There are currently a few exemptions, where it is possible to discriminate in employment based on race, religion, gender, etc. These are few and narrowly interpreted by the courts, but…
(a) Bona Fide Occupational Qualification – if the job really requires a certain religion or race, it’s OK to discriminate in hiring. For instance, if a filmmaker is making a biography of George Washington, they can reject a black female actress and it’s not considered discriminatory. If a Lutheran Church is looking to hire a pastor, they don’t need to consider applicants who are Catholics, Jews, Buddhists, etc.
(b) Inability to perform essential job tasks – An employer should try to make reasonable accommodation for religious beliefs, but this is fairly loose. Thus, if a Muslim working at a butcherie refuses to handle any pork products, the firm can fire him if handling pork products is an essential part of the job.
There are a few other exceptions, not particularly relevant.
Most religious organizations apply the Bona Fide test fairly widely. While the pastor of my hypothetical Lutheran Church would need to be Lutheran, one could argue that the receptionist or accountant need not be. However, most religious organizations squeeze by on this one.
There was a big case out of Kentucky a few years ago in which KY Baptists Homes for Children–a charity that got about $15 million a year, nearly all of its funding, from the state–fired one of its workers because she was a lesbian. They stated very clearly that she was being fired for her sexual orientation, just as they stated clearly their goal of bringing the children they cared for to Christ.
The most recent info I can find says that a federal judge upheld the charity’s right to fire her despite their state funding, and that the decision was being appealed.
I think they should have to pick one or the other–state funding, or the ability to act as an independent agent. Their bigotry doesn’t need to be funded by my taxpayer dollars.
RE: There are currently a few exemptions, where it is possible to discriminate in employment based on race, religion, gender, etc.
I think what some folks are getting concerned about, and why this is becoming more of an issue, is that the current Congress seems inclined to make more and more exceptions for religious organizations that receive federal funds. It matters not, for a Head Start teacher to be of such and such religion, so why should a teacher be denied employment based on his/her religion. It matters not, for any program, whether the cook in the kitchen fixing the food for the kids is of such and such religion, so why tell a Muslim, or a Jew, or an Episcopalean, or whatever that he/she can’t have a job because of his/her religion.
Me thinks the concern is the trend, a trend that defies the trend of the 60s when LBJ and the liberals were in control. Back then, lots of instances of discrimination (we don’t hire Niggers, Jews, or Catholics) were under attack. Now, the provisions against such discrimination are being loosened.
Me thinks that’s what’s worrying some folks. I don’t think a movie director telling Heidi Fliess that she can’t get the part of Arnold Schwarzenegger in the upcoming movie about how stupid and ignorant voters really are is what’s bugging folks.
Federal law protects people from employment discrimination based on age, sex, nationality, religion . . . there’s no protection for sexual deviance.
That’s the difference. There’s no law says you can’t refuse to hire perverts, people who shoot small animals, folks who talk with a New York accent, those who prefer red wine to white wine, etc. There is law that says you can’t refuse to hire a person because of his/her religious beliefs.
I once begged the staff at Congressional Quarterly–actually, www.cq.com–to come up with an engine which will plug proposed legislation into the section which it purports to affect and then offer a bill comparison against the standing statute.
Their answer was fairly direct: a professional version of, “are you fucking kidding me? How the hell can you rely on a computer to understand this shit if we can’t understand it ourselves?” The actual response was something along the lines of “stylistic differences and a lack of uniform citation make the task unimaginably complex.” But not to a good legislative analyst, whom our new pal LyricalReckoner appears to be and whom I most decidedly am not.
And truth be told, I easily spent fifteen minutes trying to find the outlet into which this legislative plug fits and couldn’t find it, and I do this sort of crap every day. Don’t know if that makes me a bad analyst, or if I’m just having a bad day.
Probably both, but I can console myself with the fact that thanks to the Internet and about a million more observers, it’s becoming increasingly more difficult to pull off such a stunt.
But it’s a legislative Heisenberg, because once you find out what it is, you don’t know where the sonsabitches who wrote it are going to go next. And we all know what happens when you hand a locked ballot box to the Supreme Court and tell them there’s a cat inside of it…
…and in answer to the question, “is the cat alive or dead?” the answer is, “both, depending on the observer’s sense of smell and whose hand is up the cat’s ass.”
Holy crap dalovindj on that burrito link! I was wandering around in the pit and read this post. Lo and behold, I saw that link, and found that I had, in fact, started that post! That was ages ago! Great spot!
You’ve come a long way, mate! I remember your first posts, you’re a bit more… eloquent now. Nice spot on the law, hopefully the thinking people can shut it down.
On the topic of hiring Jews though, could a Kosher Jewish butcher refuse to hire a non-Jew butcher, on the basis that in Kosher laws (IIRC) for meat to be kosher, it must be butchered by a Jew?
dalovindj quotes an over-the-top rant about the bill in question from a certain website of “Mister Thorne.” The OP then asks us “is this real?”
It turns out “Mister Thorne” is just some math and computer skills major who’s running a ‘religion in the news’ commentary site. Maybe that’s why the ‘article’ in question is so over-the-top.
Then along comes LyricalReckoner, a brand-new poster here who comes along with a scholarly sounding assessment affirming to the ‘truth’ of that over-the-top commentary (without criticizing the over-the-topness of the article).
It turns out that LyricalReckoner is a regular contributor to Mister Thorne’s ‘news site.’
Questioned asked and answered. Thank-you Mister Thorne.
Doctor J, and when liberal officials said they’d remove state funds from Ky Baptist Homes, KBH told them to go ahead & the state needn’t send them any children in state care- the state officials backed down because they needed KBH services more than KBH needed their support.
Unfortunately for the separation of church and state, the logical next step is for Kentucky to pass legislation forcing Ky Baptist Homes to accept children for state care, and to forbid them from discriminating based on sexual preference because they are accepting children for state care.
If there is anything on earth that government bureaucrats cannot do, it is to keep hands off.
I’m sorry, Shodan, I am under-caffeinated, and I can’t quite work out for myself which parts of your post are sarcastic and which are in earnest.
Wouldn’t a more logical and elegant solution to the problem involve the state providing an adequate framework of social services without relying on an Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives trying to delegate everything?
Was that a faint ‘whoosh’ that I just heard, there?
First off, thanks for the good work Larry Mudd. It seems there are indeed “pertinent parts”. Now . . .
I’m not sure what you are getting at here. It seems that we have indeed confirmed that the article is for real in as much as the statement “On 25 July, the U.S. House of Representatives carved an exception to the Act when it passed another act that said certain employers could discriminate on the basis of religion.” is true. LyricalReckoner’s posts helped in tracking down the Straight Dope on this issue. The fact that he wrote the commentary I linked to, and the fact that he expresses a negative view of the events (which are confirmed to have occured) within said commentary in no way contradicts the “truth” of what he is saying. I’ll grant that the original blog and links were a little less than terrific as far as the cites they chose, but it seems like you are dismissing the whole issue. That seems weird since, again, it is indeed real. Heck, LyricalReckoner makes up for any lack of clarity over there by helping us over here. Why should he make any comments about whether his feelings on the subject are over the top? He came here to help people who wanted clarification. He helped to clarify. I don’t get the hostility. Maybe I’m just mis-reading your post. What exactly is your point?
I’ll clarify my reason for this thread (now that I am convinced of the veracity of the claims in the link): There is no reason (which doesn’t make my stomach turn) for allowing an exception to the non-discrimination provisions in this case. I am pitting those who passed and supported this bill because I see it as an attempt to erode the separation of church and state by politicians who wish the government of this country could endorse the Christian god. The whole thing is despicable.
Yeah, that thread is in my “10 Best Thread Titles” list. The “rock so big” argument is a common one, and that thread gives a great treatment of the possible responses. It also serves as an illustration of intelligent theists who don’t just “believe without thinking about what they believe”. For someone who likes to talk about religion, but is generally discouraged by the lack of thoughtfulness in many theists, the GD Forum is a breath of fresh air (not to say that there isn’t plenty of hot air over there - just that the density of thoughtful, intelligent, and skilled debaters [on both sides of most issues] is way above average).
Thanks for the compliment. Several people have made similar comments in the last couple of weeks. I guess this place is working (for me, anyway). I’ve tried, for the most part, to eliminate insults and condescension from my dealings with other posters (but I still make fun of trekkies). I’ve found that many a cool conversation gets sidetracked when you act superior to others or insult them. It seems having eased back on the aggressive tone makes it alot easier to get Dopers to consider (and respond productively to) the actual content of my statements. More-flies-with-honey type of thing, I guess.
RE: He came here to help people who wanted clarification. He helped to clarify. I don’t get the hostility. Maybe I’m just mis-reading your post. What exactly is your point?
Hmmmmm . . . . I really didn’t know what Moriah’s point was. Just assumed he/she was having a bad day. Didn’t consider the article any kind of a rant.
I’ll tell you why I came here. A few days ago, I noticed lots of hits on the latest Religion in the News from some domain called straightdope.com. So, I came here to check it out, to see what it was about. And then I thought, “well, I’ll have to post a link to Religion in the News at straightdope.” Why? Because RIN offers an alternative to the standard news stories, almost all of which are written by believers (and are biased to that extent).
I’m not sure what Moriah means when he says it turns out that Mr. Thorne is just some math major. Does being raised as a mathematician somehow disqualify him from reporting the news? I don’t get it.
Now that I’m thinking about it, I’m a bit surprised that no one has commented on the Commentary to RIN which claims that Western civilization was founded by Pagans, not some tribe of Asians. Given the nature of this board, I thought that would have generated some discussion (and some controversy).
Oh well . . . .
Moriah: the next time someone pisses on your corn flakes, smack em.
I’m not surprised moriah is mystified. The “rant” does appear to be misguided, although certainly not unjustified. It seems to place the emphasis on the bill’s allowing faith-based corporations to 'post Help Wanted signs that say, “Jews need not apply,” when this is already the case. What’s novel is allowing federal funds to go to organizations that can do this, creating a situation where educational benefits are likely to be distributed unevenly. Maybe not legally, but how many people are going to feel comfortable sending their impressionable kids to a program managed exclusively by members of an alienating ideology?
[/obvious]
Take it easy guys. There is no reason to suspect the poster is bigoted based on that post. Let’s pull out the definition of deviant first:
Someone who engages in sexual deviance can be said to be engaging in sexual activity which differs from the norm/accepted social standards. Accepted social standards are a relative thing depending on which social group we are talking about. In the case of KY baptists (the group that was being discussed for firing a woman because she was a lesbian), gay sex is deviant sex. That is to say that the sexual activity is different from the norm as well as the accepted social standards of that group. LyricalReckoner’s comment does not seem to me to be a condemnation of gay people, nor does it illustrate any disdain on his part towards gay people.
Even outside of the KY baptist community gay sex can be considered deviant in that it is not the norm. What percentage of the population is gay is a tricky issue, but the number seems to be somewhere in the range of about 1-10% of the population. That is a minority. That makes it not the norm. Based on the definitions and facts, it is entirely possible to use the word deviant to describe gay sexual activity (in regards to the social group which can be described as “the US population”) without being a bigot.
However, the word does tend to have a negative connotation in general usage (even if it doesn’t based on the dictionary definition), and I will admit that when most people call someone a deviant they do not mean it in a neutral way. It often implies not only different, but also bad. This makes it a poor choice if you are trying to be neutral, as it can easily be mis-construed. Even so, the proper thing to do would be to ask for clarifcation. A simple question like “Are you saying that gays are bad/evil/disgusting?” could clear up any suspicions anyone has. But instead, around these parts, in these type of situations, some people make the assumption that the person means the worst possible thing they can mean in a situation that does allow for multiple interpretations of the words. They jump the gun, as they say, making comments and accusations (in this case implied ones) without really knowing where the speaker stands. I am not a fan of this tendancy at all.
Now, if LyricalReckoner feels that homosexuals are bad/evil people by default, then flame away. His posts here, however, are in no way proof of such an attitude. Hell, they aren’t even good evidence. You would need to know if he feels that gay sex is deviant meaning bad to be justified in such an accusation. His posts are piss-poor evidence for any such feelings. As far as I can tell, his usage was proper, as the KY Baptists do consider gays to be sexually deviant. He was discussing whether or not an organization has the right to discriminate based on their perception (not his) of what is deviant sexual behavior.
Please, can we not have another hi-jack induced trainwreck to prematurely accuse another new poster of bigotry!
dalovindj, I think you’re giving far more doubt-benefit than I would, but I’ll refrain from serious flamage until there’s more evidence in the file…
I hate to think of myself as slipping back into Activist Humor Deficiency. I didn’t detect any irony. Don’t know yet if that’s a flaw at the detection station or a flaw at the source…