Well, it has started in Canada – the loss of religious liberty, and the beginning of lawsuits against churches who don’t want to hire gays, or who condemn homosexuality.
One of Canada’s largest Christian ministries dedicated to caring for
the disabled was fined $23,000 recently by the Human Rights Tribunal of
Ontario for allegedly discriminating against a former homosexual
employee.Connie Heintz claimed discrimination against Christian Horizons
after she said she was “subjected to a poisoned work environment” and
pressured into quitting her job after she entered a homosexual
relationship – which was in violation of her work contract back in 2000.In
line with its Christian foundation and principles, the ministry
requires that all its employees sign “morality statements” vowing to
abstain from immoral behavior, including pornography, pre-marital,
extra-marital, and homosexual activity as a condition of employment.
Good.
No it isn't good. She violated her contract. Why should they be fined for dismissing her?
Why should they be fined for dismissing her?
For breaking the law.
Why should they be fined for dismissing her?
For breaking the law.
Indeed morality clauses in employment contracts are unenforceable and violate anti-discrimination laws within most local jurisdictions and most certainly under Federal Civil rights laws within the United States. In Canada, the laws are even tougher.
So, yes, they are definitely due for for a stiff fine for breaking the law.
Indeed morality clauses in employment contracts are unenforceable and violate anti-discrimination laws within most local jurisdictions and most certainly under Federal Civil rights laws within the United States.
Are there any organizations that are exempt?
Not only the loss of religious liberty, but apparently honesty, and other mores which knit civilization together. Also, the ability to speak out(relative to our first amendment)in Canada is under the same attack by this Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario(lol).
Some good news:The communist Labor party has suffered great defeat, losing over 300 seats. Londonistan may yet survive the lib morass. A conservative revolution is taking place, let us hope the same takes place with our neighbor to the North. Now, if we only had a conservative nominee here.
and … Many Afghani and Iraqi immigrants are self deporting due to lack of "sunlight" and lack of health care. Italy expects the influx.
Indeed morality clauses in employment contracts are unenforceable and violate anti-discrimination laws within most local jurisdictions and most certainly under Federal Civil rights laws within the United States.
Even non-profit organizations???
NAACP would have to hire a white person who applies for their president, or be fined, if that is so.
I didn't think those laws applied to non-profit organizations. They shouldn't, anyway.
Even non-profit organizations???
NAACP would have to hire a white person who applies for their president, or be fined, if that is so.
I didn't think those laws applied to non-profit organizations. They shouldn't, anyway.
Lawanda, there is a major difference between Civil Rights Law and Morality Clauses. The former as applied to Equal Opportunity Employment is enforceable under law…particularly Federal Law under the Civil Rights act. So, the law would indeed apply to NPOs as the NAACP example you cite comes into play.
A morality clause in employment, e.g., being gay, committing adultery, etc is totally unenforceable under the law. It would be like having you sign a morality clause saying you would not have any more children and then be fired for doing so. Totally unenforcable under law.
-S
Are there any organizations that are exempt?
Seeker reading the CRA of 1967 and subsequent case law, the answer is no. There are no exemptions. Any employer regardless of status (NPO, private business, publicly traded, or religious organization) is subject to the Civil Rights Act of 1967 and cannot disciminate based upon race, color, gender, or sexual orientation. Nor can they make that a precondition of employment. Basically, if you collect a paycheck, your employer is bound by Federal and State employment laws.
Somehow that doesn't make sense. If one of the requirements for church leadership, for instance, involves morality, are you saying that you could not dismiss someone for that legally? That's crazy.
Churches will have to spend their budgets against lawsuits all day and night. This is why sexual orientation laws run amok are bad.
If one of the requirements for church leadership, for instance, involves morality, are you saying that you could not dismiss someone for that legally? That's crazy.
If that person collects any pay for that job, then no. They could not legally dismiss that person for being gay. It is no more crazy than saying that a I can't fire you because you are of Jewish decent and you are working for me in a Catholic Church. If you collect pay, you and your employer are subject to EOE laws.
This is why sexual orientation laws run amok are bad.
Actually, this has nothing to do with Sexual Orientation laws, but in fact the EOE and Civil Rights act and subsequent case law that extends to sexual orientation.
If you think that this is something that has run amok, then perhaps we should repeal the Civil Rights act and remove any guarantee of EOE for any person…so then we can allow discrimination against your hispanic wife, a black, a jew, or your mom.
No, I think this is a case of your belief that being a homosexual is morally wrong and a choice blinding you of the reality of employment law. Thus, making it OK in your book to dismiss someone due to sexual orientation even though that sexual preference has no bearing on that individual's ability to do their job.
I am not going to judge you on that point. However, I do see that as a convenient excuse to practice employment discrimination due to personal religious beliefs.
– S
I am not sure that you can NOT fire based on morality clauses, I think it still may be poorly defined. However, I do know that H.R. 3685: Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2007 passed the House, and is in the Senate.
Authored by the notorious Barney Frank to protect sexual orientation from hiring discrimination, it also includes these provisions:
So it looks like gays and other sexual sinners can be prohibited from church service, or be asked to step down, thank God Almighty.
Discussion on it has been interesting. For intacne, Mark Souder [R-IN]
I think this whole topic needs more research and discussion
So if I start an all-girl club, say for scrapbooking, a real life example, because I am in one. And I want to make it all girl so that we can have sleep overs, which we do. Say then I need to hire a secretary, and a guy applies… I would refuse to hire him,of course citing morality and the fact that my club is EXCLUSIVELY for girls… because most of the girls in the club will leave if there is a guy, because they will (prolly correctly) be thinking he is just a perv wanting some creepy action… but he could sue my club, or it could be fined by the government for being an all-girl club and not accepting any guys???
Sorry that was so run on, but I am in a rush.
I just love this conversation, as it is so revealing about motives beneath the mask of "love" xians show the world. In essence, seeker and Souder are saying it should be all right for religionists to hate gay people in the workplace, and express that hatred under the guise of religion. Actually, I think a good hard punch in the nose would be the proper response if some xian fanatic were to spout their hate-religion at me. Unfortunately, this is illegal. What an injustice! It appears that xianists really want special rights.
What about this scenario: I own a business, a business which pays very well, but I refuse to hire xians or any other monotheists because I hate them. If one of my employees converts to Evangelical Christianity and I fire him, should I be held liable?
In my opinion, yes, but according to your argument above, no. Let the hypocrisy begin.
What about this scenario: I own a business, a business which pays very well, but I refuse to hire xians or any other monotheists because I hate them. If one of my employees converts to Evangelical Christianity and I fire him, should I be held liable?
Let's say your business is a gay bookstore, and one of your employees converts to xianity and starts talking about homosexuality as a sin, but wants to stay in your store to minister. Should you be able to fire them? Why or why not? In your eyes, they are guilty of the sin of homophobia, but they are not breaking any laws unless you want to control speech by making pro-gay blasphemy laws.
You didn't answer my hypothetical, so why should I answer yours? However, being the better man, I will try.
First, I don't think homophobia is a "sin" because I don't think sin exists. That's a religionist delusion.
According to your and Lawanda's logic, I should be allowed to fire them, whatever the facts of the matter. However, if the employee were just to convert, state his position, and then do little else and was a good employee otherwise, I wouldn't fire him. There's always hope for the "sinner," after all. However, if he "ministered" to fellow employees and customers and made a general nuisance of himself, I would fire him for being disruptive and detrimental to the survival of the business (this is entirely legal). The original case you posted about wasn't the same: the person in question apparently wasn't overtly disruptive; in fact, she was harassed by her co-workers to the point of having to resign. There is a difference, though you will probably deny it. It comes down to one's actions, not one's beliefs.
The original case you posted about wasn't the same: the person in question apparently wasn't overtly disruptive; in fact, she was harassed by her co-workers to the point of having to resign. There is a difference, though you will probably deny it. It comes down to one's actions, not one's beliefs.
Louis, that was my point exactly. If a person is qualified to do the job and is hired, their religious or personal beliefs or sexual orientation is not relevant to their employment…particularly if those beliefs are not disruptive or interferes with that persons ability to do that job.
Seeker and Lawanda are just equivocating here and using religious beliefs to condone discriminatory employment practices.
-S
If a person is qualified to do the job and is hired, their religious or personal beliefs or sexual orientation is not relevant to their employment.
What if sexual purity is a requirement for doing a good job? Spiritual work requires spiritual maturity.
I understand your argument, but to force organizations to hire unrepentant gays, adulterers, fornicators, gluttons, tramples the rights of employers. They should be free to make their own decisions if they are a spiritual organization – even a Christian coffee shop or bookstore if they feel that such requirements are necessary. Don't like it? Go work at the humanist bookstore where they will encourage you in such things.
If you are running a business catering to the general public you have to follow the law of the land. There's no special dispensation for "spiritual" business. This is not a theocracy, and you don't get special rights.
I understand your argument, but to force organizations to hire unrepentant gays, adulterers, fornicators, gluttons, tramples the rights of employers. They should be free to make their own decisions if they are a spiritual organization – even a Christian coffee shop or bookstore if they feel that such requirements are necessary. Don't like it? Go work at the humanist bookstore where they will encourage you in such things.
Seeker, again, this is just an equivocation that is being used to justify discrimination on your part because of religious beliefs.
As a confirmed Catholic, my belief systems were taught that being Gay was not right.
Although, I no longer believe that and am still a practicing Catholic, I never allowed my religous beliefs to allow me to justify any sort of discrimination…racial, sexual orientation or what have you within society or when it comes to employment.
If you truly believe that this is OK to do, then I can make a really strong and justifiable argument that there is no reason to protect the rights of minorities, jews, hispanics, etc under the Civil Rights Act and that to dismiss any of these people for any reason including the fact that they have long hair or the wrong color of skin as taught by my religion is OK. So let's go discriminate against your East Indian friends, those that have inter-racial marriages, or half-breed children, or your formerly illegal immigrant Mexican wife.
See how distasteful it is? It sure is OK to discriminate when it comes to employment when it does not impact you at all. But when it comes home to roost in your own life, I know you would feel much different…homosexuality aside.
– S
If you are running a business catering to the general public you have to follow the law of the land. There's no special dispensation for "spiritual" business. This is not a theocracy, and you don't get special rights.
Agreed. The minute you put money on the table in exchange for services any exemption is not justified.
You didn't answer my question.
And if you are considering a church a business catering to the general public then you don't know what a church is…
And if you are considering a church a business catering to the general public then you don't know what a church is…
I know that this remark was directed at Louis, but here goes.
A) I know what a church is.
B) If a church does not pay their staff at all, then as morally repugnant as I find it, a church has the right to accept or deny staff members on the basis of morality.
C) A Church is in fact a business, albeit a Non-Profit and Tax-Exempt Organization. An organized church does many of the same things a for profit business does, including outreach (advertising), seeking awareness and building community (marketing), and also takes in money and pays staff and bills (accounts receivable).
D) A church that hires staff to do a job and pays them in US Currency. If the standard basis of employment is to hire an administrative assistant, a fund raiser, or any other typical job type that one would find in the workplace and that person is being compensated with money in exchange for services. Then firing a person on the basis of sexual orientation, race, being divorced (yes that has happened), or getting pregnant out of wedlock (like one evangelical I know) is not enforceable under law.
E) The Boy Scouts of America is a classic case of forbidding Scout Masters from being Gay. They are a private organization and not a business just like your claim Lawanda of a Church. The difference is that they are all volunteers and do not get paid. You want to make your Church a private club and and rely on all volunteers (no compensation whatsoever even from Alms), then OK. I have no legal qualms with that…since there is no expectation of EOE consideration for employment and pay.
– S
catering to the general public
Umm, so you mean that a Church's mission is not to spread the word of the Gospel, convert the non-believers, and also grow their membership?
Sounds to me that by its very nature of trying to spread the gospel and also grow membership it is in fact catering to the general public. For if it is not, then growing the membership is sort of a mute point. Thus only current believers should be worshiping and there should be no effort to grow the church.
Sorry, I don't buy that argument that a Church does not in fact serve the general public in some way…even with Charity programs.
I was trying to limit the discussion to religious businesses or outreach. However, I can agree with your argument for inclusion of churches as well, at least in the abstract. My own opinion is that churches are the equivalent of private clubs which rely on voluntary donations. In fact, they are cults dependent on the credulity of their membership, and those who affiliate with them get what they deserve. As long as they don't set up organizations (businesses, etc.) which deal with the general public, I don't care how they regulate their membership. Ideally, they should stop discriminating against gay people, but it's kind of irrelevant to me. The nature of private clubs is that they discriminate against someone (that's part of the fun of belonging). However, when they try to export their prejudices generally that they should be subject to regulation.
My own opinion is that churches are the equivalent of private clubs which rely on voluntary donations.
I think I buy that, but what about parachurch organizations that are not for profit, but still employ people, like pregnancy centers, recovery programs (including live-in ex-gay recovery programs ;), and Christian bookstores, esp. bookstores that exist on the church campuses? How would you handle those? Private clubs or businesses in the public arena?
So, back to my scrapbooking club. It would be ok (lawful) to discriminate against men in that case? Because it is a private club with a "specified membership". Just like a church…… Right? Or no?
Who knows and who cares? I've already said enough. Speculate among yourselves if it tickles you so much.
It does not tickle me that a church can be fined for dismissing a person from their payroll who breaks a contract with them. Or that a club might get the same treatment. I think it would concern gay people just as much if it happened to them. (Understatement of the year.)
It does not tickle me that a church can be fined for dismissing a person from their payroll who breaks a contract with them
Lawanda…a legal contract sure. However, morality based contracts as the basis of employment? Come on.
Morality Clauses are not legal contracts except with a God. People have tried for the last 100 years to embed stuff like this into law…and guess what…they have been slapped down time and time again under the law as being unconstitutional and discriminatory.
I tell you what, how about we get you fired from work for being a woman or having children out of wedlock?
After all, a woman's place is in the home and sex should not happen before marriage.
I am just shaking my head with your double standard here.
-S
Silver,
While i partially agree, i think that we must not be overly simplistic when it comes to spiritual organizations – and not just churches.
I think we agree that such 'clubs' can have such rules, esp. for leadership roles. But there is a grey area of parachurch ministries, which could include second hand stores, coffee shops, prenatal counseling, etc.
Not only could such 'ministries' have specific philosophies of ministry which might include such moral commitments, but I think such organizations should have some protection in this area, even if the exemption is not as full as for a full on church. Like, if they are a non-profit, maybe that allows them most of the same exemptions.
I think the 'either it's a church or it isn't' approach is too simplistic, and denies that there might be a gray zone in which we can make some rules.
And just as an example, let's say we are running a Christian pregnancy support center. I would expect our lay counselors to sign on to our philosophy of ministry, which includes favoring adoption over abortion, favoring abstinence over permissiveness, and I would not want anyone on staff who practices something else. But maybe you think that's improper.
But otherwise, you have mere workers for hire, not people who are wholeheartedly in support of your work. Unfortunately, today's workplace is often separated from a person's values, but ministry-oriented organizations work on a higher ethical and visionary level than mere work for money.
but ministry-oriented organizations work on a higher ethical and visionary level than mere work for money.
Fine. Then if they hold themselves to a higher standard and a higher calling, people that "work" in those settings should do so without any sort of monetary compensation. For if they are truly committed, devout people, they will be willing to forgo any payment for their services.
Otherwise, paying a person to work in a place…ministry, pregnancy clinic, or an office is exactly the same. With the promise of employment for pay comes expectations of Equal Opportunity Employment and Anti-Discrimination.
You can label all these things as "clubs, impromptu coffee ministries, or even a relgious organized church," but if they pay their employees in money they are certainly no club.
Sorry, you seek to split hairs and find grey in an area where when money and employment is involved there is no grey.
Keep kidding yourself, but when it happens to you or a loved one your opinion will change quickly. That is when ideals, philosophy from afar part ways and the harsh realities of discrimination and economic impairment come home to roost.
-S
So, back to my scrapbooking club. It would be ok (lawful) to discriminate against men in that case? Because it is a private club with a "specified membership". Just like a church…… Right? Or no?
Lawanda, tying this back to the original post here and your example…
Does your scrapooking club have any paid employees, receive any sort of monetary compensation for their time organizing and running said club?
If you answer yes, your scrapbooking club has paid employees, or you give them money to compensate them for their time, then it is NOT legally OK.
For, if you look at a Church–specifically the church in Canada that made this whole topic come to pass, they were fined for firing an employee. An employee that was being paid a wage…money, cash, dollars, in exchange for their services to the church. That is the rub.
You can only call a church a club in that the parishners are admitted under certain preconditions. They are not being paid in dollars for their participation.
However, a Church that actually employs people and pays them for certain functions…e.g., administration, accounting, pregnancy counseling is most certainly not a club. The people that work in those sectors of a Church are doing so not out of charity (when there is a salary), but for economic gain. People got to eat.
– S
Then if they hold themselves to a higher standard and a higher calling, people that "work" in those settings should do so without any sort of monetary compensation. For if they are truly committed, devout people, they will be willing to forgo any payment for their services.
That is neither realistic nor biblical. The fact is, people that work in non-profits often make less money, though not always.
Otherwise, paying a person to work in a place…ministry, pregnancy clinic, or an office is exactly the same. With the promise of employment for pay comes expectations of Equal Opportunity Employment and Anti-Discrimination.
Well, that ignores both current law and the bill I mentioned. If that is your standard for what organizations are exempt from 'antidiscrimination' laws, then we will have to disagree. The fact is, not-for-profit, mission-based organizations should be able to discriminate, even if they pay their people.
Discrimination is what companies do when an applicant doesn't meet their skill and experience requirements, and if sexual orientation matters to an organization that might be preaching that sexual sin matters, then to force them into court is unjust. And I will fight that fight to the end, because you can't force a religious organization to hire people that fundamentally disagree with their precepts.
I'm sure that some will bring up race or shariah, and those conversations need to be had. But to make blanket, black and white categories, is lazy, harmful, and lacks realistic consideration for those with moral convictions other than liberal ones.
when money and employment is involved there is no grey.
I totally disagree. Anytime you say "there are no exceptions," you better be damned sure. I think you're wrong.
Don't forget that such things are a two-edged sword. When a liberal organization refuses to hire someone they consider a homophobe, or planned parenthood refuses to hire a pro-life person, we'll see where you or the ACLU fall on that one.
A workplace is a workplace is a workplace. If people are being hired and paid and subject to social security payments and other workplace regulations it doesn't matter a bit whether it's a "spiritual" workplace or not. They are subject to law like the rest of us. They don't get special rights or special privileges.
If you force churches and parachurch organizations to hire gays, you'll get a terrible backlash. I personally will join my local gay rights group to evangelize and apply for paid positions. Heck, maybe I should do that now.
Ha! I'd like to see that!
You should try seeker. And when they won't hire you, sue them. ;)
I agree with non-discriminating hiring and firing practices, but it would be taking it a bit far if a church could not fire a preacher for not preaching what they want him to.
Which is where this could lead to, imo, whether it is a christian working for a church or a speaker at a homosexual convention.
Just shows the morass that libthink can turn a perfectly good country into …
"You should try seeker. And when they won't hire you, sue them. ;)" –>
Being a Christian is just a kook alternative lifestyle, so no ability to collect damages. But, mental health services will be available per state ran bureaucracy if needed citizen.
Congratulations Louis on the CA supreme court ruling making gay marriage legal. I don't know if you live in CA but at least now there is a precedent set. I've always said, live and let live.
Thanks Cin. I do live in CA and it's a great day for the forces of justice and light here. I can't wait for the charges of "judicial activism" to emanate from the bigot right, as they are patently untrue.
Buy adderall.
Buy adderall. Buy adderall online. Buy adderall xr w out prescription. Buy adderall or dexadrine no prescription.
Alprazolam.
Alprazolam no prescription. Alprazolam-mylan. Alprazolam. Cheap 2mg alprazolam.
Soma side effects.
Buy soma cod.
Adipex phentermine vs.
Ingredients adipex. Adipex. Adipex p free prescription. Adipex generic. Phent ermine adipex.