TLDR - A small, private Southern Baptist college in Tennessee is legally allowed to ban students whose “lifestyles are an affront to their Christian philosphy.” In other words–no gays allowed.
My .02 - I think private colleges, particularly religious ones, should be allowed to discriminate based on religious beliefs. Even BYU kicks people off of its sports teams for fornicating with their girlfriend. I have no problem with that, because that’s how Mormons believe. If you don’t like it, don’t go to school there.
Moreover, if you’re gay, why would you want to attend a school where you’re going to get harassed anyway? Just pick a different school. There’s no shortage of private, liberal arts schools where the tuition is high and the benefits are nominal.
I don’t think “No gays allowed” is the proper conclusion. Rather, if a “gay” (will the thought police permit that as a noun?) consumates his gayness with another, then he can be booted. Can’t they kick out heterosexuals for extramarital sex as well? This is a behavior-based policy.
In most cases, I’d agree with this. The only conditions I’d put on it would be if there were limited schools where a certain skill or area of study were covered or if it was the only school within a reasonable geographic area. Also: I hate the idea of “religious freedom.” Religious beliefs don’t deserve any respect above any other beliefs. Too many people use religious freedom as an out for dumb behaviour.
I guess he means that meritocratic discrimination is not the same as discriminative discrimination. You should be able to discriminate based on a person’s ability to perform some function, but not for unrelated traits like race, hair color, who they want to bang, or their opinion on various spaghetti monsters.
Church organizations and private religious universities shouldn’t be able to discriminate based on opinions of God or sexual behavior as it relates to their beliefs? So it would definitely be wrong then for a Catholic church to not hire a pastor because he’s Muslim?
I really just don’t get it I guess. To me it seems obvious to let religions and people have their beliefs. If they believe a sexual orientation or behavior is wrong I don’t see why they should be forced to accept it into those private institutions dedicated to those religions. I don’t have a personal issue with it but I also think at some point you have to let people have their beleifs. Somewhere along the way we became the Church of PC.
Why doesn’t Ebony employee white models? Why doesn’t Victoria Secret employ three hundred pound panzers? Why can’t I work at scores as a stripper? At a certain point I dread living in a society that continues down that road past the point of common sense at the expense of individual freedoms and personal idealogy.
My last few visits to Manhattan and particularly Brooklyn this year I’ve come to see it as the epicenter of thoughtlessly oppresive group think. I really hope that does not become the national standard.
I was attempting to interpret the guy’s earlier point. However, in this case, those personal beliefs would affect job performance. I would not, for instance, hire someone to work in a charity organization if they believed the cause was not worthwhile.
Why would it effect performance? Can’t a Muslim have full knoweldge of the Bible and prepare sermons accordlingly? It is very possible. Perhaps a Buddhist? Couldn’t an organizer for a charity with great skills and no belief in the charity possibly do a much better job than a cluelessly well intentioned one?
It would be difficult for someone to convince others to follow religious teachings if it was obvious that you did not believe in them yourself. This does not *have* to be true, but it would most likely be true. At this point, you are just being argumentative.