• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Hiring discrimination against gays!?!?!?!



<< I was thinking about this the other day... it is a fact that certain organizations are legally allowed to discrimate against gays in the hiring process. Am I the only one who thinks this is appalling. How can an organization make an employment determination based upon sexual orientation!.... MY GOD what a joke!...

-Max
>>



Private non-profit organizations are allowed to discriminate. Why? Because we have freedom of religion, and religions are private non-profit organizations. If we did force them to conform, we'd have Catholic churches forced to have avowed atheists as priests, and avowed Catholics as head of Jewish organizations. The upside is that private non-profits are not allowed to be poltical in nature.

The same goes for gays. Many religions have tenets that condemn homosexuality. Forcing them to accept a gay preacher would be a violation of their religious freedom.

Freedom means having the right NOT to associate with others too, Doboji. Do I agree with their views? No. Will I fight to protect their freedom NOT to be forced to hire those who do not represent their beliefs? Yes.
 
This covers both questions really... I mean

1) Federally funding a religious organization as I've already pointed out is unconstitutional.. I'm upset that any funding is being distributed at all...

2) Federally funding and federal legislature protecting an organization discriminating against hirees based on sexual orientation... my god... am I the only one that sees this as shades of the civil inequalities of the 40s and 50s against blacks?...

This is a serious serious issue... now that we found it... what do we do to fix it?

-Max
 
Amused one... I understand the discrimination in regards to faith oriented services. But a sandwhich truck, or a soup kitchen, or any service that helps the public in a non-religious fashion?!... No I'm sorry religious organizations have no right to discriminate in this manner.

-Max

EDIT: I think what we've done here is uncover the first obstacle indicating that the faith based initiatives program is a joke... Now our government will be funding organizations that discriminate based upon religion and sexual orientation. This is only the tip of the iceburg.... Religious organizations CANNOT be a non biased contractor... and as such any federal funding of these organizations further violates the constitution as the funding directly furthers the goals of the religious groups being supported financially.

 
Why should WE (business owners) not be allowed to hire whomever we want to?

If i am a catholic business owner, and i hire a gay man, knowingly that i am supporting his sinful ways so to speak, that will be violating my personal rights as a man, right?
 


<< This covers both questions really... I mean

1) Federally funding a religious organization as I've already pointed out is unconstitutional.. I'm upset that any funding is being distributed at all...

2) Federally funding and federal legislature protecting an organization discriminating against hirees based on sexual orientation... my god... am I the only one that sees this as shades of the civil inequalities of the 40s and 50s against blacks?...

This is a serious serious issue... now that we found it... what do we do to fix it?

-Max
>>



I see NO civil inequalities here. This is not for profit organizations we're talking about here. Besides, why the hell would a gay man want to be part of an organization who's core values find his very being a &quot;sin&quot; and against their tenets?

It's time to stop forcing others to conform, and just leave them be.

BTW, I find a distinct difference between federally fiunding a religion, and funding a charity that stems from a religion. At any rate, I don't believe ANY charities should be federally funded.
 
As a buisness owner your responsibility to your employee begins and ends with his performance in direct relation to duties as an employee, and your reponsibility to pay him accordingly. You have no right to dictate his morality. You have no right to even discuss his morality at work. Unless his job is harmed or affected by his secual orientation... you have no right to discriminate.

-Max
 
Is this any different that the cases where The Boy Scout refuse to allow girls to join nor they allow Gay people to be Scout leader,etc ? We know how it went....
 


<< It's time to stop forcing others to conform, and just leave them be.

BTW, I find a distinct difference between federally fiunding a religion, and funding a charity that stems from a religion. At any rate, I don't believe ANY charities should be federally funded.
>>



I can only accept the first sentence in regards to the second sentence... so long as the organization is religious in nature and it's services are connected to the religion... then they can not hire someone who violates the morals they are teaching. However if the service has no relations to religion... which would be the requirement of federal funding then discrimination would be unacceptable....



<< Is this any different that the cases where The BoyScout refuse to allow girls to join ? We all know how it went. >>



Arent boy scouts and girl scouts really the same organization?

-Max
 

The salvation army is walking a narrow line. They could (and should) lose the 300 million a year it gets for its work, or tow the line.


It is not for our government to use federal funds to encourage discrimination or segregation. That's why the boy scouts got nailed.

The salvation army sees the writing on the wall, and wants to sell its support to Bush for protection against the same treatment that the boy scouts received.

My real condemnation goes to Bush, where oh where is his compassionate conservatism? It certainly has not manifested itself with regards to domestic policy (patients bill of rights, faith-based charities, blacks, and now gays).

 
As a buisness owner your responsibility to your employee begins and ends with his performance in direct relation to duties as an employee, and your reponsibility to pay him accordingly. You have no right to dictate his morality. You have no right to even discuss his morality at work. Unless his job is harmed or affected by his secual orientation... you have no right to discriminate.

You are correct. If I refused to hire someone because I thought they were gay, and the discrimination could be proved, I'd be in big trouble.

About every other year I am required to attend seminars on business ethics, and you would be very surprised on finding exactly what the laws dictate.

However, it is another matter entirely to prove discrimination, and the burden is really on the accuser. If it weren't for that, there would be an incredible amount of lawsuits.

But these marginal service organizations, like charities, the boy scouts, etc.. fall into special categories because of their non profit nature, and religious affiliations. They can get away with things that others in the corporate world cannot, however, by receiving Federal funds, there actions violate federal anti-discrimination laws, and thus they lose their eligibility for federal funding. As it should be.

The salvation army doesn't want to lose its big funding from the government, but they are in violation of federal anti-discrimination laws. Bush should not bend the rules for them, but he will probably try.

Discrimination of any kind should not be encouraged.
 
That is horrible, why would they take that stance and its quite antichristian anyway. I hope that all federal support is droped and if not I hope some group sues them over it.

Not to mentioned the various state antidiscrimination laws they wouold be violating.
 
One last thing,


Some businesses (corporate) require (though not really) people in certain instance to sign morality clauses, explicitly stating that you will not perform certain behaviours. For me, I signed one stating I will not take gifts from external vendors or contractors. Violate that, regardless of the size of gift, and I jeopardize my job.

I have heard that certain companies (though I have not seen this) sneak in general conduct clauses, and that these clauses can be interpretted to apply to deviant behavior. The potential therefore exists to classify homosexual behavior as deviant, and discipline or remove homosexual employees. Though that potential exists, I don't think anyone or company has the cojones to try it. They would be crucified in the press.

Just an FYI.
 
on paper their are many uninforcable laws about discrimination. If I'm a private small business owner, I'll hire whoever the hell I want.
 
Here we go again - one person fighting to force the less-than-2%-of-the-population gay community into every aspect of life.

If I run a day-care center with many religious parents, why should I be forced to hire a gay person who will only lose business? Many parents wouldn't trust their child with a gay attendant.

Also, insurance should be higher for gays if we just go by the numbers. Gays, on average, have a much lower average life span. Why? -because it's an unhealthy lifestyle. I'm not saying all gays have an unhealthy, promiscuous lifestyle... but not all 17-year-old boys crash their cars either.


EDIT:
It seems to me that there is a constant barrage of gays that try to find anything for which they can claim discrimination.
 
Is it discrimnation when we don't let pedophiles become teachers. WE as a society believe it is wrong for people of legal age to engage in sexual contact with young childern. No-one has a problem with this. WHy is it so hard to understand soem organizations feel the same why about homosexual practices.

Furthmore if homosexuality is just an expression of ones sexuality in a different way why no allow necrophelia (hey no-one gets hurt) 😉
 
fighting to force the less-than-2%-of-the-population gay community

Funny how you quote that statistic like it's factual or something. The truth is that we can't possibly estimate accurately the amount of gay people there are because many are still &quot;in the closet&quot;. I don't even know where you got that statistic--your ass?

If I run a day-care center with many religious parents, why should I be forced to hire a gay person who will only lose business? Many parents wouldn't trust their child with a gay attendant.

That's homophobia pal. And you seem to be justifying it by implying that this is anything but the parents' problem for having such completely unfounded fears. Did you know that most pedophiles are heterosexual? Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Also, insurance should be higher for gays if we just go by the numbers. Gays, on average, have a much lower average life span. Why? -because it's an unhealthy lifestyle. I'm not saying all gays have an unhealthy, promiscuous lifestyle... but not all 17-year-old boys crash their cars either.

LOL, more statistics from the master statistician brxndxn. You're just full of helpful info! Care to quote a source (preferably not from some anti-homosexual hatemonger propaganda web site) for your &quot;facts&quot;?

And anyway, insurance rates have nothing to do with it. What we're talking about here is discrimination. Take this exact situation and apply it to the 1950s and we'd be talking about blacks. Thank God times can and do change.

l2c

 
So it is ok for the gays to force you to associate with them even if it violates your religious or moral convictions? Lets see that would protect their perception of their rights but would violate someone elses right of association. In the workplace the person whose morals are offended cannot leave without risking their job so by forcing your rights to work wherever you please you have either forced someone to leave their job or violated their right to not associate with people that violate their religious or moaral convictions. somehow I don't think anyone has the right to to violate someone elses rights to excercise their own. As a business owner I would think i would have the right to hire based on my own moral criteria. If not then i guess i don't really own the business do i.

Actually pedophiles are pedophiles. attempting to classify them as hetero or homo is pointless because they are simply sick predators.


No it is not the same as blacks in the 50's. The discrimination then was based on nothing more than the color of their skin which we all know something that you cannot control. being black is not a behaviour it is something you are born with. You don't conciously choose to have black skin. Homosexuality on the other hand whether you think you are born that way or not still requires a concious decision to engage in. It is a lifestyle that requires action and concious decisions to engage in. Which means you have a choice in what you do or what you choose to be unlike blacks who physically cannot choose to not be black.
 
Hanpan--

Pedophilia is a completely different issue than homosexual sex. In the former you're dealing with non-consensual (or coerced) sex between an adult and a child. In the latter case you'd be referring to sex between consenting adults. Comparing the two as you've done only shows how little you understand.

l2c
 


<< If I'm a private small business owner, I'll hire whoever the hell I want. >>


Well then you better hire a good lawyer too.



<< Furthmore if homosexuality is just an expression of ones sexuality in a different way why no allow necrophelia (hey no-one gets hurt) >>


Perhaps we should reexamine necrophilia... by all means necrophilia should be legal! however I would argue that the dead person would have to give consent😉



<< Here we go again - one person fighting to force the less-than-2%-of-the-population gay community into every aspect of life. >>


I have no idea how you came to this conclusion... we're not talking about allowing gay signs in offices... or gay pride stickers on office doors... we're simply talking about people not getting fired... or not-hired because of an activity that takes place in their private life, and is completely legal. Can you imagine refusing to hire people because the drink alcohol, or smoke cigars?... Same concept.



<< Also, insurance should be higher for gays if we just go by the numbers. Gays, on average, have a much lower average life span. Why? -because it's an unhealthy lifestyle. I'm not saying all gays have an unhealthy, promiscuous lifestyle >>



Post Hoc ergo propter hoc... saying that because gays have a lower average life span because of AIDs... does not mean that Gay people are promiscuous and unhealthy. If you want to look at this scientifically you would make insurance higher for more promiscuous people, and maybe even people who take part in anal sex. Heterosexual people do that too... do you think somehow anal sex with a man is healthier than anal sex with a woman?

-Max
-Max
 
NesuD--

So it is ok for the gays to force you to associate with them even if it violates your religious or moral convictions? Lets see that would protect their perception of their rights but would violate someone elses right of association. In the workplace the person whose morals are offended cannot leave without risking their job so by forcing your rights to work wherever you please you have either forced someone to leave their job or violated their right to not associate with people that violate their religious or moaral convictions. somehow I don't think anyone has the right to to violate someone elses rights to excercise their own. As a business owner I would think i would have the right to hire based on my own moral criteria. If not then i guess i don't really own the business do i.

I find it hard to believe that you could actually hold this opinion. Forcing you to associate with gays? Let me change a word in your post and read it back to you. See what you think about it:

So it is ok for the blacks to force you to associate with them even if it violates your religious or moral convictions? Lets see that would protect their perception of their rights but would violate someone elses right of association. In the workplace the person whose morals are offended cannot leave without risking their job so by forcing your rights to work wherever you please you have either forced someone to leave their job or violated their right to not associate with people that violate their religious or moaral convictions. somehow I don't think anyone has the right to to violate someone elses rights to excercise their own. As a business owner I would think i would have the right to hire based on my own moral criteria. If not then i guess i don't really own the business do i.

l2c
 
Should a federally funded battered women's center be forced to hire an outspoken male chauvanist?

Should a federally funded minority organization be forced to hire a white supremecist?

 
Back
Top