New law would FORCE everyone to hire gays

[goofyjim]

Continued employment of a gay may be contrary to the moral judgement and religious belief of someone if they saw homosexuality as an abomination. Likewise, continued employment of a Catholic might be contrary to the moal judgement and religious belief of someone else if they saw the pope as the anti-Christ. Why should people be forced into conflict with their religious belief?

There’s no need for them to know if it is only same sex attraction, unless we try ridiculously to put it on the application. And it is the same for being a Catholic. It is an unfounded belief that the pope is the anti-christ so there should be no discrimination there either.

 

[GreenJeans]

There’s no need for them to know if it is only same sex attraction, unless we try ridiculously to put it on the application. And it is the same for being a Catholic. It is an unfounded belief that the pope is the anti-christ so there should be no discrimination there either.

Well, each religion says the other guy’s beliefs are unfounded. And we have to remember in the course of employment many things about a person become known through avenues other than the employment application. Shall the law tell us which beliefs are founded and which are not? If one has firm religious conviction, do we force them to violate that by continued employment of someone they consider an abomination or anti-Christ? And what about the Catholic homosexual? He’d be an abominable anti-Christ.

 

[cor]

Shall the law tell us which beliefs are founded and which are not? If one has firm religious conviction, do we force them to violate that by continued employment of someone they consider an abomination or anti-Christ? And what about the Catholic homosexual? He’d be an abominable anti-Christ.

I would expand that to firm religious and/or ethical conviction and I would also disagree with you. First we must distinguish between cases where the person employing would find it merely morally undesirable in some way and cases where he believes to act so would be in direct violation of his conscience. If it’s the former case, he can be forced in the interests of the common good. If it’s the latter case, the law that requires him to act so can remain and the effect of it would be to force him out (if he remains true to his conscience) of the employing business.

One has a right to form freely one’s ethical and religious beliefs and to express them, but one doesn’t have the absolute right to be an employer.

The above is the general justification for such laws. Don’t take it to mean that I favor this particular law or any other particular instance of it.

 

[GreenJeans]

I would expand that to firm religious and/or ethical conviction and I would also disagree with you. First we must distinguish between cases where the person employing would find it merely morally undesirable in some way and cases where he believes to act so would be in direct violation of his conscience. If it’s the former case, he can be forced in the interests of the common good. If it’s the latter case, the law that requires him to act so can remain and the effect of it would be to force him out (if he remains true to his conscience) of the employing business.

One has a right to form freely one’s ethical and religious beliefs and to express them, but one doesn’t have the absolute right to be an employer.

The above is the general justification for such laws. Don’t take it to mean that I favor this particular law or any other particular instance of it.

OK. So, if the guy finds it a direct violation of his conscience to hire Catholics, should we respect his religious or ethical convictions and allow him to have a Catholic-free employment zone?

If so, it would be only fair to allow the Catholic to set up a gay-free zone.

 

[goofyjim]

There need not be protective zones unless one is fired after having performed the job well. If it can be successfully proven in court that the only reason a person was fired was for his religion or sexual orientation then there should be monetary renumeration made. But laws requiring them to be hired sets up a quota system which doesn’t help anyone.

 

[GreenJeans]

There need not be protective zones unless one is fired after having performed the job well. If it can be successfully proven in court that the only reason a person was fired was for his religion or sexual orientation then there should be monetary renumeration made. But laws requiring them to be hired sets up a quota system which doesn’t help anyone.

Why? Why can’t we respect religious conviction?

 

[rayne100]

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?

Since when is kissing in public an immoral behavior.
The answer to your question is that it depends on whether he would have also been fired for making out with a femail in public.
If he would also have been fired for kissing a female in public, then I believe we would be talking about being fired for inappropriate behavior (however such behavior should have been spelled out in writing in his contract with the company).

If he would not have been fired for making out with a female in public, then we are talking about being fired for Sexual Orientation. Which is what the law would prevent.

Personally I think if he wouldn’t be fired for making out with a female in public, then he should not be fired for making out with a man in public.
Obviously, this does NOT apply to religious positions.