Is ENDA the end of religous freedom?

[Flavus Aquila]

Hm...that was a very rational view of the situation.

Rational indeed. This is how it should be.

...but damn I don't like it.

That is because it isn't fair. 1 in 3 people in the world are Christian but only 1 in 20 people in the world is gay. It is easier for larger groups to discriminate against smaller groups.

Being rational and fair cannot be compatible with only promoting or supporting things one likes or prefers.

Even if 95% of people in the world were Christians, Justice, based on truth would demand the same question: if DISTINCT groups are alowed, they should be respected.

Difference of opinion/belief/values/etc cannot be the basis for disallowing the existence of a particular group, unless that group violently or agressively seek to undermine the right of other groups to exist (be they small or even in the majority).

 

[Satya]

Being rational and fair cannot be compatible with only promoting or supporting things one likes or prefers.

Even if 95% of people in the world were Christians, Justice, based on truth would demand the same question: if DISTINCT groups are alowed, they should be respected.

Difference of opinion/belief/values/etc cannot be the basis for disallowing the existence of a particular group, unless that group violently or agressively seek to undermine the right of other groups to exist (be they small or even in the majority).

It is a nice ideal, but it isn't realistic. But then again, if you cared about the practicality of the idea, then you wouldn't be an INFJ, would ya?

I'll take the MLK approach and argue that people should only be judged by the content of their character and the qualifications they have to do the work. Given that the current law already protects for religion, it is only fair that the law should be extended to sexual orientation. If the law that protected religion were to be repealed, then you would have a case, but currently religion is a protected class and sexual orientation is not.

 

[IndigoSensor]

It is a nice ideal, but it isn't realistic. But then again, if you cared about the practicality of the idea, then you wouldn't be an INFJ, would ya?

I'll take the MLK approach and argue that people should only be judged by the content of their character and the qualifications they have to do the work. Given that the current law already protects for religion, it is only fair that the law should be extended to sexual orientation. If the law that protected religion were to be repealed, then you would have a case, but currently religion is a protected class and sexual orientation is not.

You could extend that and say it should be protected even if we assume that sexual orientation is a beleif (i.e. a choice).

 

[Daeledin]

You could extend that and say it should be protected even if we assume that sexual orientation is a belief (i.e. a choice).

I can already hear FRC's next video on gays demanding 'special rights'. Just a little more than marriage that one really gets me off the most. They portray it as if they honestly believe every gay person just woke up one morning and decided social suicide was in order and came out that day. The fact that homosexuality is still around and a growing movement should honestly squelch this little gem of theirs, unfortunately that is the one I hear most often around my campus.

Sorry, just had to say that.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

It is a nice ideal, but it isn't realistic. But then again, if you cared about the practicality of the idea, then you wouldn't be an INFJ, would ya?

I'll take the MLK approach and argue that people should only be judged by the content of their character and the qualifications they have to do the work. Given that the current law already protects for religion, it is only fair that the law should be extended to sexual orientation. If the law that protected religion were to be repealed, then you would have a case, but currently religion is a protected class and sexual orientation is not.

You could extend that and say it should be protected even if we assume that sexual orientation is a beleif (i.e. a choice).

Classing sexual orientation as a belief wouldn't help the situation.

The tension/irritation in actual debate going on outside this forum is, I think based on each group's desire to be respected.

Even if discrimination is not allowed on the basis of religion, I don't think a Christian employee should be alowed to wear a big crucifix on a chain, while working at a mosque or Muslim school. Similarly, I don't think a homosexual should wear "gay pride" tees to work at a Christian school.

If an employee keeps their differences of opinion, belief, preference respectfully to themselves, they should be able to work anywhere. If an individual wants a place to express or promote their beliefs/views/preferences they should do so in forums where this does not impinge upon the rights of others: in public places, in their own organisations/groups, on their own private property, etc.

Respecting anyone's rights involves giving them the freedom to make their own place/premises a place where no one opposes or contradicts their views.

 

[Satya]

Classing sexual orientation as a belief wouldn't help the situation.

The tension/irritation in actual debate going on outside this forum is, I think based on each group's desire to be respected.

Even if discrimination is not allowed on the basis of religion, I don't think a Christian employee should be alowed to wear a big crucifix on a chain, while working at a mosque or Muslim school. Similarly, I don't think a homosexual should wear "gay pride" tees to work at a Christian school.

If an employee keeps their differences of opinion, belief, preference respectfully to themselves, they should be able to work anywhere. If an individual wants a place to express or promote their beliefs/views/preferences they should do so in forums where this does not impinge upon the rights of others: in public places, in their own organisations/groups, on their own private property, etc.

Respecting anyone's rights involves giving them the freedom to make their own place/premises a place where no one opposes or contradicts their views.

I agree. But as the law is currently, a Christian employee who chose to wear a big crucifix on a chain while working at a Muslim school would be protected from being fired and gay person wearing a "gay pride" tee shirt to work at a Christian school would not be protected from being fired. That is not fair or just.

Even if you believe that sexual orientation is only a belief, then why should religion be protected and sexual orientation not be?

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I agree. But as the law is currently, a Christian employee who chose to wear a big crucifix on a chain while working at a Muslim school would be protected from being fired and gay person wearing a "gay pride" tee shirt to work at a Christian school would not be protected from being fired. That is not fair or just.

Agreed.

I think employers should have more rights to cultivate respect for the character of their organisation.

However, to prevent this becoming a tyranical farce, the extent to which they can lay down expectations needs to be governed by law. Moreover, employers should have to apply for "special group identity" status, controlled by some specific qualification requirements, to prevent commercial operations from looking for an excuse to discriminate based on the prejudice of an employer/owner.

The purpose of such legislation would be to alow particular groups of people with common attributes/goals/values to exist.

Even if you believe that sexual orientation is only a belief, then why should religion be protected and sexual orientation not be?

Groups/places united by sexual orientation should be protected from disruptive/disrespectful employees/patrons as well.

 

[Satya]

Agreed.

I think employers should have more rights to cultivate respect for the character of their organisation.

However, to prevent this becoming a tyranical farce, the extent to which they can lay down expectations needs to be governed by law. Moreover, employers should have to apply for "special group identity" status, controlled by some specific qualification requirements, to prevent commercial operations from looking for an excuse to discriminate based on the prejudice of an employer/owner.

The purpose of such legislation would be to alow particular groups of people with common attributes/goals/values to exist.

Sounds like you want the government to issue segregation licenses. I thought we were past the whole "separate but equal" thing.

The intention to allow any group to protect its identity makes sense, but I would think there are other ways to approach it than government sanctioned separation.

As the law is currently, you must admit that ENDA is an appropriate solution for the time being.

 

[Barnabas]

Oooookay. Businesses are already prohibited by law from hiring, firing, or making employment decisions based a person

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Sounds like you want the government to issue segregation licenses. I thought we were past the whole "separate but equal" thing.

We return again to the question as to whether particular groups should be allowed to exist; and if so, should they be respected.

Again, asking a Christian to pocket, or tuck in a crucifix at a muslim school is not, in my opinion, discriminatory.

Segregation, refers not to the respecting of the characteristics of a particular group, but the public isolation of a group. Public areas and organisations which deal with the general public should not be permitted to gain such "special group identity."

 

[Satya]

I'll bow out of this conversation, may your opinion of me be right. It appears we have different ideas of discrimination is.

I consider employment discrimination to be the act of judging a person for some arbitrary trait beyond their qualifications to perform the job and the content of their character. I wish you well.

 

[Satya]

We return again to the question as to whether particular groups should be allowed to exist; and if so, should they be respected.

Every law prohibiting discrimination is designed to replace prejudice with principle. I think segregation isn't a solution to the problem, but a way in the which the majority can maintain control over the minorities without directly challenging their right to exist. ENDA is the correct solution because in time it will change views. Just as civil rights laws that prohibited discrimination based on race lead to a principle that race does not matter since it has nothing to do with the qualifications of an individual or the content of their character, ENDA will replace the prejudice towards gays with an indifference to sexual orientation. Indifference is not acceptance. It is simply the awareness that it isn't an important criteria by which to judge someone for employment.

Protecting women has not lead to them breaking down the doors of men's clubs. Protecting African Americans has not lead to them trying to join the KKK. Why would protecting gays lead to a different result?

 

[Satya]

Segregation, refers not to the respecting of the characteristics of a particular group, but the public isolation of a group. Public areas and organisations which deal with the general public should not be permitted to gain such "special group identity."

You have pretty much narrowed the criteria to the point that nothing would qualify as a "special group".

 

[Flavus Aquila]

You have pretty much narrowed the criteria to the point that nothing would qualify as a "special group".

Schools are generally not open to the general public - only employees, students and parents are usually allowed on the premises. They would qualify. Some groups gather because of a specific affinity: churches, women's and men's groups, bars/clubs for particular groups. All of these could possibly qualify for a hypothetical exemption whereby employees could have some specific expectations of conduct/deportment laid out.

 

[Jack]

Why do these social conservative Christian organizations have to spread misinformation to promote their cause?

could it be that they are misinformed themselves?

The answer, murder all the religious people. It doesn't sound like anyone would miss them. Then only we, the morally superior people who murdered them would be left... clearly a much better society now.

Seriously though, I doubt there are really any productive solutions that have to do with a one size fits all legislation.

 

[Daeledin]

could it be that they are misinformed themselves?

Yes and no. There is always the factor of refusing to peer over and see something on the other side of the fence because you are more comfortable not knowing or dealing with it. But to be even more effective at influencing people is to bury facts so people won't consider it.

The answer, murder all the religious people. It doesn't sound like anyone would miss them. Then only we, the morally superior people who murdered them would be left... clearly a much better society now.

I've only got a Swiss pocket knife and a roll of duct tape but that's all I need. Lets make this happen.

Seriously though, I doubt there are really any productive solutions that have to do with a one size fits all legislation.

You're right to be doubtful that one bill can fix all of this. If you look back at the civil rights movement it was a long drawn out process that didn't work with just one bill. Even after legislation passed it wasn't like racism instantaneously vanished. In fact we all know it's still around. However you can't deny that after 30 years the social paradigms have changed dramatically. The same can work for our movement. It'll be a long fight to get what we want and it doesn't end after the bills pass. When people get set in their ways it's very hard and takes a long time to try to change their minds.