You're Gay? You're FIRED!

[suchislife2]

Linky

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]

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

[Akasa]

I have no words for how wrong that is.

[HYHYBT]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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