reason (i.e. through philosophy rather than relying on religious authority). Many non-Catholics agree with this philosophical concept and I would say that contrary to what you suggested, most people in the United States subscribe to it. That doesn’t mean that everyone who subscribes to the existence of natural law will agree with one another about whether something is permitted or forbidden by the natural law. For example, some say that contraception is forbidden by the natural law whereas most say it is permitted. I’m not sure if most would say homosexuality is forbidden by natural law, but again I’m quite confident that most would say natural law exists.

I was referring specifically to the Catholic version As you noted, many more people believe in a natural law, but it is not the orthodox Catholic natural law – other versions can permit contraception, abortion, homosexuality, quite a lot of things. I do not believe in it in any case; it seems to me rather that rights are granted and restricted by society, not by any divine ‘engraving upon the heart’.

mgrobertson79:

There is nothing that makes them special. I think we need a law that makes us all equal. Oh wait, we have that already.

Great. Now enforce it equally, please?

I don’t hate gays, I only wish they would stop acting like they are better than everyone else as well as shoving their sexuality on the world, it’s beyond old now.

That’s fine. And I’m pretty sure once society gets over itself and it’s possible to be gay or bi or generally queer without having to deal with the kind of persecution this law is designed to prevent – or worse – you’ll see a lot less of that and we’ll all be happier for it. I look forward to the day when there are no more pride parades because there’s no need for them, and I hope to see it in my lifetime.

 

[seekerz]

People’s sexual orientation and their activities (moral or immoral) should simply be private and strictly an issue in the bedroom, nowhere else.

I agree with those who believe that gays are asking for special rights. The “in your face” public displays really are what sets them up for discrimination.

That being said, as far as I’m aware, the Church considers homosexual acts as gravely disordered but recognizes that there are people who are homosexual and as long as they do not act on those tendencies, does not condemn them simply for their personality (if you can call it that).

There would be no need, in my opinion for special laws to protect from discrimination based on sexual orientation if employers were not made aware of their employees’ orientation. I should add that acting to deprive someone of a job because of what one thinks might be a homosexual orientation is, to my mind, as immoral as the lifestyle being condemned.

 

[RyanL]

I was referring specifically to the Catholic version

There’s only one natural law for humans. That’s kinda’ the point of having it, or calling it the natural law.

But if you want to accept only natural law as expounded by non-Christians (a bigoted proposition, if you ask me), I suppose we could go with Aristotle, Cicero or Justinian.

As you noted, many more people believe in a natural law, but it is not the orthodox Catholic natural law

There’s only one natural law.

– other versions can permit contraception, abortion, homosexuality, quite a lot of things.

No natural lawyer I’m aware of argues that this is the case. Please produce the name of a reputable, published natural lawyer who advocates these positions.

I do not believe in it in any case; it seems to me rather that rights are granted and restricted by society, not by any divine ‘engraving upon the heart’.

If rights are granted by society, society can take them away and you don’t get to protest.

If rights are only granted by society, you have no place to protest any number of large scale atrocities which have been committed by government X against people Y. If the government overseeing people Y happens to say people Y don’t have any rights, your analysis is complete – they don’t.

Great. Now enforce it equally, please?

It is enforced equally.

I look forward to the day when there are no more pride parades because there’s no need for them, and I hope to see it in my lifetime.

Me, too. Me, too.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[GreenJeans]

What is a natural lawyer? Who employs them? Who are their clients?

 

[cor]

No natural lawyer I’m aware of argues that this is the case. Please produce the name of a reputable, published natural lawyer who advocates these positions.

I don’t think they’re called natural “lawyers”; they would be called philosophers or natural law “theorists.” The Protestant Albert Mohler argues that contraception is permitted by the natural law (he disagrees with the natural law arguments made in Humanae Vitae) – he does however seem to say that those who are not at all open to children are going against natural law.

I’m not aware of any natural law theorists who defend abortion or homosexuality but they could very well be out there (I just don’t tend to read the extremely liberal stuff)

 

[RyanL]

I don’t think they’re called natural “lawyers”; they would be called philosophers or natural law “theorists.”

Some of the natural lawyers I’ve heard lecture, like J. Budziszewski, have referred to themselves as such.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy refers to them as such.

If you want to sign up for the newsletter by the same name, you can click here.

BUT…if you *really *want, I suppose you could also call them natural law jurists or natural law scholars/philosophers/thinkers.

The Protestant Albert Mohler argues that contraception is permitted by the natural law (he disagrees with the natural law arguments made in Humanae Vitae) – he does however seem to say that those who are not at all open to children are going against natural law.

I’m not aware of anything he’s published; would you please point me to a link giving his views?

By way of example, here’s a link to some of John Finnis’ work. He’s arguably the most influential natural lawyer of last and this century.

I’m not aware of any natural law theorists who defend abortion or homosexuality but they could very well be out there (I just don’t tend to read the extremely liberal stuff)

I’m not aware of any recognized natural law scholar who advocates such, and I’ve done quite a bit of reading on the subject. If they’re out there, they’re not widely read.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Mirdath]

There’s only one natural law for humans. That’s kinda’ the point of having it, or calling it the natural law.

Once again, as far as Catholics are concerned. Other people have differing opinions as to what constitutes ‘natural law’, hence ‘them’ instead of ‘it’. Hindu natural law is different from Catholic natural law is different from Nazi natural law; the only thing they appear to have in common is oppression of those who end up on its bad side.

But if you want to accept only natural law as expounded by non-Christians (a bigoted proposition, if you ask me), I suppose we could go with Aristotle, Cicero or Justinian.

An ancient Athenian, a Roman, and a Byzantine. Those are some great moral references you have there, considering all those cultures’ acceptance and common practices of homosexuality, prostitution (Justinian himself married a prostitute), child marriage, and slavery. And as far as I know, not one of them spoke out loudly or at all unifiedly against such things.

No natural lawyer I’m aware of argues that this is the case. Please produce the name of a reputable, published natural lawyer who advocates these positions.

Why don’t you ask the many Catholics who supposedly subscribe to it while allowing for such things?

If rights are granted by society, society can take them away and you don’t get to protest.

Protests are a function of society. It can grant them, it can take them away, we don’t necessarily have to be happy about either one and we can change it. I prefer to err on the side of permitting more.

 

[Corki]

I do not see anywhere in this bill that any organization would be forced to hire gays. What it does do is force them to ignore the sexual orientation of the applicant when making a decision to hire or not. This makes them decide to hire someone based upon if they can do the job or not, and not what they do at home. You can easily have someone be gay and do a job and have none of the coworkers be the wiser to the fact that that person is gay.

The wording of this is parallel to other civil rights laws. It does not force you to hire gays. It does give “protected class” status to homosexuals and those with gender identity issues. In practical terms this means that if you hire a “straight” person in a job where a homosexual applied, you could get sued. The burden is on the employer to prove that the person’s sexual identity was not a factor in the hiring decision.

This is already the law in some places (I think NYC is one). The difference is that this would carry the weight of federal legislation and, in my opinion, probably fall under the EEOC for enforcement.

That implication of the EEOC being involved is that when a person applies for unemployment, they are quizzed as to the possibility of any illegal discrimination being involved in the termination and the person usually get free legal counsel to file a case.

We need to pray very hard that this doesn’t pass or that, if it does, it gets vetoed.

 

[mesquite_magic]

I always worry about the unintended consequences of such things. If 'sexual orientation" is a prohibited factor in employment decisions, it would presumably be illegal for a child daycare center to refuse to hire an otherwise qualified self-identified pedophile. I’m sure NAMBLA would be willing to make such a case.

Nooooo… because a pedophile has commited a crime. Being gay is not a crime. Being a pedophile is.

Kim

 

[RyanL]

Once again, as far as Catholics are concerned.

No…as far as natural law is concerned.

Hindu natural law is different from Catholic natural law is different from Nazi natural law

Really? Would you please produce an exposition of the natural law from a Hindu and a Nazi, so that I can see how different they are?

; the only thing they appear to have in common is oppression of those who end up on its bad side.

Blah blah blah.

An ancient Athenian, a Roman, and a Byzantine. Those are some great moral references you have there

Poisoning the well rather than addressing the fact that all of these non-Catholics taught natural law.

Justinian himself married a prostitute…

…and issued two “novels” condemning homosexuality.

It seems that Cicero condemned it as well…

I’m sure it was simply their blind faith in the Church.

They kind of remind me of Freud in that way:
“. . . it is a characteristic common to all the perversions that in them reproduction as an aim is put aside. This is actually the criterion by which we judge whether a sexual activity is perverse - if it departs from reproduction in its aims and pursues the attainment of gratification independently . . . Everything that . . . serves the pursuit of gratification alone is called by the unhonored title of ‘perversion’ and as such is despised.”

Just like an atheist to be blinded by Catholic dogma.

Protests are a function of society. It can grant them, it can take them away, we don’t necessarily have to be happy about either one and we can change it.

Maybe you can, maybe you can’t. If your government doesn’t grant you the right to, you can’t…

…unless you’re arguing for the natural right of revolt…but you don’t believe in that…only the state can give you rights…

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Corki]

Nooooo… because a pedophile has commited a crime. Being gay is not a crime. Being a pedophile is.

Kim

Not necessarily. Someone could self-identify as being sexually attracted to children - that’s a pedophile. It isn’t illegal until they act on that attraction. Up until then it is just a mental disorder.

 

[JimG]

Nooooo… because a pedophile has commited a crime. Being gay is not a crime. Being a pedophile is.

Kim

Being a pedophile is not a crime, any more than being gay is a crime. Soliciting sex from minors is a crime, just as homosexual or heterosexual prostitution may be a crime. It seems to me the parallel is clear. Both are orientations towards particular kinds of sex–i.e. they are sexual orientations.

So a pedophile who was quite open about his orientation, could not, under this law, be discriminated against in hiring, even for jobs involving children. He might, in fact, desire to make it openly known, just as a test case for the law.

 

[cor]

Some of the natural lawyers I’ve heard lecture, like J. Budziszewski, have referred to themselves as such.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy refers to them as such.

Your article talks not about the natural law as such but a legal theory labelled as “natural law” (it’s a legal theory about the foundations of legal systems in society – alternatives include the Law and Economics view). It’s confusing for those not acquainted with these subjects because the same words are used to denote different things. Let me quote from the same website you referenced to appraise you of the distinctive meanings:

‘Natural law theory’ is a label that has been applied to theories of ethics, theories of politics, theories of civil law, and theories of religious morality.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/

So your link was to natural law theory in the sense of a “theory of civil law” – which is related to natural law theory in the sense of a “theory of ethics” but it’s also distinct. Natural law as a theory of ethics is the theory that there is a moral law arising out of the nature of things. Natural law as a theory of civil law is the theory that there is some special relationship between the foundations of civil law and the moral law arising out of the nature of things. The moral law arising out of the nature of things is also called simply “the natural law.”

I wasn’t aware that those who specialize in natural law theory in the sense of philosophy of law are termed as “natural lawyers.” I can tell you with near certainty that those who study natural law as a theory of ethics aren’t called “natural lawyers” (at least I’ve never heard them called that way) – and your article is not an exception to that as I explained.

Remember natural law as a theory of ethics doesn’t have anything to do with the study of legal systems (like the US Constitution for example). These legal systems are what is known as “positive law.”