Does the Church have the right to discriminate over and above the state standards?

[Greatest I am]

Yazata

You are saying that there is a lot of people getting away with a lot of garbage out there and you are right.

That does not exempt the churches though in having to follow the law of the land in their H R practices which is exactly what is going on according to that 1st link and to my personal knowledge.

Corporate U S sees this and must wonder why they have to follow the law when churches do not. This fosters a general disrespect for law and is quite damaging to the greater U S and other countries that do the same.

That just leads to the following type of flagrant and immoral actions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMw2Zg_BVzw&feature=related

Regards
DL

 

[spidergoat]

I told you what law, the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

Title VII

Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e [2] et seq., prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin...

However, there are some exceptions:

There are partial and whole exceptions to Title VII for four types of employers:


* Federally recognized Native American tribes
* Religious groups performing work connected to the group's activities, including associated education institutions;
* Bona fide nonprofit private membership organizations.

 

[Greatest I am]

Absolutely they don't.




What's H R? Of course I will support religious freedom, because it also means freedom for atheism.

Human resources. Their hiring and firing practices in terms of discrimination and reasons to fire.
Just going to bed with the wrong party could cost someone their job or getting a divorce from some S O B. Not practicing the faith ardently enough is cause for rejection of an applicant.

I know the attitude of some churches is morally abhorrent to me, but that's their problem, not mine.

Not your problem eh.
If we are not our brothers keeper then who is?

It is my view that all literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are Religionists.
They all hurt their parent religions and everyone else who has a belief. They make us all into laughing stocks and should rethink their position. There is a Godhead but not the God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution. Belief in fantasy is evil.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HKHaClUCw4&feature=PlayList&p=5123864A5243470E&index=0&playnext=1

They also do much harm to their own.

African witches and Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlRG9gXriVI&feature=related

Jesus Camp 1of 9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOqGhcwwE1s

For evil to grow my friends, all good people need do is nothing.
Fight them when you can.

You indicated above that doing nothig was the way to go. Please rethink.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

I told you what law, the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964:




However, there are some exceptions:

For sure and some are not abused.

"Religious groups performing work connected to the group's activities, including associated education institutions;"

Some are.

Regards
DL

 

[siphra]

If we are not our brothers keeper then who is?

Ahhh yes, everyone jailed by everyone else. Walk on eggshells, becareful what you say to whom. Think the way we want you to think.

Did you ever stop to think for yourself and wonder, do we need keepers?

The thought you have here implies that every man needs to be watched by every other man, intruded upon, and life influenced by each and every other person.

I am sorry, but I morally disagree with this very concept. I am no man's keeper and no man is mine, I shall live my life and let you live yours provided you do not get in the way of mine.

Here's a better thought for you: Every man and every woman is a star. Let them find thier own path, and shine in thier own way. Properly set moving about without interference, we reach a balance, and move in harmony, But should you set your choice upon changing the path of a person, you throw off the whole balance.

It's funny really, you know that the only difference between your ideas and the Nazi's is what you think is morally correct. The fact you think everyone should be forced to obey it, is exactly what they did. (And now of course you will find some absurd defense, by pointing out the bigotry of the nazis and exclaiming that you do not see it that way missing the very point of my statement.)

 

[Greatest I am]

Ahhh yes, everyone jailed by everyone else. Walk on eggshells, becareful what you say to whom. Think the way we want you to think.

Did you ever stop to think for yourself and wonder, do we need keepers?

The thought you have here implies that every man needs to be watched by every other man, intruded upon, and life influenced by each and every other person.

I am sorry, but I morally disagree with this very concept. I am no man's keeper and no man is mine, I shall live my life and let you live yours provided you do not get in the way of mine.

Here's a better thought for you: Every man and every woman is a star. Let them find thier own path, and shine in thier own way. Properly set moving about without interference, we reach a balance, and move in harmony, But should you set your choice upon changing the path of a person, you throw off the whole balance.

It's funny really, you know that the only difference between your ideas and the Nazi's is what you think is morally correct. The fact you think everyone should be forced to obey it, is exactly what they did. (And now of course you will find some absurd defense, by pointing out the bigotry of the nazis and exclaiming that you do not see it that way missing the very point of my statement.)

Did you look at those links and are you telling me we should ignore what they show happening?

If so, do not bother bringing your self centered and inward looking opinion back.

I speak of looking out for each other. Not controlling each other unless there is a damned good reason to.

Regards
DL

 

[spidergoat]

Not your problem eh.
If we are not our brothers keeper then who is?

It is my view that all literalists and fundamentals hurt all of us who are Religionists.
They all hurt their parent religions and everyone else who has a belief. They make us all into laughing stocks and should rethink their position. There is a Godhead but not the God of talking animals, genocidal floods and retribution. Belief in fantasy is evil.

I happen to agree with you.

The unspoken assumption on your part is that beliefs which you don't like should be illegal, and that's wrong. State standards only apply to the state. Did you know it's legal to be a racist homophobe? That's what freedom means, deal with it.

This kind of thing is a perfectly reasonable subject for debate, and I'm afraid you will have to be satisfied with that.

 

[siphra]

Did you look at those links and are you telling me we should ignore what they show happening?

If so, do not bother bringing your self centered and inward looking opinion back.

I speak of looking out for each other. Not controlling each other unless there is a damned good reason to.

Regards
DL

This is not entirely about the abuse of individuals by religous groups, as I CLEARLY stated earlier, there are some limits: As in no human sacrifice.
This is a far cry from saying "You have to stop hating gays, and hire them for your church."

If the religious movement isn't actually out there murdering gay men. But simply refuses to associate with them. That is thier choice.

Its nice to see you think that I am self centered, when the whole of your argument boils down to emotional self appreciation. "I think this is bad, so everyone should think this is bad."

And for the record, I probably have one of the most diverse groups of people I associate with in the world. Every class, every race, every sexuality, most subcultures. As it happens, people who know me at least find that i blend in easily.

Continue to push your agenda, that of 'equality by force of government' and see where it leads....

Fact is, you think its ok to legislate equality, I do not. I think in the long run as culture changes (even slowly) a natural progression is better than a forced one. I truely believe that people should be free, and groups of people free to do as they will, provided they are not directly harming someone else. And simply refusing to hire someone to a job is not directly harming them.

In short: If we do not protect thier rights to be jackasses someone, someday will do the same to us. You think because your side has power now that its all fine and dandy. One of these days your ideas will be on the chopping block, and if no one stands up for the then unpopular idea....

Remember you may be the oppressor today, you can be the oppressed tomorrow.

 

[spidergoat]

Thought experiment, can you force the church to hire satanists? Or force a Mosque to hire a pork-eating janitor? Hell, you can't even force Hooters to hire fat chicks.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Ahhh yes, everyone jailed by everyone else. Walk on eggshells, becareful what you say to whom. Think the way we want you to think.

Did you ever stop to think for yourself and wonder, do we need keepers?

The thought you have here implies that every man needs to be watched by every other man, intruded upon, and life influenced by each and every other person.


Here's a better thought for you: Every man and every woman is a star. Let them find thier own path, and shine in thier own way. Properly set moving about without interference, we reach a balance, and move in harmony, But should you set your choice upon changing the path of a person, you throw off the whole balance.

It's funny really, you know that the only difference between your ideas and the Nazi's is what you think is morally correct. The fact you think everyone should be forced to obey it, is exactly what they did. (And now of course you will find some absurd defense, by pointing out the bigotry of the nazis and exclaiming that you do not see it that way missing the very point of my statement.)

i think this is both true and false.

in its ideal form,

we should not need laws to determine our behavior,(just because it is a law, does not make it right)
there should be more personal accountability amongst citizens.
IE:

'i don't have to behave that way'
'if we make it a law you will have to'
'but what if my way is a good thing?'
'don't care..it is law..you have too'

to make laws takes away personal accountability, (we do not have a choice)

this does not address those who do not want that responsibility (if i just do as i'm told, i will be safe)

how can we teach personal accountability without making more laws?
i believe this is where religion is trying to step up.
unfortunately they also have to contend with the same example.

IE;
'i don't have to behave that way'
'but God says you have to'
'but what if my way is a good thing?'
'don't care..God is law..you have too'

either way infringes on our (what we think of as our) own personal liberties, freedoms, and turns us all into clones.

The thought you have here implies that every man needs to be watched by every other man, intruded upon, and life influenced by each and every other person.

the bold is what is supposed to be.
not dictated.

 

[Yazata]

You are saying that there is a lot of people getting away with a lot of garbage out there and you are right.

I was saying that here in the United States, the question of how profoundly legislators, the police and the courts are allowed interfere in the activities of religious organizations can sometimes be a complex issue. There's lots of Supreme Court decisions regarding it.

That does not exempt the churches though in having to follow the law of the land in their H R practices which is exactly what is going on according to that 1st link and to my personal knowledge.

I think that it depends. If a church is hiring somebody for some function that's directly relevant to the practice of that church's religion, whether that's a clergy position or some staff position inside the church, then the church's hiring practices are probably going to have a great deal of immunity from employment descrimination laws. But if the position doesn't have any direct relation to the practice of religion, if it's a position in a secular business that the church just happens to have an ownership stake in, for example, then a better case could be made for the applicability of the secular laws. Drawing the line between what's an internal church matter and what's a church-associated secular matter isn't always going to be easy.

 

[Greatest I am]

I happen to agree with you.

The unspoken assumption on your part is that beliefs which you don't like should be illegal, and that's wrong. State standards only apply to the state. Did you know it's legal to be a racist homophobe? That's what freedom means, deal with it.

This kind of thing is a perfectly reasonable subject for debate, and I'm afraid you will have to be satisfied with that.

I am pleased that you agree.

As to my " unspoken assumption" of things I "don't like should be illegal,",
this is wrong.

What I promote is----Do not discriminate or denigrate without just cause.
We should all have to justify what we hate. If not, then we just hate for the love of hating.

This has nothing to do with what I like or not.

Regards
DL

 

[Lori_7]

As with other things we have discussed. You are out to lunch.

Read that first link again in terms of the church promoting freedom. You will see that your church has more with control of individuals than freedom.

Regards
DL

not MY church. MY church isn't running for office; we're just taking over after all of the dust settles. My church is born out of love, trust, and freedom. My church isn't interested in trying to control religion, but we're very interested in it's obsolescence.

and my question was relevant. what are you doing? what something are you doing?

 

[GeoffP]

You're a Myuunitarian?

 

[Greatest I am]

siphra

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wub4-zpj7Ho

Here is one thah does not believe in people doing the right thing without a push.

You go ahead and bury your head in the sand.

"First they came for the Jews, but I did nothing because I'm not a Jew. Then they came for the socialists, but I did nothing because I'm not a socialist. Then they came for the Catholics, but I did nothing because I'm not a Catholic. Finally, they came for me, but by then there was no one left to help me." – Pastor Father Niemoller (1946)”

And I am self centered. LOL.

Regards
DL