Bigotry and religion

Laws in the United States recognize specific "protected classes" and create penalties for those who discriminate against people who are or are perceived to be in any of these classes. Some groups have started claiming that such laws require employers, landlords, pharmacists and other individuals to violate "sincerely held religious conviction" by forcing them to hire, rent to, serve or otherwise deal with people their religion rejects.

This survey seeks DU's opinions on whether it is more acceptable, equally acceptable or less acceptable for discrimination to be based on "sincerely held religious beliefs" when compared to discrimination which is not based on "sincerely held religious beliefs." For each type of discrimination enumerated below, please respond with one of these three options:

A. Discrimination which is based on religious conviction is more acceptable than discrimination which is not based on religious conviction.

B. Discrimination which is based on religious conviction is equally acceptable to discrimination which is not based on religious conviction.

C. Discrimination based on religious conviction is less acceptable than discrimination which is not based on religious conviction.


Please note that "acceptable" is relative to the two forms of discrimination, and is not meant to imply that any type of discrimination is or is not acceptable on its own.

--------------------------------------------------

1. Discrimination on account of skin color (white, yellow, black, etc.)

2. Discrimination on account of ethnic background (Irish, Hispanic, Chinese, Native American, etc.)

3. Discrimination on account of religion (Catholic, Wiccan, Scientologist, Satanist, etc.)

4. Discrimination on account of gender (male, female, intersexed)

5. Discrimination on account of gender identity which does not match biological gender (transgendered)

6. Discrimination on account of economic status (poor, middle class, wealthy)

7. Discrimination on account of type of employment (garbage collector, teacher, lawyer, etc.)

8. Discrimination on account of sexual orientation (straight, gay, bisexual)

9. Discrimination on account of marrital status (single, married, divorced, separated, etc.)

10. Discrimination on account of physical relationships (single w/ live-in lover, polyamorous, etc.)

11. Discrimination on account of legal political activity (party affiliation, attendance at rallies, etc.)

12. Discrimination on account of personal views regarding abortion

13. Discrimination on account of personal views regarding same-sex marriage

14. Discrimination on account of personal views regarding US involvement in Iraq

15. Discrimination on account of personal views regarding the wall of separation between church and state

list the numbers and then the letter ABC after each?

TG

Yes, something like 1A, 2B, etc. would be just fine :hi:

B...religion is too easy an out to justify discrimination. But yes, I would discriminate.

If I was hiring somebody, and had a choice between a white fascist, Bush loving, rightwing nutjob who thinks America should bow down to a christian god....and a racial minority transgender, liberal, atheist....I would pick the transgender in a heartbeat....if for no other reason, that person probably has received a several lifetimes of discrimination already. But I back this up with facts...minorities, transgendered and atheists are discriminated against all the time. So, I'll do my best to help them out whenever possible.

PS: I'm a white guy.

The "white fascist, Bush loving, rightwing nutjob who thinks America should bow down to a christian god" is clearly the most qualified for the job? Would it therefore be acceptable for this person to reject your job application if the tables were turned, even if you were the most qualified applicant?

If a woman comes in for a job interview, and she's wearing a nice gold cross around her neck, I doubt many employers will count that against her. If "Past President of College Republicans" is listed on her resume, many employers will be impressed. They'll think it shows impressive leadership skills.

But what about the woman who comes to the job interview wearing a double female symbol? And what if she lists "Past president of College Atheists?" Will they think THAT shows great leadership skills too?

To answer your question, I will hire somebody that is 'clearly' the most qualified, even if I don't agree with their politics. My success depends on it. But, if things were remotely close, I'd hire the atheist lesbian in a heartbeat. Why? First, I admire that she's true to herself, despite the fact that she's likely to get refused jobs. Second, it's smart business. Because she's probably been discriminated against, she's more likely to be well motivated to do a great job for me.

So, when it comes to people/groups that typically get discriminated against, I think it's okay to discriminated in favor of them. And, it may be good business too.

I can think of one place, in my state government, although, I don't know that unless one were to formally declare themselves to be an atheist that this law would ever be enforced

I find it pretty hard to justify any discrimination, so that's the only answer I feel I can give.

What do you think about this:
I may choose not to like you, associate with you, do business with your business, etc. because of your views, political activities, etc. But I wouldn't "discriminate" against you, i.e. not hire you, deny your right to vote, etc. Is my personal rejection of you the same as discrimination, per se?

What's your defintion of discrimination here?

but I find that when I read them I keep thinking of caveats. For example, in general, in my opinion no one should be denied access to housing, medical care, employment because of these items. But... if the Catholic church is hiring someone to head up their pro-life PR campaign in Chicago and the president of NARAL applies, I think they would be within their rights to discriminate against her for that position.

The choices you have seem to imply that it discrimination is more or less acceptable to begin with.
I don't think that was your intent.

More and more, you are seeing arguments along the lines of, "I don't have to follow the law because doing so would violate my religious beliefs." Among examples are town clerks in Vermont who refuse to accept civil union documents, and pharmacists who refuse to dispense prescribed birth control. I figured it would be interesting to see if some kinds of discrimination are more acceptable (or at least less objectionable) if the expressed basis for discrimination is religious belief. As I stated in the original post, "acceptable" should be read as relative, not absolute.

there is an implication that "discrimination" is acceptable.

But, it's rarely that cut and dried. We've been through the racial and sexual discrimination thing, and that's pretty well settled, but a lot of gray areas are out there. It's easy to scoff at a pharmacist who won't sell the Morning After pill, but what if euthanasia became legal and the medical professionals who refuse to participate in that? And, should a medical professional who believes abortion is wrong really be forced to perform it?

If I'm hiring and three people are equally qualified, will I hire the leftist white woman, the conservative black one, or the politically neutral, but gay, hispanic man? I will probably hire the one whose overall outlook fits in best with the operation, if there is one, or find some comfort level to make the decision on. Is there some "discrimination" or prejudice involved? Maybe, but the decision is on what's best for the business and the employees already there.

And so it goes... Never any easy answers in the real world.

Just before the list of subjects: Please note that "acceptable" is relative to the two forms of discrimination, and is not meant to imply that any type of discrimination is or is not acceptable on its own. :hi:

Again, the theme is whether or not a religious basis for discrimination makes that discrimination more, equally or less acceptable than a non-religious basis. It is not whether a particular discrimination is or is not acceptable on its own, or whether there might be any gray area.

getting at, and I don't disagree with trying to make sense of this whole thing, but I just get a little pissy when the way it's asked is, "Is this discrimination better or worse than that one?"

The way most people define discrimination, it's ALL wrong, and asking which ones are "better" or "acceptable" kind of muddies the water. I'd rather ask how these situations would be identified as discrimination or ethical conduct according to some code.

Like with same-sex marriage-- it is discriminatory for the state to deny legal sanction and benefits to same-sex couples, but it can be argued both ways over marriage as opposed to civil union. It would be very hard to argue that an Orthodox rabbi or Catholic priest refusing to marry a gay couple is "discriminating."

OK, I may be picking nits, but I'm in a nitpicky mood today.

:hi:

Having God on your side is a golden ticket to all kinds of perversions of intelligence and feelings. Not to mention bad behaviors. IMO, religious bigotry is the worst kind, because there is no discussion possible, no intelligent argument allowed, no rational point of view tolerated. "God said it. I believe it. That settles it." That's a bumper sticker I once read, and I fear nothing more than a bunch of religious bigots busy doing "God's Work."

After so many years of this shit, my preference is for everybody to just leave God home in your closet. I don't want to hear any more bullshit religious excuses and justifications for flat out hateful actions.

Sorry, but in my scrawny little agnostical/atheistic brain, I just don't believe you when you say, "God told me to be an asshole."

It's not acceptable to give or refuse someone most jobs on grounds of religious conviction, but I would have no qualms about refusing to vote for someone on grounds of religion. Not making friends with someone on religious grounds is acceptable; not being friendly to someone on religious grounds isn't, I think.

Basically, I'd apply the same test to discriminating on religious grounds that I'd apply to anything else - will it effect their fitness to perform the required function (although even if it will, you shouldn't rule them out solely on grounds of religion if they're still fit to do it in spite of their beliefs).

If I want to cast someone to play JFK in a movie, I will discriminate on grounds of race, sex and appearance, but not on grounds of religion or sexual orientation.

If I want to hire someone to be a firefighter, I will discriminate on grounds of sex to some extent, and on any religious grounds that will impede ability to fight fire (although I can't imagine any), but not on grounds of race.

If I want to hire someone to teach mathematics, I won't discriminate on any grounds except ability to teach mathematics.

Discrimination has an overly bad reputation. We discriminate whenever we make a decision. What is wrong is discriminating against someone *unfairly*.