Churches allowed to discriminate (1 Viewer)

[khorne]

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.

It's only so he stands a chance to actually get a job...

 

[murphyad]

It's only so he stands a chance to actually get a job...

Yeah I agree it's a very reactionary position.

Of course discrimination laws are a good thing. But to our Libertarian friends, they're just an 'initiation of force' against the 'liberty' of the individual's right to discriminate against others. So yes, a black person drinking from the whites-only water fountain would presumably be "initiation of force", allowing 'retaliation of force' to eject the malefactor.
That's "rights" according to Libertarianism. Whites-only lunch counters, "No Jews or dogs" hotels, "we don't serve your kind here", "No Irish need apply", "This is man's job", etc. All this is a "right of association" in Libertarian theology.

I hate to turn this thread into another lib debate but there is no need for such blatant ideological rambling here.

 

[Teclis]

A businessman/woman isn't going to hire someone who disagrees with them on a fundamental level. That would be like a charity employing someone who believes we shouldn't help the poor people and that it's their own fault for being poor.

The Bible is quite clear that PRACTICING homosexuality (not being one) is a sin (just as is sex outside of marriage). It's not single women It's single Mothers... although that happens to be something that I think particularly the High Church need to get off their High Horses about.

I think, particularly the Church I'm involved in, and quite a few of the Bible based reformation churches (glares at Iron) would employ a homosexual or a single mother, as long as both agreed to be held accountable and not continue to practice sex outside of marriage.

 

[Iron]

Teclis, your clawing rambles are boosting my credibility to alarming levels
Dont stop babby
or do, whatever

 

[jb_nc]

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.

counterpoint: fuck churches (esp the catholic one)

 

[MissGiggles]

just an open question to everyone out there posting religous views in this thread: would you find this acceptable if i did this based on my own religion, where i claimed myself as a godess who came from a supernatural dimension to redeem the human race? if you're thinking no: well then leave religion out of the workplace! if you're thinking yes (unlikely): you're an idiot! i would be brainwashing you!

yes employers have the right to discriminate in order to find the most suitable person for the job and consider financial costs if qualifications are the same. but nobody's the same. the issues here that should have died in the dark ages are homophobia, racism, mysogeny....the list goes on discriminating against groups. we should not be judged for our actions (as long as they're legal...homosexuality is not a crime!), our lifestyles or our religious beliefs by our employers. they do not affect our ability to work or the quality of our work.

 

[mcflystargirl]

last time i checked the church could always refuse to hire homosexuals and non christians or anyone that lives a lifestyle that is not that of a christian if i am wrong they should be allowed to.

 

[jb_nc]

last time i checked the church could always refuse to hire homosexuals and non christians or anyone that lives a lifestyle that is not that of a christian if i am wrong they should be allowed to.

last time i checked was the last time i checked

 

[SylviaB]

Of course discrimination laws are a good thing. But to our Libertarian friends, they're just an 'initiation of force' against the 'liberty' of the individual's right to discriminate against others. So yes, a black person drinking from the whites-only water fountain would presumably be "initiation of force", allowing 'retaliation of force' to eject the malefactor.
That's "rights" according to Libertarianism. Whites-only lunch counters, "No Jews or dogs" hotels, "we don't serve your kind here", "No Irish need apply", "This is man's job", etc. All this is a "right of association" in Libertarian theology.

If it's a private place, then why shouldn't I be able to discriminate against whomever I choose to? It's my place, and it's my loss if I miss out on their business.

If people really have such a HUGE problem with it, they should boycott my business and let the market sort things out.
What shouldn't happen is the government telling people how to run their own businesses, unless they are encroaching on the freedoms of outhers.
People, however, do not have the right to be served etc at any private business that they choose to visit, thus no freedoms are encroahced and so business should be allowed to deny them their service.

A businessman/woman isn't going to hire someone who disagrees with them on a fundamental level. That would be like a charity employing someone who believes we shouldn't help the poor people and that it's their own fault for being poor.

Yeah the problem isn't that chruches shouldn't be allowed to disciminate, it's that this right should be extended to EVERYONE.

 

[murphyad]

If it's a private place, then why shouldn't I be able to discriminate against whomever I choose to? It's my place, and it's my loss if I miss out on their business.

Ah yes, because you have some sacred claim to whatever it is that you hold to be your property. Tell me, who exactly is it that recognises property rights in this country? Uh, the government.........
And stop with the 'economic man' rubbish. People aren't necessarily rationally motivated by monetary concerns in determining who should be allowed to purchase from their store. There may be more irrational concerns at heart, such as superstition or whatever, that undermine the argument that proprietors will refrain from discriminating on purely economic grounds.
Equality of access to goods and services is a fairly basic human right and only a complete narcissist would suppose that simply because they hate Jews, and because it's their land (despite the fact that this land title is legitimised by the government), they therefore have the right to oppose it.

If people really have such a HUGE problem with it, they should boycott my business and let the market sort things out.

The issue doesn't concern direct democracy, even in the form of consumer activism. It's concerned with affirmative action for minorities or whoever who suffer discrimination at the hands of a patronising majority. If the majority of the population are racists, does that make racism 'correct' from a humanitarian perspective? No, it only makes it popular. The Holy Market cannot handle an externality such as affirmative action on minority discrimination if that is not the prevailing consensus amongst the marketplace and thus cannot be solely relied upon to produce ethically 'correct' decisions.

In short, your attitude is insular and totally lacking in empathy. I doubt you have ever experienced any form of discrimination yourself or understand the feelings of those who do, or else you would realise that efforts to remove this discrimination are not motivated by the economically rationalist factors you espouse.

 

[SylviaB]

Ah yes, because you have some sacred claim to whatever it is that you hold to be your property. Tell me, who exactly is it that recognises property rights in this country? Uh, the government.........

So?

Rights are things that the government can't stop you from doing, not privileges granted to you by them.

And stop with the 'economic man' rubbish. People aren't necessarily rationally motivated by monetary concerns in determining who should be allowed to purchase from their store.

Um, the whole point is that they're running a business, which relies on profit to survive.
If they are motivated by anything other than profit, then they're not going to making money and so their business will fail.
If the company doesn't respond to boycotting by changing their policies, then they will lose business, and they will lose money and will not be able to remain operating.
Let the market sort things out, not bullshit laws.

Equality of access to goods and services is a fairly basic human right

No it's not. That's ridiculous. Where are you pulling this nonsense from.

A basic right should be not being forced by the government to run my business in a certain way.

and only a complete narcissist would suppose that simply because they hate Jews, and because it's their land (despite the fact that this title deed is granted by the government), they therefore have the right to oppose it.

What are you, a fucking communist?

I pay for my land, the government doesn't give it to me, so I should have the right to use it however the hell I want, provided I'm not infringing upon the rights of others.

Purchasing goods and services from any business you want to is not a right.



It's concerned with affirmative action for minorities or whoever who suffer discrimination at the hands of a patronising majority. If the majority of the population are racists, does that make racism 'correct' from a humanitarian perspective?

The racism doesn't matter as long as the people are ahving their rights taken away.

And because you're such a goddamned imbecile, let me repeat:

Purchasing goods and services from any business you want to is not a right.

In short, your attitude is insular and totally lacking in empathy. I doubt you have ever experienced any form of discrimination yourself or understand the feelings of those who do, or else you would realise that efforts to remove this discrimination are not motivated by the economically rationalist factors you espouse.

It is not the government's job to protect people from being sad.
it IS, however, their job to protect people's rights.

-Purchasing good and services at any business you choose is not a right.

-being able to run your own business on your own property anyway you like IS a right, and yet the government is taking it away instead of protecting it like they're meant to.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

I hate to turn this thread into another lib debate but there is no need for such blatant ideological rambling here.

The libertarian justification does get tiresome. But it is just as easy to justify the right to discriminate on practical grounds:

Anti-Discrimination laws will only be passed in a society where the majority of people do not believe that discrimination on the basis of things like gender, race and sexuality makes sense.

If the majority of people oppose such discrimination, businesses will be forced to cater to such preferences anyway, irrespective of these pointless laws. A business that refused to serve gays would most likely go bankrupt, because it would loose the patronage of gays, as well as a great many people who would find the idea of discriminating on such grounds utterly ridiculous and offensive.

The added advantage is that a lack of anti-discrimination laws creates an opportunity for racists, sexists, homophobes ect who are stupid enough to openly discriminate to be publicly exposed.

Under the current system, employers can easily discriminate anyway. For instance, an employer who hates blacks could easily find plausible reasons not to hire any black people. However, if the employer could simply advertise "blacks need not apply," black people would actually benefit as they would not waste time applying for a job working for a bigot who has no intention of hiring them anyway.

 

[murphyad]

Um, the whole point is that they're running a business, which relies on profit to survive.
If they are motivated by anything other than profit, then they're not going to making money and so their business will fail.
If the company doesn't respond to boycotting by changing their policies, then they will lose business, and they will lose money and will not be able to remain operating.
Let the market sort things out, not bullshit laws.

Yes of course the profit motive plays a role in business ownership, but it is not the sole motivator of business activity. It's not as though people are motivated only by money or only by an irrational hatred of certain ethnicities. They could be motivated by both. This is patently the case as we can deduce from past experience (segregation, anyone?). And who says that such businesses will actually be boycotted? It's not as though all the 'whites-only' milkbars went out of business because of their socially divisive policies. If there is not enough collective social impetus for change in the market system, then that change will not be realised. The market solutions you trumpet sound simple (which is clearly why they appeal to you) but are out of step with what is happening in the real world.

No it's not. That's ridiculous. Where are you pulling this nonsense from.

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION ACT 1977 - SECT 19 Provision of goods and services

Basically, it's a legal right (in this country), if not a 'basic human right'. However, the fault is mine only in that such a definition does not exist, and I will be more careful in referring to law as the basis for modern human rights from now on. In this country, the right to be free of discrimination when purchasing goods or services is conferred directly through the state. Although the excerpt refers only to racial discrimination, there are other legal rights pertaining to, for example, the right to ownership of real property regardless of age.

-being able to run your own business on your own property anyway you like IS a right,

Is it really? I think it's just that you personally believe that:

A basic right should be not being forced by the government to run my business in a certain way.

Basically, there is no such right, natural nor legal, and the only 'merit' that I could attribute to this so-called 'right' is that it reflects your dogmatic adherence to libertarian principles; at least you've got the content right.

What are you, a fucking communist?

Personal attack or straw man? - I'm struggling to decide between them. I simply acknowledge the role of the government in practically legitimising property rights, because the government is the facilitator of property ownership in this country and others. Obviously you do not receive your little bundle of land straight from the gvt, but it does provide the legal framework in which property claims can be legitimised.

I pay for my land, the government doesn't give it to me, so I should have the right to use it however the hell I want, provided I'm not infringing upon the rights of others.

Or the laws of the government pertaining to the issue, seeing as they are the ultimate authority in whether or not you are entitled to own private property.
Also, seeing as you have already established yourself as a supremely self-interested member of society, I will disregard the bevy of moral and ethical issues arising from the potential (in your case, definite) application of a limited definition of 'rights' that is, in the case of libertarianism, inherently paradoxical, and which you have ignored by virtue of your being an arrogant fuckwit.

See, personal attacks aren't that hard.

 

[SylviaB]

If the majority of people oppose such discrimination, businesses will be forced to cater to such preferences anyway, irrespective of these pointless laws. A business that refused to serve gays would most likely go bankrupt, because it would loose the patronage of gays, as well as a great many people who would find the idea of discriminating on such grounds utterly ridiculous and offensive.

yeah don't bother he doesn't believe in logic, I've tried.

 

[murphyad]

Anti-Discrimination laws will only be passed in a society where the majority of people do not believe that discrimination on the basis of things like gender, race and sexuality makes sense.

Laws reflect the prevailing culture of the time but also influence the mindsets of proceeding generations. Basically the law enshrines certain cultural values that have developed over time. If such laws were to be repealed, the prevailing national culture may then begin to readjust. Who is to say that a majority attitude against discrimination would remain if anti-discrimination laws were repealed? Also, in this context, the market does not act as a social force for change because of this exact concept of 'majority rule'. The market merely reflects consumer attitudes; it does not determine them.

The added advantage is that a lack of anti-discrimination laws creates an opportunity for racists, sexists, homophobes ect who are stupid enough to openly discriminate to be publicly exposed.

An advantage of anti-discrimination laws is that they create an opportunity for racists, sexists, homophobes ect who are stupid enough to openly discriminate to face appropriate punitive measures.

Under the current system, employers can easily discriminate anyway.

An argument for its reform, perhaps, but not for its complete abolition.

 

[Lentern]

yeah don't bother he doesn't believe in logic, I've tried.

I must have missed that episode.

 

[jennyfromdabloc]

Laws reflect the prevailing culture of the time but also influence the mindsets of proceeding generations. Basically the law enshrines certain cultural values that have developed over time. If such laws were to be repealed, the prevailing national culture may then begin to readjust. Who is to say that a majority attitude against discrimination would remain if anti-discrimination laws were repealed? Also, in this context, the market does not act as a social force for change because of this exact concept of 'majority rule'. The market merely reflects consumer attitudes; it does not determine them.

I see. So the prevailing attitudes of the time should be enshrined in law so that they continue to prevail in perpetuity?

Do you have any idea what this would do to destroy human progress? Can you imagine the sort of horrific laws we would still have today if this view was adopted?

I really don't think I can continue to talk to you anymore, you utter pillock.

 

[murphyad]

I see. So the prevailing attitudes of the time should be enshrined in law so that they continue to prevail in perpetuity?

No. Read the post again. If some value is regarded as being culturally outmoded, then offending law should be repealed. But while culture can influence law in this way, all I was saying was that law can also influence culture. Not that it necessarily should or shouldn't. No connotations involved as to what that culture or those laws might be.

 

[katie tully]

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.

After reading all subsequent posts which quoted this, I can really say that nobody got it, did they.

It's ok

 

[MissGiggles]

it is one of the jobs of the government to try and make our country as safe and accepting a place as possible for it's citizens (ie us). it's just like kindergarten: if you steal someone else's toy you get in trouble, and through that you learn you shouldn't take other people's property. the law is there for people who do not know what the right behaviour is.

most people who commit crimes do not have this desire to do the wrong thing. they have had little education and/or have been disadvantaged in their upbringing eg. poverty or child abuse. they have not been taught about their other options.

if you take this into consideration then it is perfectly acceptable for the government to force people within society not to discriminate, much like a kindergarten teacher. employers are doing the wrong thing if they discriminate for the wrong reasons and need to learn correct behaviour.

there should be no discrimination based on religious beliefs when we live in a shrinking interdependant global community. religious beliefs are still personal beliefs, not a community's beliefs. hey, Jesus didn't tell prostitues and thieves to bugger off, and yet they were going against his personal beliefs.