Do you think a religious person should have the right to not hire atheists based on their religion?

[Padawanbater2]

Do you think a religious person should have the right to not hire atheists based on their religion?

1. Yes, they should have the right to hire who they want for whatever reason they want, regardless of race, color, religion, sex or nation of origin

2. No, they shouldn't be able to deny equal employment opportunities based on race, color, religion, sex or nation of origin

Why/why not?

Do you believe this law has to do with religious freedom or civil rights?

If you believe it has to do with religious freedom, where do you draw the line? What if your religion says X, Y or Z? Do we grant people the right to perform whatever X, Y and Z are just because it's their religion? What if X is rape, Y is murder, and Z is theft? At what point do the rights of other citizens supercede the rights of those who are religious?

 

[Alienwidow]

I think you should be able to hire people you want. And if i didnt want a short one armed jewish black woman with no teeth, working in my building and im the boss i think thats anyones right to hire who they want, for good reason or not. My 2 cents.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I think you should be able to hire people you want. And if i didnt want a short one armed jewish black woman with no teeth, working in my building and im the boss i think thats anyones right to hire who they want, for good reason or not. My 2 cents.

Do you think if a guy doesn't like Asians for whatever reason he should legally be able to not hire Asians if he doesn't want to? Do you believe that should be his right anyway, or only if it's against his religious beliefs?

 

[Alienwidow]

Do you think if a guy doesn't like Asians for whatever reason he should legally be able to not hire Asians if he doesn't want to? Do you believe that should be his right anyway, or only if it's against his religious beliefs?

Ya, thats just me. Ethnicity, religion, gender, whatever. I dont personally think that you should have to divulge your religion in a job interview but theres some religions that just dont get along....ya know what i mean?

 

[Padawanbater2]

theres some religions that just dont get along....ya know what i mean?

Yeah, that's exactly the reason I think civil rights are so important. I mean, what if somebody's religion says they can't associate with men? That would ostracize 50% of the population, right? Do you think there should be "female only" institutions just because some people think it's wrong to associate with men?

If you do, by what standard do you set the laws? Things people can't change, right? Skin color, race, religion, gender, etc.. It would be wrong to be superficially prejudiced against someone simply for having blue eyes, right? We can't deny someone equal protection of the sale of goods/services based on the color of their eyes, right?

 

[reddan1981]

I prejudice against white men, they lazy and complain too much. That's why so many of them are currently out of work in the UK.

 

[Alienwidow]

Yeah, that's exactly the reason I think civil rights are so important. I mean, what if somebody's religion says they can't associate with men? That would ostracize 50% of the population, right? Do you think there should be "female only" institutions just because some people think it's wrong to associate with men?

If you do, by what standard do you set the laws? Things people can't change, right? Skin color, race, religion, gender, etc.. It would be wrong to be superficially prejudiced against someone simply for having blue eyes, right? We can't deny someone equal protection of the sale of goods/services based on the color of their eyes, right?

Well were not in a country where women and men have specific roles and laws governing their association. Some contries do but were safe in that regard. The way i see it as someone whos hired and fired numerous employees is that some workers are better than others at specific roles in the company. I prefer to hire men because in my experience they can handle the stress and pressure better than women in my field. Ive hired mexican workers on many occasions and been let down by all but one. I have never discriminated against an individual because of religion, i actually find stronly religious people to have better work ethic than non religious.
Personally id rather hire whoever id feel like without having to worry about what anyone thinks. If my business hired predominantly black males and some one from the christian identity (a strongly racist religion) walked in and wanted a job i would have to tell him no. Sometimes people just dont work well together and you know there will be issues. Red neck catholics and muslims... Probably not going to flow smoothly right?

 

[Padawanbater2]

Well were not in a country where women and men have specific roles and laws governing their association. Some contries do but were safe in that regard. The way i see it as someone whos hired and fired numerous employees is that some workers are better than others at specific roles in the company. I prefer to hire men because in my experience they can handle the stress and pressure better than women in my field. Ive hired mexican workers on many occasions and been let down by all but one. I have never discriminated against an individual because of religion, i actually find stronly religious people to have better work ethic than non religious.
Personally id rather hire whoever id feel like without having to worry about what anyone thinks. If my business hired predominantly black males and some one from the christian identity (a strongly racist religion) walked in and wanted a job i would have to tell him no. Sometimes people just dont work well together and you know there will be issues. Red neck catholics and muslims... Probably not going to flow smoothly right?

OK, so I think now you're talking about two different things; who you would rather hire based on your personal preferences and what should and shouldn't be legal. I'm with you on who you would like to hire over who you wouldn't and why, but I think where we might disagree is the basis on which you should legally be allowed to make that decision. Like I said before, if there was some guy out there who thought for whatever reasons people with blue eyes were less hardworking than those without, would that be a legitimate reason to deny someone equal employment opportunities? What if it was based on birthday? Birth location? Hair color? Height/weight? ... Hopefully you see where I'm getting at..

My question to you is, where do we draw the line between "religious rights" and civil rights? Do LGBT people deserve equal protection under the law? If so, should religious folk who own private businesses be required, by law, to serve people, regardless of the nature of their business?

 

[Alienwidow]

Oops, i didnt notice this wasnt in the philosophy/spirituallity section, i figured you jist wanted opinions. Politics usually just ends up in an argument over whos doing what and whos party is robbing and stealing more. Sorry padawan. Ttyl

 

[Padawanbater2]

Oops, i didnt notice this wasnt in the philosophy/spirituallity section, i figured you jist wanted opinions. Politics usually just ends up in an argument over whos doing what and whos party is robbing and stealing more. Sorry padawan. Ttyl

Hey, fair enough, you're probably right, I might have put this in the wrong section since I'd enjoy some discussion about it. I can't say I respect your position, but I do respect your opinion

 

[Alienwidow]

Hey, fair enough, you're probably right, I might have put this in the wrong section since I'd enjoy some discussion about it. I can't say I respect your position, but I do respect your opinion

Now that i notice the title, wouldnt it be the right to not hire athiests based on their "lack" of religion?

 

[Padawanbater2]

Now that i notice the title, wouldnt it be the right to not hire athiests based on their "lack" of religion?

Yeah, some people actually think so, but the first amendment guarantees equal protection under the law of religion as well as from religion. So you're allowed to believe in whatever god/s you want as well as none at all. Both parties enjoy equal protection and the government isn't allowed to step in and say "X is better than Y" or "you should believe X instead of Y" or etc..

First secular nation ever, a fantastic accomplishment!

 

[TheHermit]

I am pretty sure it is illegal to ask questions about religion in an interview. That would violate the Civil Rights Act. With that being said, people are going to hire whoever they want to. A smart businessman is going to hire the most qualified person.

 

[schuylaar]

I think you should be able to hire people you want. And if i didnt want a short one armed jewish black woman with no teeth, working in my building and im the boss i think thats anyones right to hire who they want, for good reason or not. My 2 cents.

as long as she was qualified, with reasonable accommodation..you're breaking the law (fine) and she could bring suit against your company.

it could be argued that she would need dentures for the position.

 

[Rob Roy]

Do you think if a guy doesn't like Asians for whatever reason he should legally be able to not hire Asians if he doesn't want to? Do you believe that should be his right anyway, or only if it's against his religious beliefs?

Interesting you would bring "Asians" up.


The Supreme Court backed the racist President, FDR,when he incarcerated Americans (Japanese descent) during world war II for the supposed "crime" of their ancestry. He stole their property and fucked them over good and hard. Nice guy huh?

The Supremes said government had a compelling interest to ignore the rights of those individuals etc. when they were taken to court by a person that got fucked over.

Korematus v USA

The problem with that decision is, like many of them when government covers its own ass, is it condoned an act of aggression as acceptable when the government does it.

Then less than two decades , the Feds under the guise of "civil rights" again violated the rights of the individual via forcing people to interact under threat of punishment. Except they sold it as "protecting a right". Which is erroneous.

It's not an act of aggression to "not associate" with somebody, which the government has tried to turn the civil rights issue into.
It is an act of aggression when government uses force to deprive people of their property and their liberty.

The feds have no right to seize property of people in either instance. They have no right to compell people to associate, that is up to the parties involved.

 

[Rob Roy]

Yeah, that's exactly the reason I think civil rights are so important. I mean, what if somebody's religion says they can't associate with men? That would ostracize 50% of the population, right? Do you think there should be "female only" institutions just because some people think it's wrong to associate with men?

If you do, by what standard do you set the laws? Things people can't change, right? Skin color, race, religion, gender, etc.. It would be wrong to be superficially prejudiced against someone simply for having blue eyes, right? We can't deny someone equal protection of the sale of goods/services based on the color of their eyes, right?

You can't grant a person a right to something you don't own. When you do that, the rightful owner has been removed, forcibly.

When you use force to solve a problem, its like fixing the clog in the sink, by using a sledge hammer. The clog is gone, but now the sink is fucked. There are better ways to solve problems.

 

[spandy]

Weird, everyone of my employees is Christian.

Sue me? Good luck.

Should it be a "right" to discriminate? Label it and attempt to regulate it all you want, its gonna happen either way.


I wanted a specific atmosphere within the walls of my business. Not just good workers, but good workers that shared common interests. I feel my crew meshes better because they all have the same religion. This stage was set so they could whistle while they worked, all fucking day, without a single naysayer telling them to stop.

 

[NoDrama]

Is this another witch hunt thread?

 

[UncleBuck]

the Feds under the guise of "civil rights" again violated the rights of the individual via forcing people to interact under threat of punishment.

so did they force people to make their stores public stores instead of private stores?

 

[UncleBuck]

Is this another witch hunt thread?

no, i think the point is to out the bigots like you who feel you should be allowed to deny goods and services to blacks and gays because they are black or gay.