Stanford: Religious bigotry or appropriately protecting gays?

[furt]

*Originally posted by Polycarp *
**Question:

If I were to apply for the position of Executive Director of Exodus International, the notorious ex-gay ministry, would they be justified in asking me for my views on the morality of homosexuality? And for rejecting me as a candidate, not on the basis of my qualifications, but because I didn’t believe that what they were doing was morally proper or in most cases effective?

How does my stance differ from Brown’s, if it does? How does the hypothetical stance of Exodus differ from Stanford’s stance, if it does? **

Homosexuality is the *raison d’etre * of Exodus International, Just as theism is of Atheists International, etc. etc.

I don’t think you’d argue that sexual orientation or opinions thereon has a realistic bearing on athletic or academic performance.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

It’s interesting to me that “his religion” was in brackets in the news story originally. What was it that Alan Glenn actually said was a consideration? “His homophobia”? “His religious intolerance”? What?

Considering that a football coach has a duty to maintain team morale and to act as a public representative of the team and the entire school, it is perfectly appropriate for the school to require certain behavior from the coach in his or her private life.

As long as the school makes these behavioral requirements independent of any religious litmus test, they’re in the clear.

Again, December, what if the coach were an Identity Christian, who believed that black people were mud people inferior to whites, and who had spoken publicly about this belief in the past? Do you think the school could legitimately consider this in the hiring process?

---

As for Ashcroft: Democrats worried that the bloke wouldn’t uphold the law. That was a pretty reasonable concern: Ashcroft had a record as a cannibal Satanist in his home state.

Daniel

[DMC]

*Originally posted by DanielWithrow *
It’s interesting to me that “his religion” was in brackets in the news story originally. What was it that Alan Glenn actually said was a consideration? “His homophobia”? “His religious intolerance”? What?

I noticed that myself. I assumed it was something along the lines of “It”, instead of “His religion.” If it was “It”, “It” could have easily meant his attitude towards gays and not his actual religion. What’s the deal with the media attempting to paraphrase people? Did they not take notes, or was it just not an interesting enough story if they had stuck to the actual quote?

[SuaSponte]

::sigh::
There is only one question here (and it applies to Ashcroft as well) : leaving aside the basis for their respective opinions, can they leave their opinions aside and perform the functions of the job sought?

Ya see, december religious belief should absolutely not be the basis of discrimination. **But the fact that an opinion/position is derived from religious belief does not/should not/cannot be the basis for additional protection.

If Mr. Brown held his opinions on homosexuality, but those opinions were derived from the teachings of Betrand Russell rather than the Bible, Stanford would and should go through the same analysis - will Mr. Brown’s beliefs make it impossible for him to: adhere to Stanford’s non-discrimination policy in hiring, recruiting and giving playing time; be an effective liason with alumni boosters; and whatever other functions he would have to perform as head coach?

As I said earlier, it is a difficult and ultimately subjective decision.

from december
And, let’s say that Sua Sponte is correct that Stanford is obligated to not hire him, because having him on staff would constitute discrimination. Then where can he get a job?

Any other college presumably has about the same percentage of gay students as Stanford. And, I would assume that virtually all colleges prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. So, it follows that no college in the country is permitted to hire him.

First of all, I didn’t say that Stanford was obliged not hire him.
(1) if Mr. Brown had overtly said that he would discriminate against gays, they would be idiots to hire him - they would get screwed utterly if they got hit with an employment discrimination suit because he fired/refused to hire a gay person.
(2) The same result would likely occur if Mr. Brown claimed he wouldn’t discriminate, but did so anyway - “Stanford knew of his opinions, but believed him when he said he wouldn’t discriminate? Yeah, right. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Stanford is either lying to you, or intentionally stuck its collective head in the sand so that they could hire this bigot, simply to win a few more football games. I ask for heavy punitive damages.”

But as for where Mr. Brown could work. As a preliminary matter, that’s not Stanford’s problem - that’s Mr. Brown. Unless, december, you are asserting that everyone has a right to work?
But practically speaking, Mr. Brown could work (a) at any school in a state that does not prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation (and where the school doesn’t have an internal policy prohibiting such discrimination), or (b) Notre Dame.

Sua

[december]

*Originally posted by SuaSponte *
**(1) if Mr. Brown had overtly said that he would discriminate against gays, they would be idiots to hire him - they would get screwed utterly if they got hit with an employment discrimination suit because he fired/refused to hire a gay person.
(2) The same result would likely occur if Mr. Brown claimed he wouldn’t discriminate, but did so anyway - "Stanford knew of his opinions, but believed him when he said he wouldn’t discriminate? Yeah, right. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Stanford is either lying to you, or intentionally stuck its collective head in the sand so that they could hire this bigot, simply to win a few more football games. I ask for heavy punitive damages."Sua **

I always appreciate your legal expertise, Sua. This reminds of a case presented in a medical malpractice workshop some years ago. A doctor with a somewhat flawed record applied for medical priveleges at a hospital. The doctor’s past history was good enough so that if the hospital turned him down, he could win a suit against them. But, if they admitted him, they could find themselves in the punitive damage situation Sua described. (The lawyer who described this case didn’t seem upset that a lawsuit could come about, regardless. The more lawsuits, the merrier. )

This could well be the situation here. Stanford might be in legal jeopardy whichever way they decided.

BTW I must admit a personal prejudice against HR people. My guess is that Alan Glenn really did say that religion was a consideration, even though he later denied it. Without that statement, there never would have been an issue in the first place.

[wring]

*Originally posted by december *
**. My guess is that Alan Glenn really did say that religion was a consideration, even though he later denied it. Without that statement, there never would have been an issue in the first place. **

Hm. I doubt it, personally. I’m not even a ‘pro’ HR person and I know better than to say stuff like that. IME, HR people generally are pretty adept at ‘not answering’ direct questions about why a particular applicant wasn’t hired, or referred to further interviews.

Hell, I used to get calls every now and then from folks who asked ‘why not me’, and some even accused me of discriminatory practices (“you didn’t hire me 'cause of my age” etc.)

As Sua points out, the issue isn’t religion or anything else. Would this person be able to perform essential job duties. The ‘reason’ behind their inability doesn’t protect them.

For a good example - some one who is totally blind cannot see sufficiently to drive a tour bus. The tour bus company would be allowed to screen them out for the position of driver (but not another position where visual acuity isn’t an ‘essential job function’ w/ or w/o accomondations).

[PhiloVance]

Posted by Sterra:
**Its only bigotry when you are wrong.
**

:eek: The Bigotry Police give you a ticket, ahhh I see. :wally