Churches allowed to discriminate (1 Viewer)

[russs]

the victorian government is expected to announce today that religious groups will be allowed to discriminate against gays and single mothers in a controversial compromise reached on workers' rights.
Attorney-general rob hulls has approved of a plan to let church-run organisations refuse employment to anyone they believe undermines their beliefs, the sunday age says.
The newspaper says the plan will allow church groups to discriminate on grounds of sex, sexual orientation, marital status and parental status, but in return these groups will cease being able to discriminate on the basis of race, age, disability, political beliefs, breastfeeding and physical features.
The expected changes to victoria's equal opportunity laws come several weeks before a report by a state parliament committee into the issue is due to be released.
The changes have angered critics, but church leaders applauded the decision.
Melbourne catholic archbishop denis hart told the paper the move strikes "a fair and correct balance".
Under the new plans, a church group will have to prove why someone must meet certain religious beliefs if that person is refused employment.
But the onus will remain on the victim to make an official complaint before any action is taken.
Aap

lol

Full article here: http://www.smh.com.au/national/churches-allowed-to-discriminate-20090927-g7dh.html

 

[xeuyrawp]

When did 'to discriminate' in this context become bad? Honestly - it's not a rhetorical question. I'm sure about 100 years ago, someone could say 'James is a very discriminating employer' meaning that he was very selective. And why should he not be? It's James' prerogative to hire or to not hire whomever he wants. Certainly once he hires them he should treat them well, but it's his money and his business. If he doesn't want blacks or gays, it's his choice. I've never understood it, really. /waits for someone to say 'they get money from the gov'ment' or something.

 

[Tangent]

wait wait wait......what the fudge!

This cant be a serious article, please can we have a link.

This makes Pauline Hanson look like an angel who nutures fluffy pink bunnies.

 

[Sprangler]

Churches allowed to discriminate

 

[Bigboyjames lol]

'they get money from the gov'ment

 

[Tangent]

When did 'to discriminate' in this context become bad? Honestly - it's not a rhetorical question. I'm sure about 100 years ago, someone could say 'James is a very discriminating employer' meaning that he was very selective. And why should he not be? It's James' prerogative to hire or to not hire whomever he wants. Certainly once he hires them he should treat them well, but it's his money and his business. If he doesn't want blacks or gays, it's his choice. I've never understood it, really. /waits for someone to say 'they get money from the gov'ment' or something.

I thought that by outlawing discrimination, it pressured aust. society to not be so prejudice - harsh but true. The whole point of the laws were to stop people looking at those characteristics, and looking at the person instead.

In your example, i agree. James would want the best for the job, but he should base his decision on their skin colour or sexuality, but instead evaluate how well they would get the job he wanted done.

Nothing good will come from these silly little prejudices, if only those who are blinded by them see we are all human.

I dont get why this is coming from you Pwar

EDIT: Dw, i miss read once again..... sigh. This is still stupid. Isn't religion all about loving everyone....no wait, its only about living certain groups. Grrrrrr this is so hypocritical

 

[Lukybear]

I dont see anything wrong with discriminating, if certain actions are against their beliefs. Like the church should be able to not hire someone on the grounds that their gay.

Its like what we do with rapists. They are discriminated against working with children. And you might say "they've broken the law" etc... But the gays broke the deep beliefs of the church, the law of God.

PwarYuex is completely right!

 

[MissGiggles]

When did 'to discriminate' in this context become bad? Honestly - it's not a rhetorical question. I'm sure about 100 years ago, someone could say 'James is a very discriminating employer' meaning that he was very selective. And why should he not be? It's James' prerogative to hire or to not hire whomever he wants. Certainly once he hires them he should treat them well, but it's his money and his business. If he doesn't want blacks or gays, it's his choice. I've never understood it, really. /waits for someone to say 'they get money from the gov'ment' or something.

lets just say two physically and sociologically identical women are going for a job. lets make them sisters, identical twins, the sort who dress, speak and think the same because they have never been seperated through their childhood. they did all the same uni courses, but one passed with distinction. lets say the sister with the higher marks just got married.

is it right to take on the sister with less qualifications just because she isn't married? what if the other's husband only worked a few fixed hours a day and took care of all the cooking and cleaning so she could focus on her career? her sister does not have the advantage of someone she can depend on but here's an employer thinking she's not purely career focused and she's likely to consider starting a family soon.

it's not fair, especially to allow this on the basis of dark age beliefs that discriminate against anyone who isn't white, male and young. in order to remove the last pockets of mysogeny and racism in society, these groups (eg. religions and sports) need to be pushed to reject these views, not given legal rights to apply them! this is appauling! what ever happened to separating the law and religion?!?!

 

[Lukybear]

lets just say two physically and sociologically identical women are going for a job. lets make them sisters, identical twins, the sort who dress, speak and think the same because they have never been seperated through their childhood. they did all the same uni courses, but one passed with distinction. lets say the sister with the higher marks just got married.

is it right to take on the sister with less qualifications just because she isn't married? what if the other's husband only worked a few fixed hours a day and took care of all the cooking and cleaning so she could focus on her career? her sister does not have the advantage of someone she can depend on but here's an employer thinking she's not purely career focused and she's likely to consider starting a family soon.

it's not fair, especially to allow this on the basis of dark age beliefs that discriminate against anyone who isn't white, male and young. in order to remove the last pockets of mysogeny and racism in society, these groups (eg. religions and sports) need to be pushed to reject these views, not given legal rights to apply them! this is appauling! what ever happened to separating the law and religion?!?!

But its the employeer's money. Its like you going to a candy shop, we dont plunge a candy bar in your face and say buy it. Its your choice.

However that being said, the church is on a complete different ground to discriminate. They are going by sacred law, the churches law. And if it forebids gays, then a gay pastor wouldnt help the cause.

 

[copkiller]

Good news. Now we just need all employers to be granted this same right.

You wouldn't like it if the government told you that you can't discriminate based on certain criteria as to who you invite into your home.

Why should an employer be treated any differently with their commercial property?

If employers are racist or sexist, they may be judged harshly in the court of public opinion. Laws forcing them not to discriminate on certain grounds (when of course all hiring of workers is a process of discrimination) are utterly absurd.

 

[copkiller]

lets just say two physically and sociologically identical women are going for a job. lets make them sisters, identical twins, the sort who dress, speak and think the same because they have never been seperated through their childhood. they did all the same uni courses, but one passed with distinction. lets say the sister with the higher marks just got married.

is it right to take on the sister with less qualifications just because she isn't married? what if the other's husband only worked a few fixed hours a day and took care of all the cooking and cleaning so she could focus on her career? her sister does not have the advantage of someone she can depend on but here's an employer thinking she's not purely career focused and she's likely to consider starting a family soon.

it's not fair, especially to allow this on the basis of dark age beliefs that discriminate against anyone who isn't white, male and young. in order to remove the last pockets of mysogeny and racism in society, these groups (eg. religions and sports) need to be pushed to reject these views, not given legal rights to apply them! this is appauling! what ever happened to separating the law and religion?!?!

The employers goal may not be purely profit maximization. Even if it is, it is not the state's job to intervene and tell people how to run a business.

The employer may simply prefer unmarried women, or whites, or blacks, or whatever. Sure it may seem irrational to us, but it is their choice. The employer is purchasing an employee's time with their own money, and inviting them to work of their own property, what right does anyone have to intervene and to tell him on what grounds he can chose an employee?

 

[John McCain]

If applied universally, this is okay policy, but it raises some questions about why the churches, and the churches alone, are receiving exemption from discrimination.

Why?

The government increasing their accommodation to religious lobbyists is bad news.

 

[khorne]

The point isn't about who the employer wants or not...There is no doubt that the employer should choose who is most suitible for the job, but no one should be judged, or discriminated, based on things they cannot change, such as gender, sexuality, race, creed. It not only contravenes basic human rights, which we all take for granted, but it raises serious issues in a fair and balanced world.

Lets use other examples:

How would you like it if a bus opperator, given that it's HIS bus, said...Oh, you can't ride it because you're a women, and my driver will be distracted?

What about a shop owner, or cinema opperator? Why should they be allowed to refuse people entry on those grounds?

It makes little sense to discriminate in the workforce, and for that matter, anywhere in life. Should women still be expected to work at home, just because they are women. Come on people, move out of the dark ages...

I leave you with a quote, from the UN special Representative on Business and Human Rights:

Corporations have a responsibility to respect human rights – they must not only ensure compliance with national laws, but also manage risks of human rights harms with a view to avoiding them.

 

[Sprangler]

But gays are are evil and they will bring the devil into the church.

 

[khorne]

But gays are are evil and they will bring the devil into the church.

Obviously...I bet the church would much rather fiddle some kids instead. :rofl:

 

[Cookie182]

Good news. Now we just need all employers to be granted this same right.

It would be awsome if you fucked off.

 

[xeuyrawp]

lets just say two physically and sociologically identical women are going for a job. lets make them sisters, identical twins, the sort who dress, speak and think the same because they have never been seperated through their childhood. they did all the same uni courses, but one passed with distinction. lets say the sister with the higher marks just got married.

is it right to take on the sister with less qualifications just because she isn't married? what if the other's husband only worked a few fixed hours a day and took care of all the cooking and cleaning so she could focus on her career? her sister does not have the advantage of someone she can depend on but here's an employer thinking she's not purely career focused and she's likely to consider starting a family soon.

it's not fair, especially to allow this on the basis of dark age beliefs that discriminate against anyone who isn't white, male and young. in order to remove the last pockets of mysogeny and racism in society, these groups (eg. religions and sports) need to be pushed to reject these views, not given legal rights to apply them! this is appauling! what ever happened to separating the law and religion?!?!

What the fuck are you going on about? Your analogy is contrived and vague, to be honest.

I would hire whichever one I wanted to.

 

[SylviaB]

Churches that make millions like Hillsong don't pay a single cent in taxes, and are now exempt from restrictions like this that taxed companies are faced with.

Fuck that shit right outta here.

it's not fair, especially to allow this on the basis of dark age beliefs that discriminate against anyone who isn't white, male and young. in order to remove the last pockets of mysogeny and racism in society, these groups (eg. religions and sports) need to be pushed to reject these views, not given legal rights to apply them! this is appauling! what ever happened to separating the law and religion?!?!

Companies should have the RIGHT to discriminate, to hire whoever the hell they want, and to not have the government tell them how to run their business.

 

[russs]

Churches that make millions like Hillsong don't pay a single cent in taxes, and are now exempt from restrictions like this that taxed companies are faced with.

Fuck that shit right outta here.





Companies should have the RIGHT to discriminate, to hire whoever the hell they want, and to not have the government tell them how to run their business.

I agree.

I'd really like to see Hillsong's real finance documents. They have a non-exempt public company under their name as well as a non-profit incorporated association. It would be really interesting to see how they move their money around.

And, they can sue your ass off for defamation if you claim Hillsong is corrupt in public since they have a non-profit body.

I feel sick when I think of all the uni students who donate countless hours to do their filming and other crap of free.

 

[Cookie182]

Churches that make millions like Hillsong don't pay a single cent in taxes, and are now exempt from restrictions like this that taxed companies are faced with.

Fuck that shit right outta here.





Companies should have the RIGHT to discriminate, to hire whoever the hell they want, and to not have the government tell them how to run their business.

Why the neg rep?

CopKiller is a fundie who wishes that ALL Aussie companies could discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation when it comes to employment- that shit is fucked up.