You're Gay? You're FIRED! [Archive]

suchislife2

09-26-2009, 11:26 PM

Linky (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/868273/church-can-reject-gays-single-mums)

Basically the Victorian Government has decided that they will allow church groups to fired people who they think undermines their beliefs. This means if you are gay or a a single mother you will be fired.

smileyeagle1021

09-26-2009, 11:59 PM

Utah allows ANY business to do that right now... so welcome to my world :(

Akasa

09-27-2009, 12:06 AM

I have no words for how wrong that is.

HYHYBT

09-27-2009, 03:36 AM

I think they ought to be consistent: if they're not allowed to discriminate in other ways then these should be off limits as well. And it's Australia; I'm not that familiar with their way of doing things. But I'm all in favor of very strong limits on the government telling a religion how to operate and vice versa.

If they're forced to hire X, but continue teaching that they are evil, that would in any other workplace be considered harassment. So either they're allowed to harass their employees in ways that would get anyone else sued out of existence, or you have the government telling a religion what morals it may teach. I don't *agree* at all with that position, but it should be theirs to decide so long as they're not trying to force it on anyone else.

Any other kind of business and it would be different. Or at least *should* be; there's no protection here in Georgia either, though I understand Congress is working on it.

fireheart17

09-27-2009, 01:29 PM

Hmmm, IIRC....in Australia, homosexuals (broad term for being gay in this case, not just men) are protected (usually). Single mothers aren't.
I wonder though....since it's damn near impossible to tell if someone is gay from sight (the American Dad scene where Stan and Steve are heading to the Republican party meeting springs to mind.) I wonder if the whole "don't ask don't tell" policy could work?

gremcint

09-27-2009, 07:33 PM

Honestly if they have a right to exclude people from their church based on sexuality then they should have a right to exclude who works for them so while it sucks the guy got fired the church should not be forced to employ people that they are against if they don't want to. This is not a regular company this is religious organization and if they truely believe in something then the government shouldn't be forcing them to go against their beliefs.

Having said that they should then fire anyone who violates any of their rules or is another religion.

Also I do think that it's reprehensible to fire someone purely for sexual orientation but this organization is not exactly hiding it's opinions on homosexuality and lying about.

BroomJockey

09-27-2009, 07:56 PM

Honestly if they have a right to exclude people from their church based on sexuality

Here's the thing. Why are religious groups above the law? And they are. You're not allowed to have Men's Only clubs anymore, or Whites Only clubs. But because it's religion, you're allowed to get away with discrimination. So, while they may not approve of the actions of homosexuals, I don't think that they should have a right to exclude them. Sorry religion, follow the damned law, or be disbanded.

Rapscallion

09-27-2009, 08:33 PM

Here's the thing. Why are religious groups above the law? And they are. You're not allowed to have Men's Only clubs anymore, or Whites Only clubs. But because it's religion, you're allowed to get away with discrimination. So, while they may not approve of the actions of homosexuals, I don't think that they should have a right to exclude them. Sorry religion, follow the damned law, or be disbanded.

I can see where you're coming from, but as far as I go, I'm happy for them to say they won't accept gays into their membership. That's freedom, and it shows the bigotry up in sharp relief for all to see. However, when they're acting like a business by hiring people for money, they then come under the umbrella of the employment laws.

Rapscallion

BroomJockey

09-27-2009, 09:53 PM

I'm happy for them to say they won't accept gays into their membership. That's freedom, and it shows the bigotry up in sharp relief for all to see.

My plan's a bit more insidious. They're not allowed to refuse membership, but they're still free to act like assholes. The harassment and bigotry's shown pretty well then. Though I suppose it's shown as well in your fashion, with less conflict.

gremcint

09-28-2009, 12:19 AM

However, when they're acting like a business by hiring people for money, they then come under the umbrella of the employment laws.

So priests shouldn't be paid?
They're not allowed to hire an accountant to track donations?
They can't hire a lawyer if needed?
They can't hire a realtor when they want to build a new church?

Or they are allowed to hire those but they have to go against their religious beliefs?

the_std

09-28-2009, 01:12 AM

Or they are allowed to hire those but they have to go against their religious beliefs?

In a word - yes. Someone's sexual orientation, religious beliefs (except when majorly applicable, like the priest position), ethnic origins, etcetera etcetera should never, ever keep them from being employed. If they want to hire an accountant, all that matters is that the accountant is good at accounting, not if he likes to suck cock. They should not be allowed to use their religious beliefs in the way that they are.

HYHYBT

09-28-2009, 01:36 AM

I wonder though....since it's damn near impossible to tell if someone is gay from sight (the American Dad scene where Stan and Steve are heading to the Republican party meeting springs to mind.) I wonder if the whole "don't ask don't tell" policy could work?No protection for sexual orientation means they can fire you because they THINK you're gay... or even, in a different organization, because they think you're straight, though surely that's rare.

Nyoibo

09-28-2009, 05:35 AM

I found this bit from the article interesting

She said she was pleased religious bodies would soon have to demonstrate how employing someone of a particular religion was an inherent requirement of a job.

"Religious schools or religious charities, for example, will have to show how belonging to a particular religion is relevant to the job they are trying to fill," Dr Szoke said.

"In the case of religious education teachers or chaplains, this will be clear. However, in the case of office staff or the maths teacher it will need to be made explicit how religion is relevant to the job."

Looks like it might not be so cut and dried as they actually have to prove that sexual or religeous orientation will have an impact on the job they perform. And in the interests of fairness, I would point out that these are proposed changes to laws, they have not come into effect and are under review.

smileyeagle1021

09-28-2009, 06:45 AM

No protection for sexual orientation means they can fire you because they THINK you're gay... or even, in a different organization, because they think you're straight, though surely that's rare.

Bingo... people keep saying that there shouldn't be anti-discrimination laws based on orientation because orientation isn't plainly obvious (as skin color or ethnic origin is)... that a person must be told what another person's orientation is (not true... I don't have to point blank say that I'm gay... but if I talk about my boyfriend, which heteros talk about their girlfriends all the time, so I think it's fair for me to talk about my boyfriend without fear of reprisal), but in Utah simply suspecting the employee is gay is justified grounds for termination.

Though of course I can also counter argue, that if orientation shouldn't be protected because it isn't plainly obvious, then religion shouldn't be protected either, for the same reason.

Rapscallion

09-28-2009, 07:05 AM

Or they are allowed to hire those but they have to go against their religious beliefs?

This one works for me. When a faith acts as a series of beliefs, they can believe what they want. When they start acting like a business, including hiring people that their invisible friend hasn't provided for free, then they're in the secular realm and subject to the anti-discrimination laws.

EDITNOTE - To clarify, the church isn't required to go against its religious beliefs, but it's not allowed to discriminate between services offered on the grounds of the offeree's sexuality. For example, if they need a lawyer and hire one for a task, then halfway through find out he's gay and want to stop the contract based on that, they're up a certain creek without a paddle.

Rapscallion

HYHYBT

09-28-2009, 08:15 PM

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0928/1224255368537.html

Seems to be talking about the same thing, though if this, which isn't in the other article, is accurate then it changes everything:
Victoria’s attorney-general Rob Hulls said the move would protect the right of church-run schools, hospitals and welfare services to refuse to employ or provide services to people whom they believe may undermine their beliefs.Not hiring someone is one thing, but refusing medical care is inexcusable.

BroomJockey

09-28-2009, 08:20 PM

Not hiring someone is one thing, but refusing medical care is inexcusable.

If that's accurate, then any hospital who refuses care based on "undermining their beliefs," or whatever retarded phrasing they use, should instead be charged with crimes. Someone dies? Friggin' Murder charges all around. That's just sick. "Love the sinner, hate the sin" my ass.

smileyeagle1021

09-28-2009, 10:43 PM

"Love the sinner, hate the sin" my ass.

you've clearly never been to Utah... that is nothing more than code for "hate the sinner and the sin"

fireheart17

09-30-2009, 01:29 PM

Flyndaran

09-30-2009, 08:01 PM

Remember, I'm Australian. laws are a little different.

Most places will not refuse to hire someone based on orientation.

Well your population started out as criminals, and everyone knows about prison gay. Our population started out as religious nutjobs. We have a long way before our laws catch up with the 20th century let alone the 21st.

Kalli

10-02-2009, 06:15 AM

hiring people that their invisible friend hasn't provided for free,

R

O

F

L

!

Regarding the Australian laws thing, I find it very interesting how widely varied the kind of response to the Gay community is in Australia. In some ways, we are extremely conservative and prejudiced (this goes for other things like race, religion etc), and in other ways we are very accepting and laid back.

I don't know how we are viewed internationally, but I feel as though we are both one of the most tolerant and intolerant nations on the planet. It's very strange.

fireheart17

10-02-2009, 10:46 AM

I'll agree with that Kalli.

We'll allow homosexual couples the benefits of heterosexual couples, but we don't allow them to get married.
We'll allow gay pride parades (Mardi Gras in Australia is VERY different), but we don't watch gay teachers in our schools...

Hyena Dandy

12-10-2009, 04:46 AM

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0928/1224255368537.html

Seems to be talking about the same thing, though if this, which isn't in the other article, is accurate then it changes everything:
Not hiring someone is one thing, but refusing medical care is inexcusable.

That was referring to hospitals firing people, not denying medical care.

Also.

She said she was pleased religious bodies would soon have to demonstrate how employing someone of a particular religion was an inherent requirement of a job.

So that it would make sense to fire someone they hired as a hospital chaplain who goes against the religion they should represent.

They need to prove that religion is relevant to the job.

Slytovhand

12-10-2009, 01:13 PM

I didn't see this one come up, but since it has, I'll throw in my bits.

AS has been mentioned, sexual orientation needs to be relevant. The word 'undermine' needs to be clarified, and I'm pretty sure the first wrongful dismissal case will help with that.

Now, for example, is it ok in the USA for a Democrat to be hired to work in a Republican office? Or, would they been 'undermining' the organisation? Over here, you can't get fired for political orientation, but it would make sense if the employee was actively demoting the company they work for. If a person is gay, and works for a religious organisation in a (say) representative role, wouldn't that undermine the religion (if said religion was against homosexuality)?? Would you hire a Muslim to preach about the Bible?(ie religious teacher in a Christian school).

So, I think in some circumstances, the changes are rather obvious (and irrelevant... although... ). Others will be more... suspect.

And here we are with a thread on Separation of Powers :p

Kheldarson

12-10-2009, 05:53 PM

I've just got to wonder, if you are in an association that is against certain things, first, why you are in said organization, and two, why you would be advertising it?

For example, I worked at a Boy Scout camp several summers running, starting after the Supreme Court ruling. Several staff members were bi or gay or "curious", but didn't talk about it to many people if at all. But one summer, we had an employee who talked about his orientation all the time. Including on the clock, in front of Scouts and Scouters, and even after the reservation director had to come in and have a talk with the entire group of that particular post. He got fired.

Is it right to be rejected for your beliefs? No. But at the same time when your beliefs are contrary to the beliefs of the organization, I don't think it should be expected for the organization to keep you long once those views are revealed.

jackfaire

12-10-2009, 10:21 PM

Is it right to be rejected for your beliefs? No. But at the same time when your beliefs are contrary to the beliefs of the organization, I don't think it should be expected for the organization to keep you long once those views are revealed.

See who get's to decide what the Boy Scout's views are? Shouldn't former scouts have a partial say?

I mean seriously I am ashamed of what the "beliefs" of boy scouts are to the point I won't mention that I was one.

Kheldarson

12-11-2009, 03:11 AM

I do believe it was National and based on not only their interpretation, but also letters and responses given to them. All I was saying is when a group is publicly for or against something, why would you go counter their belief publicly when hired by them or even join them to begin with?