Church can reject gays, single mums for employment

Originally posted by habfan1968
any true muslim has to go pray 5 times a day and would disrupt the service to my clients and if you think i am wrong, I have had muslim men working for me in the past and it is disruptive. Sorry but the racist argument does not apply here at all. I have to stay in my demographic to be competitive in the market I am in. Muslim is not a race it's a religion and not my preference. Go ahead and practice your religion but not on my dime.

Ah okay

Thats a fair enough call then

I can see your point to this, as like you said, it will disrupt your business. Thanks for your patience in this...and sorry I insinuated that you were racist

The Church should live up to it's own beliefs and not discriminate... if they are so opposed to Homosexuals they should offer them help, not turn them away.

The church is a place for "lost souls" and since they believe homosexuals are

"lost" they should offer them salvation!

Originally posted by OzWeatherman
reply to post by TheRedneck

 

Well said mate

You are completely correct. Im sure many of us would hire the sexy blonde with absolutely no credential (or sense), rather than the old chubby woman with loads of experience. Figuratively speaking of course...

But is it right for the church to have a seperate law to every other organisation? Just as a comparisonn, my organisation would never be allowed to do something like this (legally), despite the beliefs of our head of department. Just like we wouldnt be allowed to discriminate on basis of religious preference...is it right for them to have their own set of rules?

I don't like this kind of discrimination on the other hand at least its honest- we have laws in the states to prevent discrimination and now everyone simply lies - and companies lie particularly well especially when they are forced to adhere to regulations that supposedly prevent discrimination - I worked in Human Resources for eight years and this is how its done -

candidate comes in for an interview - he has a disability[might be a drain on the healthcare budget], or is openly gay, or a single mom with kids[might have scheduling conflicts ] or any number of "disqualifiers" - that candidate gets interviewed VERY thoroughly, longer than most in fact, is treated with kid gloves and lots of glad handing and then not hired...they are told that more candidates must be interviewed to be fair and a smart company can always say that someone else was hired because they had "more education" or "more experience".... that's how its done everyday and it forces people who could work onto the welfare and disability rolls because no-on will hire them - Thanks for the hypocrisy - The Church in question was being consistent with its principles of morality though I may not agree with them or like it -

Our laws have made liars out of everyone - its disgusting....
I prefer honesty to bull-sh*t but I'm in the minority

Well said mate

You are completely correct. Im sure many of us would hire the sexy blonde with absolutely no credential (or sense), rather than the old chubby woman with loads of experience. Figuratively speaking of course...

But is it right for the church to have a seperate law to every other organisation? Just as a comparisonn, my organisation would never be allowed to do something like this (legally), despite the beliefs of our head of department. Just like we wouldnt be allowed to discriminate on basis of religious preference...is it right for them to have their own set of rules?

Well said mate

You are completely correct. Im sure many of us would hire the sexy blonde with absolutely no credential (or sense), rather than the old chubby woman with loads of experience. Figuratively speaking of course...

But is it right for the church to have a seperate law to every other organisation? Just as a comparisonn, my organisation would never be allowed to do something like this (legally), despite the beliefs of our head of department. Just like we wouldnt be allowed to discriminate on basis of religious preference...is it right for them to have their own set of rules?

Well said mate

You are completely correct. Im sure many of us would hire the sexy blonde with absolutely no credential (or sense), rather than the old chubby woman with loads of experience. Figuratively speaking of course...

But is it right for the church to have a seperate law to every other organisation? Just as a comparisonn, my organisation would never be allowed to do something like this (legally), despite the beliefs of our head of department. Just like we wouldnt be allowed to discriminate on basis of religious preference...is it right for them to have their own set of rules?

Well said mate

You are completely correct. Im sure many of us would hire the sexy blonde with absolutely no credential (or sense), rather than the old chubby woman with loads of experience. Figuratively speaking of course...

But is it right for the church to have a seperate law to every other organisation? Just as a comparisonn, my organisation would never be allowed to do something like this (legally), despite the beliefs of our head of department. Just like we wouldnt be allowed to discriminate on basis of religious preference...is it right for them to have their own set of rules?

reply to post by OzWeatherman


the church only cares about people that fit their profile, nothing else. this is why i'm an athiest. they have become antiquated crutches set on trying to control peoples lives. the church is suppose to be a servant of the people, not an arbitrary master.

reply to post by halfmanhalfamazing

You do realize we're not discussing a church turning away single moms or homosexuals, right? We're discussing a church not hiring single moms or homosexuals.

Like you, I would expect a church to offer hope, help, and salvation to everyone, especially those in need. But that is a different critter from offering them employment in the church. I would gladly throw a few bucks to a bum on the street corner, but that doesn't mean I would offer them a job as a receptionist or accountant.

================================
reply to post by jimmyx

the church is suppose to be a servant of the people, not an arbitrary master.

Er, exactly where is it written that a church must be a servant to everyone who asks for help? Especially when the help requested is employment in the church?

The very reason that churches excel so much at charity is that they use some measure of common sense in trying to place charity in the hands of those who truly need it and will likely use it to try and better themselves. Unlike government entitlements (the government is supposed to be a servant of the people), church charities rarely have to worry about recipients of the charity using it to buy drugs or booze. When you try and demand that a church helps everyone who asks for help, regardless of their personal convictions and likelihood of improperly using the aid to further harm themselves, you remove the ability of the church to focus their assistance and take away from those in true need.

Besides, since when is 'service' inclusive of employment 'rights'?

TheRedneck

I have my own business, and also spend a lot of time in the year between the UK and Australia, Brisbane in particular, and more recentley Melbourne. And i am a christian.

I am however of the accumen of the best person for the job.

The whole interview process for any field is discriminatary by defintion. You have to weigh the pro's and con's of each candidate and then choose the best person who suits your companies requirements, except in Australia it seems for if you have an Aboriginal candidate with relatively low experience to the rest, then by law you are virtually forced to employ them. I know that sounds dreadfull, but its true, and these people have no qualms in getting the lawyers in when they feel their "entitlements" have been compromised.
Up to some extent it is the same in the UK, however most of the candidates i have interviewed for specific roles be it Muslim, single mothers and so on, have actually been the best people for the job. The single mother especially for they have a lot to lose if they dont perform.
I will go as far as to say that they work better than the men even!

So I will not review my own interview process for any goverment legislation. I will trust my instncts that have not let me down so far, and be it muslim, christian, hindu, aboriginal, gay, straight, transgender, or any kind of minority in the book.
If you meet or exceed my requirements, have a verifiable work history, and have the character to succeed, then you will get the job.

However the church is another story.
The bible saye we are to look after the orphan and the widow, and lets face it, a lot of single moms are not single by choice but through abandonment (widowship) from the father of the child throughj abuse or infidelity. However those who are single by choice should still be made welcome because its the fricken church!!! Who supposed to accept EVERYONE! And be a light to everyone and lead them by example to do the right thing, not reject them coz they have a past! This is the reason i dont go to church anymore, coz of blatent hypocracy and control, and those who follow blindley whatever the pastor says without checking for yourself which is what the bible says to do. And i wasnt going to give my tythe so some jumped up preacher could drive a flash motor but neglect the hungry in his area. Thats where my tythe goes!
If any church does this then dont go anymore, but find one that doesnt discriminate, and loves God and people!


[edit on 083030p://f16Monday by Selahobed]

[edit on 083030p://f19Monday by Selahobed]

reply to post by TheRedneck


Yes, there is common sense and then there is blatant judgemental bias which is usually the case with some self righteous idiot who would judge a person by their situation and not by their ability to do the job.

Eg, a friend of mine who was a single mom, has a real heart for the poor and dispossesed, even gave her house over to homless people etc. She collected a lot of stuff by being an nuissance to furnish peoples houses who had nothing. She went beyond the call of duty to help people out even though she wasnt exactly rich herself. However when she approached the church for help in this most noble and christian of causes, she was basically told where to go because she was a single mother divorcee.
Good news is though that the church didnt deter her, and now she runs a very successful charity called "Loaves and Fishes" with her new husband. Still lives simply, but has helped out loads!! And now because she has won loads of awards, the church all of a sudden want a piece of her. As i said, hypocrites!

reply to post by Selahobed
Here again, I have to emphasize that this thread is not about the church helping the downtrodden. Of course that's their mandate (IMO anyway) if they are a Christian church! The real question here, however, is does the church have a right to choose who they will employ? I say yes, absolutely, as should any private entity.

I have personally abandoned churches who do not show the love of Jesus to everyone, regardless of their social position. I agree whole-heartedly with that sentiment. I also agree that single mothers would no doubt make excellent workers.

But that's not the issue here!

In your first post, you expressed amazement that Aboriginal job candidates in Oz could not be turned down for employment, regardless of qualifications, for fear of lawsuits. I agree that is a horrendous situation. But you now apparently favor the same situation when churches are involved?

Or do I misunderstand you?

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


Where the church is involved in terms of paid employment, i agree that the person who they employ has to have the apptitude to do the job they are gainfully employed for. However in my own experience in this, like working in christian charities for example, they always seem to employ a person on the basis that they have right standing in terms of faith and personal life bias, which has no bearing on a persons capability to do a job, so they in 9 times out of 10 employed the people who were in the right clique in church than the best person for the job. I saw this over and over again, and the charity who i was working for nearly went under because of this. Now they employ the right person, be it gay, straight or whatever and they have started to to expand! And to top that, the people who were employed, because they have been just loved on, am now in church and their lives have been turned around!
As i said in the post you are refering too; it was not about race but the best for the job, and no employer should be legistated to employ anyone because of race, creed or sexuality, however that should even more so apply to the church because everyone is welcome in Gods house, and if the best person for the job is gay, then they should get the job! In otherwords, stop employing the pastors blue eyed boys and girls, and get in someone who can actually do the job. You never know, it may turn their lives around too!

Th church has been secretive ever since the Inquisition, anyone heard of the Vatican Secret Archives?

reply to post by Selahobed

I have no doubt that you are correct in your assertion that the best candidates may not be who a church prefers. But isn't that their right, just as it is (or should be) yours, to hire whom they choose?

When we determine that others should abide by our feelings, we open the door to ourselves being bound by the others' beliefs as well. If you want freedom to hire the person you believe will be the best person for a job, then you must allow others to have that same right, even if you do not agree with their decisions.

It's called 'freedom', and it only exists when everyone has it.

TheRedneck

I have to agree that this is OK for the church to do. I also support the right of any individual to reject any order from any superior on religious grounds, to have their religions holy days off, and the right of everyone to have their religious ideas respected.

In the case of the church, it is generally against being gay and against divorce, therefore not allowing either gays or divorcees to work for the church makes sense.

There are lots of such scenarios that occur all the time that we wouldn't bat an eye at. If this article itself was about the church not hiring pagans we would probably be asking ourselves why such an obvious article was even written in the first place!

reply to post by TheRedneck


I have to agree with what you are saying, but from personal experience, hiring someone merely on the basis of what you said has caused some serious damage and has indeed bought Gods work into disrepute.

A point of example being Mercy Ministry in Sydney Australia. They too hired people on the basis of faith over experience and qualifications, to help and counsel young women who had the worst abuse possible. However the counselors, although they had training in christian counselling, they were ill equipt to deal with these traumatised young women. They even went as far as exorcisms which were quite extreme and further traumatised these women to the point of making them worse, and now some of them have been put off church for life!
If it had been the best people for the job rather than the pastors mates, you would have to ask yourself if their would be a different outcome!
Hiring the wrong people can ruin peoples lives. Its ok and great having that freedom you spoke of but not at the expense of the very traumatised and vunerable people who need true professionals.
I know these peoples hearts were in the right place, but someone who has been sexually abused and been made homeless, does not mean they have demonic posession, more likely medical intervention.
That is an extreme example i know, considering most of these jobs are purely admin roles, however the point still stands, and the church belongs to everyone. We are not judges and cannot answer for their lives only our own, but if we just do as God commanded and just love on them, then maybe that is Gods will, because who knows, mabe God drew them to that job for a reason?

reply to post by Selahobed

There is a check and balance to what you mention: any organization that fails to meet the needs of its clientele will soon cease to exist. It's the Capitalistic version of evolutionary theory.

As I mentioned, I have abandoned many churches, and while I am usually one of those closest to the door (unfortunately I tend to expect the worst from humanity), others do follow, and the church either shrinks considerably or dies completely. Just as a business which does not serve its customers dies off.

The sad fact is that people tend to get hurt when people make bad decisions. But it's a fact of life. I offer you a choice now: would you rather have no one get hurt by bad decisions, but also deny the ability to make decisions in their best interest to yourself and others, or would you keep the freedom to choose the best for your own goals and allow some to get hurt when people make bad decisions?

I would choose the latter: freedom. The reason is not that I want to see people hurt, but that I understand that no matter how tightly we regulate who can do what with whom, the more we actually begin to cause more pain than we prevent. At some point, forcing people to hire without any discrimination will require strict quotas on who must be hired, and qualifications will become extraneous notes on a piece of paper, irrelevant to getting the job. No other method will prevent discrimination, for as I explained in my first post on this thread, we all discriminate in some way.

Where do we end the push to end discrimination? When people are hired as surgeons with regard to their lifestyle/race/gender and irrelevant to qualifications? When it matters more that your lawyer fits the needed profile than they have the ability to argue for your interests?

I understand your concerns, and even sympathize with them, but I cannot condone your position. Freedom is the ultimate state of being of every human, and anything we do to limit that freedom has consequences.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by halfmanhalfamazing

You do realize we're not discussing a church turning away single moms or homosexuals, right? We're discussing a church not hiring single moms or homosexuals.

Like you, I would expect a church to offer hope, help, and salvation to everyone, especially those in need. But that is a different critter from offering them employment in the church. I would gladly throw a few bucks to a bum on the street corner, but that doesn't mean I would offer them a job as a receptionist or accountant.

i do realize that... but the church is still discriminating... something which

the church of all places shouldn't do. Whether it be employment or denying

entry to the church, the argument I made is valid as the church (in this

case) itself is not living up to it's own beliefs. If that bum had the neccesary

skills and had good morals why wouldn't I hire him?? Not all bums are

drunks you know. I would infact rather hire that bum than a person who

already has everything.

The church has had inquisitions, burnings of scientists, burnings of lots of people for lots of reasons... has regularly shown their true colors as nothing but a enormous control mechanism.

If you are too entrenched in this belief system due to the way you grew up, I'm sorry but you've got to break free.

'THE CHURCH' is not good.