ARTelevision

Blair gives religious employers the right to sack gay workers
from Independent.co.uk
11 May 2003


Tony Blair was accused of caving in to evangelical Christians last night after it emerged that new government legislation will allow faith schools, churches, hospices and other religious employers to sack lesbian and gay staff.

Equal rights campaigners were furious when they discovered that regulations intended to combat discrimin- ation in the workplace contain wide-ranging exemptions for any employer "with an ethos based on religion or belief".

The Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement said that the move would institutionalise homophobia in a way that "makes Section 28 look like a tea party". Others claimed that the exemptions exposed the "dangerous" influence church groups have over the Prime Minister.

The 2003 Employment Equality Regulations were originally drafted by ministers with the aim of achieving a historic breakthrough in combating harassment and bias in the workplace on grounds of sexuality or religion.

Drawn up to comply with an EU directive on workers' rights, they were meant for the first time to give protection to Muslims and to gays. An employer found to discriminate when hiring, promoting, demoting or training staff would be in breach of the law.

But The Independent on Sunday has learned that the statutory instruments slipped out to Parliament last week were watered down following direct intervention by Downing Street. A Whitehall source said the decision was made "at the highest level" and that Barbara Roche, the equalities minister, had been overruled.

One key clause inserted into the regulations states that an exemption applies when an employer acts "so as to comply with the doctrines of the religion – or so as to avoid conflicting with the strongly held religious convictions of a significant number of the religion's followers".

The wording of the clause is almost identical to that submitted by the Church of England. The Archbishops' Council's submission, which was leaked to the IoS, states that an exemption should apply "to comply with the doctrines of the religion or avoid offending the religious susceptibilities of a significant number of its followers".

Other major changes to the original draft, allowing discrimination against atheists or others who do not share the religious beliefs of their employer, were made following strong lobbying from evangelical groups. One of the biggest loopholes allows an employer to dismiss or fail to hire an individual if he is "not satisfied" that they fit his own "ethos based on religion or belief".

Critics claim that this would allow firms such as Stagecoach, run by Scottish evangelist Brian Souter, or Vardy, the North-east car dealership owned by millionaire Christian Peter Vardy, to discriminate freely.

Evan Harris, the Liberal Democrats' equality spokesman, condemned the new regulations, pointing out that they would actually weaken current employment rights of gay men and lesbians by institutionalising in law justifications for discrimination.

"When faced with pressure from those who wish to continue to harass and discriminate against people on the basis of lawful private behaviour or their sexuality in circumstances where sexuality is patently irrelevant to their ability to do the job, the Government has simply caved in," he said.

Keith Porteous Wood of the National Secular Society said the regulations were a "witch-hunter's dream come true". "Organisations with a 'religious ethos' employ around 200,000 people, most of them in jobs paid for out of the public purse. This includes over 100,000 teaching posts in faith schools," he said. "The Government has given in to religious pressure at every stage of this process."

The Deputy Prime Minister's Office said that religious employers were a special case "as they bring diversity to public life and delivery of services".

"We listened very carefully to responses in the last consultation and on reflection we decided it was right in very limited circumstances that the Government wouldn't interfere in matters of religious doctrine or strongly held religious convictions," said a spokeswoman.

11 May 2003 11:59
...............................

What I have to say about this is not political.
If the responses go in that direction, it will be moved to the Tilted Politics Forum *Yawn*.

It's really about the never-ending subject of homophopia and discriminating against people. It's also about that darn thorn in the side of human socio-cultural evolution called "religion".

Anyway, have at it.
We'll see later where the discussion belongs...

__________________
create evolution

Cynthetiq

seems to be my word of the day...

ABSURD.

It's as absurd as people in the financial industry not wanting to hire me because I have long hair, yet I have more superior skills and experience than most of their IT employees.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

bullgoose

I've always felt that sexual orientation isn't a criteria for employment, friendship, or whatever other Human intercourse there is outside the realm of sexuality; who cares how someone approaches the closest way that two (or more) human beings can get?

__________________
"If I had it to do all over,
I'd do it all over you."

gibber71

Wow, maybe then the Catholic church can follow the same doctrine and sack pedophile priests.No pun intended.

BoCo

As a boss, you should have the right to hire/fire anyone that doesn't properly represent your business, especially if your business is religion-based.

__________________
Activism is a way for useless people to feel important.

Big Julie

"Love thy neighbor as thyself."

Provided, of course, that thy neighbor is exactly like thyself....

redravin40

It is no business of an employer who you sleep with, where you go to church or don't go to church, who your parents are, if you have a disbility, or what websites you visit, if you can do the job.

Treating people like they are less then human and deserving of respect for any of these reasons should not be protected by religious justifications.

sixate

I have to agree.

If I owned a business and I fired a drug addict nobody would have a problem with that even if they could do the job. My only reason for doing it would be I couldn't give a weed smokin hippie my money. It would be a moral desicion. I guess these damn christians are just doing the same thing. Is it wrong? To them it's not. I guess it's how you look at it. This is a reason I'm not a religious person because I think religion causes people to do fucked up shit.

BoCo

Would it make sense for a Christian bookstore to hire a goth chic?

__________________
Activism is a way for useless people to feel important.

The_Dude

WTF??

i'm not surprised that britain did this, after all they do have an official state religion.

bastards.

and i bet half of these people that discriminate receive government funding too (hmm we do that too dont we?)

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

Dragonlich

The_Dude, that official state religion has nothing to do with it. I wouldn't be surprised if this law will be struck down pretty damn soon. After all, the Brits just recently got themselves a human rights act, which this new law does not agree with. Also, if anyone is actually sacked because of this law, they can always go to the EU court, which will rule in their favour...

JStrider

whether someone is gay... does drugs... whatever... is their personal business... and as long as it doesnt interfere with their work it shouldnt matter...

and besides... even without stupid laws like that an employer could always find a reason thats not based on race or sexual orientation to let someone go

__________________
-=JStrider=-

~Clatto Verata Nicto

SecretMethod70

I'm with BoCo and Sixate on this one.

I may disagree with the reasoning behind firing/not hiring them, but if the business and/or organization has certain publicly declared values (a Christian bookstore or hospital for example)then they have a right to adhere to those values.

When those values are not policy and are not publicly declared however, they have no right to do such things.

__________________
Le temps détruit tout

"Musicians are the carriers and communicators of spirit in the most immediate sense." - Kurt Elling

Dorian_S

Count me in.

If you want the freedom to express yourself freely; to hold to whatever moral beliefs you choose; then you must respect the right for others to do so.

Think about the Constitution. A homophobe has full rights over his property; his business is his property, yes? He therefore can do whatever he damn well pleases with his business/church/what have you.

You have the right to condemn him publicly for his homophobia.

You have the right to boycott his business.

You have the right to hate him, because he has the right to hate you. You have no right to attempt to make his beliefs illegal, just as he has no right to make your sexual preference illegal.

-D.S.

Reese

I'm also in agreement with BoCo on this. You hire someone to best represent your company. A porn company doesn't hire ugly chicks(well some times), A director or writer doesn't get hired if his vision is different than the boss's vision. A catholic Church isn't likely to hire a baptist preacher.

Its sad that some gay people will lose jobs but its already happening elsewhere, It only gets debated when gays and religion are the subject.

Gertie

Think about the Constitution. A homophobe has full rights over his property; his business is his property, yes? He therefore can do whatever he damn well pleases with his business/church/what have you.


No he can't. He can't sell fully automatic weapons. He can't pay $1/day. He can't board up the fire exits. He can't throw his garbage out the window. Society imposes all kinds of restrictions and requirements on business. Wouldn't have to if everyone ran an ethical business. Doesn't happen that way. The modern era of business regulation was started by that stalwart Republican Teddy Roosevelt. So take whichever side you want in this debate but don't use the premise 'a man can do whatever he wants with his own business'. Those days are long gone. Like it or not.

Daval

I feel pretty much the same way.

__________________
"It is impossible to obtain a conviction for sodomy from an English jury. Half of them don't believe that it can physically be done, and the other half are doing it."
Winston Churchill

BoCo

WOOHOO! Damn straight, dude! If we want to be biggots, let us be biggots, god dammit! It's so sad that the Thought Police are becoming more and more a part of our society everyday. Let us have our opinions even if they go against what's considered the "cool" opinion to have nowadays.

I know a gay dude at work who I get along with fine--in fact, I built him a gay little computer with gay rainbow colored lights and fans. We talk about shit at work and get along without any problems at all. However, there's no way in hell I'd hang out with the dude in public because I wouldn't want to be associated with a flaming homosexual (which he is). I've told him this, and he has no problem with it because he understand where I'm coming from. But how long will it be before he's legally able to sue me if I don't want to hang out with him? The way things are going in this once great country (now being slowly destroyed through political correctness) I'm sure it won't be long.

__________________
Activism is a way for useless people to feel important.

Cynthetiq

hmmm.... some of you touting "think of the constitution..." Well did you read that this didn't happen in America? It happened in the UK.

The people in Britian aren't covered by the US Constitution.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

Prophecy

First let me say that I don't know for sure but I think the UK does have a separation of church and state law and although the UK doesn't have the constitution, it does have similar laws. That being said, I have to agree with BoCo, Sixate & SecretMethod70. For right or wrong, under certain situations an employer should have the right to hire people based on if a person can fit the image need for a certain position. Take the Goth girl for example. She wants to work a Christian store at the front counter, but she refuses to follow the dress code. She still wants to wear all black and keep her chains, necklaces, etc. Now, if I know before hand that she won't fit in because of her beliefs/ideals/behavior, than why should I be forced to hire her then fire when I could save myself and her the hassle of not having to even deal with the situation at all by not hiring her in the first place? Lastly, except for the hospices, all the organizations seem to fall under the umbrella of separation of church and state which can't be regulated by the government anyway.

Someone please tell me if I'm wrong. And Art sorry, but I don't see anyway to answer this without involving some sort of politics.

__________________
La Disciplina È La Mia Spada,
La Fede È Il Mio Schermo,
Non salti Ciecamente In Incertezza,
E Potete Raccogliere Le Ricompense.

ARTelevision

Dark_Prophecy, no problem.
I realize it's a politicalization of the core issues.
That's the problem.

__________________
create evolution

billege

The laws of Great Britain do not pay heed to the US constitution. That's good for them, I'm going to talk about why this is wrong. Plain and simple, speaking of simple, most of you have really oversimplified this problem to make your point. I ain't jumping on the discrimination nation bandwagon.


The implications of such a law are so vast, I can't believe no one has mentioned any of them. Example to follow:

BoCo, I don't like people who are in shape, so I will just <i>say</i> you don't worship the way I want you to, so forget it.

I don't like blacks, same thing.

I don't like women, same thing.

I hope you can see how easy this would be to manipulate. ANYONE who doesn't fit, I can discriminate against.

Granted, there are laws, and there is reality. Our laws, thankfully, prohibit this kind of hiring. Someone may do it anyway (reality) but if they are caught out they will be punished (law).
Once discrimination is given legal justification, there is no stopping it.

I am also surprised that on the same board that went nuts over the absurdity of a segregated prom, you accept the same thing on a different front. So much for consistency.

BoCo, I am disappointed at your "Would it make sense for a Christian bookstore to hire a Goth chic?" question. It's a really poor example for the point you are making.

Why should a Christian bookstore <b>assume</b> that the Goth chick is NOT a devout Christian. Oh, that's right, we've already espoused discrimination based on looks. We've also approved judging without even BOTHERING to find out what the Goth is like.

The ignorance shown by these supposed Christians is disappointing, but not shocking. For a group that's supposed to love everyone, I've never met a group less likely to look past appearances. Our Goth chick may go to church every Sunday, pray daily, and be a better Christian than any 10 others, but we've give the go-ahead to dispose of her without thought because of the clothes s/he wears.

Speaking of what she wears, and you blew this one Dark_Prophecy, the business is allowed to have a dress code. No one has said that's wrong; Should she refuse to follow it she could be fired. However, at the interview you ask, "will you follow our dress code?" If the Goth says "yes" and you decide to trust her then she likely will, assuming your choice to trust was correct.

The Goth choosing to not follow a dress code is a completely separate issue than choosing not to hire the Goth because of race, religion, sex, marital status, etc. Choosing not to follow a dress code is like firing someone for non-performance, or stealing.

I guess if we're espousing discrimination based on clothing, or gayness, or ability to believe in jeebus, I shouldn't expect SKIN COLOR to play any part, right? I mean, we have made clear what KIND of discrimination is right, right?

Back in the day a business owner could make his ('he" for the sake of discussion) employees work any hours. He could injure or kill them by the complete lack of concern for safety issues.

He could tell every nigger, kike, wop, spic, cracker, slant, slope, chinaman, squint, fag, homo, slut, tramp, and bitch, to take a flying fuck because they don't "fit the image need for a certain position." (quoted from Dark_Prophecy).
Now, DP also said "for right or wrong," but I don't think those opposing concepts can simultaneously exist like that. A thing is either right, or wrong.

(I used the vulgarities because they evoke emotional responses depending on what hates the reader harbors. Some people are offended by "kike" but not "fag," or "bitch." Those responses are VERY telling. Which words offended you? Which didn'?)

Employers could also refuse to pay fair wages, and abuse employees as one saw fit.

At some point, society (through the forming of unions and passing of labor laws) said "you may not do anything you want with your business." So, friends, that argument has been settled for about 100 years.

Society said: you will pay fair wages, you will provide safe working conditions, you will not make workers stay obscene hours, you may not lock employees in the building, you will not refuse to hire based on gender, race, religion, creed, marital status, age, and (recently) sexual preference.

I suppose you support turning back the clock?

If I choose to follow the rules and regulations of the business I am attempting to work at, and I have the abilities to do the job, no one has the right to tell me that I have the wrong belief system for the job. Or, the wrong skin color, sexual preference, gender, nationality, marital status, or political views.

Malcolm X was right, we need a struggle for human rights.

__________________
I can sum up the clash of religion in one sentence:
"My Invisible Friend is better than your Invisible Friend."

Prophecy

This is true but this is also why the bill is limited to faith based organizations, at least that’s what I believe

Simple answer is people are human and humans make judgments based on first appearances and stereotypes.

Agreed, following dress code is different from not hiring some for their sexual preference. But they are both forms of forms of discrimation, some people also don't change there dress b/c of their faith, and I was using that as a parallel between the two. Yes, if the Goth choose to follow the dress code she should be allowed to work there, the same with should be true of a homosexual person. But remember we are deal with faith based organizations. I am saying in a case where sexual preference is as important to the church as dress code is as important to the bookstore, than the church should be allowed to refrain from hiring that person. Yes, its discrimation, it’s blatant. But that’s what religion does.(flame if you want but let me explain) Most religions say if you don't hold to our values and beliefs your wrong. You can only become "right" if you follow our beliefs. Christianity as taught by most churches says if you don't follow Christ you’re headed for hell and you can't be saved unless you follow Christ and you can't follow Christ unless you follow the rules in the Bible. Also most churches teach that they are separate beings from the rest of the world and should remain apart from them. Thus not allowing "The World" into there lives except in times when they are trying to convert someone to there faith. Keeping that in mind, to have someone who goes against the church and against this churches interpretation of the faith working in the church would be for lake of a better word, crazy. The only way I can see a church like this allowing a person who is homosexual in and allowing them to work is if the person has admitted there "sin" and is changing there life to conform to the church.

No, I don't support turning back the clock, but American Civil Rights has come long way, but it still has a way to go. But remember this is not the US that this thread pertains to but the UK.

Do you work for a church? What if you wanted to work for a church and the regulations of the business the church runs is that you have to be believer in their faith and follow the rules of the bible, yes you have the abilities but you don't meet all of the qualifations because of the clause that says follow the rules of the Bible which prohibits homosexuality in the old testament. What do you suggest happens then?

yes, i know i'm replying to the same quote twice but stay with me here. Billage, I see where you’re coming from and I didn't mention the things you mentioned b/c I figured that would start another can of worms that wasn't completely inline with this thread.

So I guess what i'm saying is reguardless of if you think this is right or wrong, faithbased organizations should be allowed to choose how, who and why, based on the tenats of their faith they hire, if they can't then whats the point of having them? Of course, this whole response seems that I’m justifying forms of discrimation and I am in a way I suppose I am....
I'm just gonna shut now since all my thoughts are starting to run together..

__________________
La Disciplina È La Mia Spada,
La Fede È Il Mio Schermo,
Non salti Ciecamente In Incertezza,
E Potete Raccogliere Le Ricompense.

billege

I do hear where you're coming from.
You're accepting that religious organizations are equipped to play god. They should decide who is worthy and who is not (blasphemers!). Somehow, religious organizations have the enlightenment necessary to make discrimination "okay."

I vehemently disagree.

For me, there is no difference in basis of discrimination. One does, or one does not.

I suppose I'd be wasting my breath if I continued typing; I believe I've made clear I do not agree that religious groups should have the right to discriminate.

I find it astonishing that religion(s) are presupposed to be the embodiment of good, loving, and acceptance, when they are, in fact, the least of those things. They love, accept, and care only for those on their list.

I think the brit's have gone off the deep end with this one, and I can only remind them that evil begets evil. Choosing as they do, I believe, is evil.

It's the <i>rationale</i> that I abhor. Once the door is open to religious discrimination, there is nothing to stop other forms.

If I can run a faith based organization, which will exclude those that don't believe as I say they should, then there is nothing stopping me from using the same argument elsewhere. Say I run a white supremacist organization, and staff it by the same rules. Why not? I need to pick those who represent my ideals the best.

I <i>have</i> to bring "other" forms of discrimination into the thread. I reject the idea that there <i>are</i> multiple forms. One is either judged on merit, or not. The ideas that justify one "form," justify all. This is not a place where one plays favorites, all or none. That's what we get to pick from.

I wholeheartedly reject the thought that religious organizations are better equipped to make "correct" judgments on who to reject. I abstain from thinking like they do. I refuse to think you are a worthless person because I worship differently.

__________________
I can sum up the clash of religion in one sentence:
"My Invisible Friend is better than your Invisible Friend."

Prophecy

I agree, you are right discrimination in any format is wrong, but well, look at the next quote..

I wouldn't say i'm accepting that religious organizations are equipped to play god or religious organizations have the enlightenment necessary to make discrimination "okay."...

But I am saying by the nature of the organizations themselves they have to do these things in order to function. If they don't do these things they might as well not exist. This thread and your point of view shows my exact problem with all standardized religions that I'm familiar with. However, I realize that law can't change the ethos of religion. Thus law shouldn't put a limit on how one worships or displays their faith in the confines of the church or the churche's property. To do otherwise would be the same as telling people they can't worship the way that they choose and that would open another can of worms. Thus I am of the mind that faith based organazinations (and faith based organizations only) should be allowed this option to hire or not hire based on faith. I simply can't see how the law can limit a faith without damaging it at the same time.

However, billage you say if one is allowed to this, what is to stop the masses from doing this? Nothing but the law and trust that people are willing to follow that law will stop that problem. If people aren't willing to follow the law then nothing is there to stop them. This isn't a perfect world, its far from one and this is one of the problems that happen in a world that isn't perfect. But unless you are going to destroy religion as a whole, I see no other way to solve this problem that already stated. Again, I admit my view is flawed but this I find a better one, I have to stick with this one.

__________________
La Disciplina È La Mia Spada,
La Fede È Il Mio Schermo,
Non salti Ciecamente In Incertezza,
E Potete Raccogliere Le Ricompense.

raeanna74

It isn't right and I know something similar personally. I taught at a parochial school at one time and when they discovered that I was pregnant I was informed that once the baby was born I would not be allowed to continue teaching because it was their policy not to have any mothers with children that weren't school age yet to teach there. I know the reason behind their move but it still doesn't make it right. The reason? Those types of school teach a particular religious doctrine that includes that sex with someone of the same gender is wrong for their religion. They set up these schools for teaching their religion and having someone who doesn't completely agree with their "statement of faith" is not what they want. The problem with excluding those who don't agree with that isn't showing the love that they also often speak of. The action they took against me for me choosing to have my child made me very bitter and this if I were in that situation would make me extremely bitter as well. Personally I do not share my "bi" enjoyment with anyone I know would not be discrete and doesn't at least tolerate that choice. It would hamper my career and limit my job choices because of just this type of situation.

__________________
"Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama
My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

billege

Personally, I'm not against destoying organized religion. Of course, I belive that if it works for you, that's fine. So, I can't espouse the idea of a campaign against religious organizations, bummer for me.

I just wish people would keep their religions off me.


Catholic priests and little kids are one recent, punget, example of how religious organizations do not deserve trust. They are closed, bigoted, secretive, and not prone to rational thought. I'd no more trust a religious organization than a group of serial killers.

Religious Organizations (hereon referred to as "ROs") already do discriminate. To think they don't would be delusional. My finace applied (to work at) to a christian-based behavioral health service. She did wonderfully with them until the second interview when they started asking how "christian" she was. Well, she's not a christian, so it went downhill quickly. She said when she began answering eye contact went to hell, smiles faded, and portfolios closed. The interview was over well before it finished.

So, I accept that ROs already do discriminate. It is very hard to substantiate, however, so it continues.

My core problem lies with the rational behind making this legal. Once ANY organization is given a legal means to discriminate, they will abuse it.

There is NO WAY abuse will be avoided. That is fact, please accept it.

Once there is a legal "out" it will get applied to anyone they don't like. If an Asian man applies at a Baptist church, they may not like his skin color, but put down on paper "lacks faith."

I know it's a logical fallicy, but I fear the slippery slope. Once we've made it okay for ROs to do, who's next?

__________________
I can sum up the clash of religion in one sentence:
"My Invisible Friend is better than your Invisible Friend."

Prophecy

Okay, so we don't make it legal. So what happens from there? Legal or not its still going to happen. raeanna74, did you sue the school? If you didn't why not? What the school did is illegal under the law, correct? I maybe wrong but if she didn't sue I'd wager it was for the same reason no one else sued. They figure they can't win in the court system or it isn't worth the hassle. What judge is going to force an RO to allow someone who doesn't fit there principles to work in that environment. That would be one interesting trial I would LOVE to see get national attention. But the truth is the public turns a blind eye to such things and so things like this are going to happen regardless of being protected by the law or not. So legalize it, what difference does it make, none but aesthetic value. From there billage your right about abuse of that law would flow. Yet even with laws against discrimination today it still takes place everyday. Why else do companies have quotes and why is affirmative action still in place?
So what difference would one law make that made the everyday legal?

And I’m not going to touch that catholic priest stuff with a ten foot stick...

__________________
La Disciplina È La Mia Spada,
La Fede È Il Mio Schermo,
Non salti Ciecamente In Incertezza,
E Potete Raccogliere Le Ricompense.

crewsor

You can't look at someone and see they are gay. So unless they broadcast the fact , which has no place in a work environment anyway, how can they be fired for being gay?

__________________
We all have wings, some of us just don't know why.

Prophecy

Some of these ROs ask. If you say you aren't and they some how find out you lied your fired because you where hired under false pretense or something else.

If you aren't found out your in the clear I would guess. Now if your thinking what right do they have to ask, then the answer would be none, but some still ask anyway.

__________________
La Disciplina È La Mia Spada,
La Fede È Il Mio Schermo,
Non salti Ciecamente In Incertezza,
E Potete Raccogliere Le Ricompense.

billege

There is still a point in denouncing something, versus accepting the inevitability of its occurrence.

I don't have to accept anything, save death.

__________________
I can sum up the clash of religion in one sentence:
"My Invisible Friend is better than your Invisible Friend."

Prophecy

So even if discrimination is going to remain in ROs no matter what you'd rather fight to keep discrimination out of ROs/religion instead of keeping it from spreading further? A noble cause to say the least and I commend you. However, as you can probably already tell I see ROs as a losing/lost battle and I'd rather fight to keep it from spreading past religion than fight religion itself. At the end of the day if I can't stop discrimination period I'm happy to know I've kept it contained some what. No, it’s not perfect, but what in this life is...

__________________
La Disciplina È La Mia Spada,
La Fede È Il Mio Schermo,
Non salti Ciecamente In Incertezza,
E Potete Raccogliere Le Ricompense.

raeanna74

I totally understand your statements Dark Prophecy. I do agree with them. It would be so hard to regulate religious schools and organizations without restricting their religion. That is why I didn't sue. I also didn't want their money and I didn't want to work there anymore anyway. They had a terrible administration and it was too difficult teaching 3 grades at once as they had me doing. It was just not worth my while I would say. I understand how this discrimination could spread but if we do our utmost to limit ourselves to allowing religions to do their own thing within their own walls then we won't be oppressing the religions. In a way we would be discriminating against them for their beliefs. I don't see why someone who has a different set of values would even want to work in that environment anyway. There are enough other jobs out there that pay so much better. Most religious schools that I have worked for have a limited budget so the income isn't as good as you could get elsewhere.

__________________
"Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama
My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

Grothendieck

In my opinion this is a question where respect of different opinions clashes: On the one side you have homosexuals, and probably the majority of the public opinion, who think it is totally normal to be gay. On the other side you have a religion which -- to my knowledge -- thinks of being gay as being a sin. Something wrong.
Which opinion should come first? Of course one could say that the gay side should come first, because they harm nobody in being gay. But then again, don't they harm the feelings of the arch-christians? Naa, I can't really support this kind of argument.

Maybe taking the pragmatic point of view is easier: I think any employer should be allowed to employ whoever they want. And if I were gay, I wouldn't really want to work in those Christian bookshops which discriminate against me anyhow, would I? Our society has enough diversity, I hope.

__________________
Didn't remember how intense love could be... Thank you B.

The_Dude

brits just have too much religion mixed in their govt, i just dont see how they can call themselves secular

they have a state religion

house of lords has ties to religion in numerous places.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal