Isn't this illegal?

[minorwork]

The government should not interfere in any voluntary contracts made by individuals over anything, including employment, marriage, etc.

Your worship of arbitrary laws is disturbing. If a law told you to jump off a bridge, would you do it?

Depends on whether it would be considered a felony not to, and who my cell mate might be.

 

[Beerina]

Does it thought? Were in the first amendment does it prevent from jobplace discrimination for your religion? It does not cover free speech at work. Just tell your boss what you really think of them.

You have freedom of speech at work. You can tell your boss he's an ass and he sucks as a boss and he should be fired for the good of humanity.

And it's his right to fire you for that.

Free Speech is about preventing the government from silencing you. It does not prevent other free people from deciding to not associate with you.

That's what freedom is all about -- freedom to speak, or to not deal with people who say things you don't like. Freedom of assembly, and so on.

It's wrong for government to designate religion as a quaint lifestyle choice that has no real meaning. For people who believe, this is at the core of reality, not government. They (a religious organization that's hiring) don't want to hire person X because they're not of the same religion.

I'm fine with that. Historically, this is a minor issue compared to allowing government to interfere with religion.



I know everybody's off on a rant about this issue, but get real people!

 

[Cleon]

Your worship

No.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well, we can make sure that religion or lack thereof can never be considered, regardless of the organization or mission. Then of course, we can look forward to all of the fundamentalists applying for the JREF and tying up the organization for years in litigation for either failing to hire them or for firing them later -- regardless of the real reason.

Hard to make a true comparison. If JREF refused to hire anyone but atheist I think it should be sued. The problem is what job is the fundamentalist applying for anyway?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Amish trying to get hired by Microsoft etc. etc.

Or worse a Mac User.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You have freedom of speech at work. You can tell your boss he's an ass and he sucks as a boss and he should be fired for the good of humanity.

And it's his right to fire you for that.

Free Speech is about preventing the government from silencing you. It does not prevent other free people from deciding to not associate with you.

That's what freedom is all about -- freedom to speak, or to not deal with people who say things you don't like. Freedom of assembly, and so on.

It's wrong for government to designate religion as a quaint lifestyle choice that has no real meaning. For people who believe, this is at the core of reality, not government. They (a religious organization that's hiring) don't want to hire person X because they're not of the same religion.

I'm fine with that. Historically, this is a minor issue compared to allowing government to interfere with religion.

So you are officialy for people being always able to discriminate on religious grounds. You want to remove the laws that make that illegal.

 

[bpesta22]

Or worse a Mac User.

lol

Isn't mac user a religion too though?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

So you are officialy for people being always able to discriminate on religious grounds. You want to remove the laws that make that illegal.

Straw men don't stand up well in serious discussions concerning the 1st amendment and EEOC. I understand your hatred of Christianity makes AiG's hiring practices intollerable for you but, they apply to to a number of other organizations as we've noted earlier in the thread. Whenever you get upset because the Cato Institute wouldn't hire a socialist we might take your umbrage about discrimination seriously even if it doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.

 

[Darth Rotor]

USA

Interesting.

I learned only this year that the civil rights act specifically excludes communists from protection under this law. So, it's perfectly ok to fire or not hire a commie.

You say this like it's a bad thing.

(Quick note: Ever heard of a single party system called communism? Is that consistent with our form of government? )

DR

 

[ponderingturtle]

Straw men don't stand up well in serious discussions concerning the 1st amendment and EEOC. I understand your hatred of Christianity makes AiG's hiring practices intollerable for you but, they apply to to a number of other organizations as we've noted earlier in the thread. Whenever you get upset because the Cato Institute wouldn't hire a socialist we might take your umbrage about discrimination seriously even if it doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.

So all any employer needs to do is say that they are religious enough to not trust any non member of their religion and they get an out for any discrimination issue.

If the Cato Institute refused to hire socialists to work in say its accounting department, or other janitorial I would be up in arms too.

You want people to screen all their employees based on their prejudices regardless of how it effects their job.

 

[JetLeg]

It seems to me that this has the significant implication that the Creation Museum can't, therefore, claim to be serving a scientific purpose, but must admit to being primarily a religious body. Since the post being advertised involves booking tours of the museum, there's also an implicit an admission that these tours are not for the purposes of scientific education. Maybe it would be worth making that implication more widely known.

Dave

But does the creation museum admit to being a religious body?


(BTW : Even if the creation museum can't discriminate atheists, it can discriminate people that do not agree with creationism, I think... Or people that will not tell the visitors that creationism is true)

 

[KingMerv00]

So all any employer needs to do is say that they are religious enough to not trust any non member of their religion and they get an out for any discrimination issue.

That's not how Title VII works. An employer may discriminate against a specific religion if religion is a bone fide requirement of the job. The definition of "bone fide requirement" is up to the court not the employer. That means it doesn't matter if the employer declares the janitoral position to be religious because the court will simply overrule them.

 

[Dave Rogers]

But does the creation museum admit to being a religious body?

Its website appears to portray it as being a resource to be used in the teaching of history, and doesn't appear to be portraying it as a religious institution. I suspect it's a question the people in charge of it take care to avoid answering.

Dave

 

[ponderingturtle]

That's not how Title VII works. An employer may discriminate against a specific religion if religion is a bone fide requirement of the job. The definition of "bone fide requirement" is up to the court not the employer. That means it doesn't matter if the employer declares the janitoral position to be religious because the court will simply overrule them.

That was my understanding of it, but it seemed to be that people were saying that any job for a religious institution was open to discrimination.

 

[JetLeg]

So all any employer needs to do is say that they are religious enough to not trust any non member of their religion and they get an out for any discrimination issue.

If the Cato Institute refused to hire socialists to work in say its accounting department, or other janitorial I would be up in arms too.

You want people to screen all their employees based on their prejudices regardless of how it effects their job.

Do you think that an organization is not to allowed to discriminate people on behalf of their beliefs, when their job has to do directly with their beliefs?

Could a church discriminate against atheists, for the position of a priest?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Do you think that an organization is not to allowed to discriminate people on behalf of their beliefs, when their job has to do directly with their beliefs?

Could a church discriminate against atheists, for the position of a priest?

Were did I say that. The thing is that many people here had been saying that organizations have the right to discriminate equaly for any position. I am OK with the requriement for the priest to be a church member, I am ok with the idea that tour guides need to explain things as the church musuem sees them, but in both cases I am not ok with them refusing to higher an accountant because the accountant is an atheist.

 

[JetLeg]

Were did I say that. The thing is that many people here had been saying that organizations have the right to discriminate equaly for any position. I am OK with the requriement for the priest to be a church member, I am ok with the idea that tour guides need to explain things as the church musuem sees them, but in both cases I am not ok with them refusing to higher an accountant because the accountant is an atheist.

Ok. Understood.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

That's not how Title VII works. An employer may discriminate against a specific religion if religion is a bone fide requirement of the job. The definition of "bone fide requirement" is up to the court not the employer. That means it doesn't matter if the employer declares the janitoral position to be religious because the court will simply overrule them.

That's not what the religious exemptions say.

2. Are there any exceptions to who is covered by Title VII’s religion provisions?

Yes. While Title VII’s jurisdictional rules apply to all religious discrimination claims under the statute, see EEOC Compliance Manual, “Threshold Issues,” http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/threshold.html, specially-defined “religious organizations” and “religious educational institutions” are exempt from certain religious discrimination provisions, and a “ministerial exception” bars Title VII claims by employees who serve in clergy roles.

Religious Organization Exception: Under Title VII, religious organizations are permitted to give employment preference to members of their own religion. The exception applies only to those institutions whose “purpose and character are primarily religious.” Factors to consider that would indicate whether an entity is religious include: whether its articles of incorporation state a religious purpose; whether its day-to-day operations are religious (e.g., are the services the entity performs, the product it produces, or the educational curriculum it provides directed toward propagation of the religion?); whether it is not-for-profit; and whether it affiliated with, or supported by, a church or other religious organization.

This exception is not limited to religious activities of the organization. However, it only allows religious organizations to prefer to employ individuals who share their religion. The exception does not allow religious organizations otherwise to discriminate in employment on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability. Thus, a religious organization is not permitted to engage in racially discriminatory hiring by asserting that a tenet of its religious beliefs is not associating with people of other races.

Its website appears to portray it as being a resource to be used in the teaching of history, and doesn't appear to be portraying it as a religious institution. I suspect it's a question the people in charge of it take care to avoid answering.

I think the "prepare to believe", the "bible comes alive at the creation museum" and links to AiG make it quite clear that the museum considers itself a ministry.

That was my understanding of it, but it seemed to be that people were saying that any job for a religious institution was open to discrimination.

You're misunderstanding and as you can see by the quote from the EEOC above, they are.

 

[KingMerv00]

That's not what the religious exemptions say.

The issue is actually rather tricky. The courts are fairly divided.

From a Westlaw search:

The exemption provided in 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-1 for religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, and societies has been widely criticized in the courts. For example, one court said that the exemption "is a remarkably clumsy accommodation of religious freedom with the compelling interests of the state, providing on the one hand far too broad a shield for the secular activities of religiously affiliated entities with not the remotest claim to First Amendment protection while on the other hand permitting intrusions into wholly religious functions. The exemption covers only religious discrimination and is intended to suffice for a wide range of diverse religious entities from church supported hospitals, publishers of religious literature, and religiously affiliated colleges to the churches themselves, their seminaries and auxiliaries. It makes no accommodation for the entanglement that may result from the mere inquiry into the employment practices of an institution that comprises the very heart of religious propagation."

I did some quick looking on Westlaw to see if I can find a SCOTUS case that matches the hypothetical janitor case but don't have anything close enough yet. You might be right, we'll see.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

The issue is actually rather tricky. The courts are fairly divided.

Agreed (and with what I snipped). The EEOC exemption stands, but I'd be interested to see if there have been an lower court rulings (I'm pretty sure I'd have heard about a SCotUS case) and if any of them are tracked to go before the Supremes for review.