Pope Benedict attacks UK Equality Bill

Lucysnow said:
It means the Roman Catholic Church wouldn't want to hire a known gay person to run one of their soup kitchens or other charities.
Click to expand...

But where does it say that this bill applies only to gay people? I find it hard to visualize a business hiring a homeless person to represent them. What would disqualify a homeless derelict? Sure the homeless person can be a good person but i dont know, like a five star hotel having a bag lady behind their desk. Is this even realistic? Or not even a homless person , suppose i want to work dressed in a plastic bag?
 
Suppose there is a new 'Darwin Evolution Museaum' would they be forced to hire a fundamentalist religious person?
 
John99 said:
But where does it say that this bill applies only to gay people? I find it hard to visualize a business hiring a homeless person to represent them. What would disqualify a homeless derelict? Sure the homeless person can be a good person but i dont know, like a five star hotel having a bag lady behind their desk. Is this even realistic? Or not even a homless person , suppose i want to work dressed in a plastic bag?
Click to expand...

Well it doesn't. Its an equality bill, a general bill but the church opposes it because it would mean the church would be required to hire those they find unwelcome, gays being the number one target at this point since they are opposed to homosexuality because of their religious doctrine. There is no stipulation in the bible denying work to the homeless.
 
We have laws that ban discrimination based on sex and race etc. already. Does the U.K have this law?
 
Lucysnow said:
Well it doesn't. Its an equality bill, a general bill but the church opposes it because it would mean the church would be required to hire those they find unwelcome, gays being the number one target at this point since they are opposed to homosexuality because of their religious doctrine. There is no stipulation in the bible denying work to the homeless.
Click to expand...

Is this law based on the bible?
 
What i am saying is does this bill psecify homosexuals or it just blanket - no one can ever be discriminated against? I am confused.
 
Suppose someone has a disease where they scream profanities at random times. Would a museum hire them?
 
John99 said:
Suppose someone has a disease where they scream profanities at random times. Would a museum hire them?
Click to expand...
Not the same case: is a person who screams randomly capable of doing the job?
Since, I would imagine, a museum employee must be capable of offering clear and concise explanations in the appropriately reverent tones, without causing offence*, then they would seem to be disqualified on grounds other than belief/ lifestyle/ whatever.

I.e. being gay is something that wouldn't crop up in the course of one's duties, screaming uncontrollably might well be noticeable...
 
Dywyddyr said:
I.e. being gay is something that wouldn't crop up in the course of one's duties,
Click to expand...

I agree and it should never be an issue. So that is not what i am arguing.

Not the same case: is a person who screams randomly capable of doing the job?
Since, I would imagine, a museum employee must be capable of offering clear and concise explanations in the appropriately reverent tones, without causing offence*, then they would seem to be disqualified on grounds other than belief/ lifestyle/ whatever.
Click to expand...

It is a handicap.

*Note: I shoould have siad affliction, and not disease.:wallbang:
 
Last edited:
John99 said:
I would think so.
Click to expand...
Really?
Interfacing with the public, including minors, as a representative of the museum and you consider that screaming obscenities randomly and uncontrollably means you're capable of doing that job?
So you'd give a person with Parkinson's a job as a surgical ophthalmologist?
"I may not be able to make precision cuts, my hands go all over the place, but I'd really like the job..." :rolleyes:
 
It is different if people are or would be offended or if the person can do the job? Obviously the second case they couldnt do the job.
 
I am nt saying i am for or against this bill. There must be more to it but i dont feel like looking into it.
 
Nor could they in the first case, since interfacing with the public in a non-offensive manner would be a requirement of the job.
 
John99 said:
But they cant control it.
Click to expand...
And are thereby rendered incapable of fulfilling the duties as required by the job description.
It's like offering someone with a chronic fear of water the job of lifeguard at a swimming pool.
"Oh I want the job but bear in mind I have an uncontrollable fear of water and won't ever be able to get into the pool. When can I start?".
 
Dywyddyr said:
And are thereby rendered incapable of fulfilling the duties as required by the job description.
It's like offering someone with a chronic fear of water the job of lifeguard at a swimming pool.
"Oh I want the job but bear in mind I have an uncontrollable fear of water and won't ever be able to get into the pool. When can I start?".
Click to expand...

I dont see the similarities.
 
This is more an ethics question than a religious question, and it is deeper than it looks.

Should PETA have to employ an active whale killer?
I'm not fond of PETA, but I would say no.

Should the RCC have to employ active homosexuals?
I would say maybe, depending upon the lifestyle of the individual.
(But how would you frame a law to cover that?)

Should the National Front have to allow black people to join their organisation if they want to?
I would say yes.

So, my views are inconsistent.
Interesting thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top