Should Religion be exempt from Equal rights laws?

The problem lies with what is discrimination and what is not.
A bus trip for the elderly to the beach for an example. Would it make sense to bring a case of discrimination against whoever organised it because a group of teenagers were not allowed on the bus to join the trip?
That is a clear case of age based discrimination.
Or how about a man being arrested for entering the womens changing rooms at a swimming pool? Isn’t that discrimination based on gender?

Given the sickening crimes perpetrated by members of the clergy and covered up by the hierarchy both here and indeed worldwide can they be relied upon to make fair and just decisions on a localized basis ?

Yes, interesting that some religions won’t let a goup with certain sexual practises in, yet their reaction to those already in that not only practice those sexual practises, and do it by force or coercion that anywhere else would be called rape, and to crown it all it more often than not involves children, their response is less than a slap on the wrist and to move them to “New Pastures” so to speak.

The main concern over the right regarding discrimination is that some are not really clear about that their rights are. Do I have the right to join any organisation? Obviously not. I have never been in the military so I could not join the RSA (Returned Services Association). With regard to religious groups then I guess it would depend.
Bit like a girl wanting to go to an all male military academy. That is rather expensive for the military academy as extra facilities need to be created… mens and womens showers/toilets/changing areas etc etc.

If a religious group think a certain sexual activity is bad, yet people who practise that activity want to join then you really have to look at their reasons for joining and also the reasons for refusing them. Do they want to change their activity and want support? Do they want to change the organisation or make a political point?
If we make it clearer would it make sense to demand the KKK accept non white members? Some could say if they don’t then they are violating the rights of those wishing to join. Others would say that those wanting to join don’t have honourable intentions in the first place. Some organisations welcome change and others do not.
Equally if there is one rule for all and no one should practise discrimination based on sex, race, or religious beliefs etc etc, then programs like affirmative action becomes illegal. Many militaries around the world have situations where females pass because they are female to meet quotas for recruitment. Those men who perhaps did better on their tests than women that were accepted were discriminated against. Over time tests have evolved to allow the different genders compete on a more even playing field, but fitness tests widely used have different requirements for women and for men. If the tests are for doing a specific job then the level required to do the job shouldn’t depend on whether a man or a woman is performing that task. A box of tools doesn’t suddenly become lighter because a woman is carrying it.

The reality is that life isn’t fair. Those that complain and whine generally get the best of both worlds.

Hard to know what is the best with these issues…but to be ( and no pun intended ) the Devil’s advocate…..

Has the Catholic church the right to discriminate in this way? what is next ?

No adoptions allowed unless the parents are practicing Catholics?

No Muslims , Jews or Protestants need apply?

Is it right that they brand all Gay people as being unsuitable?

Given the sickening crimes perpetrated by members of the clergy and covered up by the hierarchy both here and indeed worldwide can they be relied upon to make fair and just decisions on a localized basis ?

That’s my point-if it is a private organization, then it has the right to employ selective membership.

I’m not sure about the job elements you’re talking about, or where you’ve brought these into the debate. With regards to private clubs, you are partly right, i.e. if it IS a private club then they should be able to choose who they let in, but in the clubs talked about at University by jbritchford, these are not private.

The National Union of Students has a strict non-discrimination policy, and Students Unions at a universities cannot be affiliated with the NUS unless it has certain associations, including an LGB (Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual associstaion) and and ISA (International Students association), although I’m not certain that they HAVE to have the latter even. Anyway, with regards to religious groups wanting to use union facilities and funding, they can only expect to do so when they subcribe to the NUS’s non-discriminatory policies, and therefore they stop being a private club because they have to be open to all. If they wish to remain private then they will need to consider meeting in another location, and not beneffiting from funding and support.

I equate it to the private club/public bar issue within the smoking debate.

Given the way the world works, a Christian group at university is relatively unlikely to attract non-Christians (whether gay or straight), but they may be likely to attract Gay Christians.

Discrimination is an emotive subject for the simple reason that we all have prejudices. Be they to do with ethnicity, religion, sexuality or people who mow their lawns at 6am on a Sunday morning.

Some of the things we are we have no control over; for instance I am white, male and English. None of which I was able to choose.

Most educated people would accept that sexuality is another factor we have no control over.

Other things about me are dependent upon the choices (both good and bad) that I have made, such as the career I’ve chossen, doing a degree with the OU, my political beliefs and the friendships I have made, and I would like to think I have made these choices in a rational manner.

Religion is something that ultimately people choose, as witnessed by the fact that many people brought up in religous house holds end up rejecting their parents beliefs, and others only show an interest and become religous later in life.

I would argue that discrimination against someone for what they have no control over is absoloutely wrong. If you were born blind or into an ethnic minority would you want to be discriminated against? However I would fully accept a person’s/society’s right to discrimante based upon a person’s choices – would you want to employ a known rapist in an office full of women? a or NAZI in a Jewish Jewellers?

The problem is that religions all too often teach people to discriminate against naturally occuring groups in society ie. women, gays, ethnic minorities etc. as well as people who have made choices to follow other religions and philosophies or even just belong to a different denomintion.

To allow people to use religion as a get out so that they can ‘choose’ to discriminate would be a disaster, as then anyone could act out their prejudices by claiming that their religous beliefs required it.

I shall make myself more clear.

If the French students in your example want their own exclusive group, fine. But they should not expect to be let into other groups that want exclusive membership. If Christians want to discriminate against people joining their groups, or staying in their hotels (some object to gay patrons), then why should not gay people do the reverse?

Here in the States it’s been that way for awhile…
The Boy Scouts have lost government funding (usually through local city or county youth programs) for not allowing hay scout leaders or members.
That even means Scouts can’t meet in community funded buildings or schools.

Likewise, student Christian organizations can’t use school buildings for after school meetings…even though any other special interest groups (photograpy, car, horse, etc. clubs)..can.

I just saw an interesting item in the paper…a state senator is introducing a bill for a state law that would prohibit veterans from being discriminated against. He says that as a veteran he was asked questions that others would not have to answer…”Have you had any mental health issues since coming back” and “Would you get along with co-workers who are against the war?” Hope it passes. I’ve even seen that since my recent move…I think some don’t want to hire vets because they think they’re too ridgid or some other silly stereotype.

I’m not aware of any atheists filing a lawsuit to join a Church…but you never know…:D

It’s different because the private group is specifically composed of individuals of a like mindset and is keeping everyone else out. The company is only targeting specific individuals. I really don’t see what the harm in having a private student’s organization for Christians is. Why should they be forced to allow other religions to join? It makes more sense for others to form their own religious organizations. If what you are saying is to be enacted into law, then you have to abolish all religions as they all cater to only one specific group of people. You’ll have to grant everyone access to everything. That means you can’t discriminate against people because of age, medical condition, religion, sex, or anything else you can think of. Look at golf. You’d have to merge the PGA and LPGA and have everyone play from the same tee. You’d probably never see a woman win another tournament. In the case of schools, you’ll have to either abolish every single group catering to a specific group of people, be it race, religion, or gender-oriented. What is wrong with a bunch of French students wanting their own student’s group to foster a sense of community?

Its entirely the same principle. In one case you say ‘you can’t join my group because of your beliefs, which i disagree with’. In the other scenario an employer may say ‘i disagree with your beliefs and think them to be wrong, so i will not hire you’.

Why should any group be allowed to discriminate for any reason? If one group is for whatever reason, why are not others? Either it is socially acceptable for all to do it or for nobody to do it.

The problem is that people ARE told they cannot be a member if their beliefs etc conflict with the group’s.

That’s my point-if it is a private organization, then it has the right to employ selective membership.

If a Christian group wants to refuse entry to gay people or any other group of people, then fine. But they should then expect that if someone wishes then they may discriminate against Christians on the basis of their faith. It has to be one rule for everyone.

But those are two entirely different scenarios. It’s convoluted and confusing, sure, but it’s not wrong. Keeping a non-Christian out of a Christian group is fine, it is a specifically Christian group. Telling someone they can’t get a job at a non-religious corporation because they are Christian is totally different.

The problem is that people ARE told they cannot be a member if their beliefs etc conflict with the group’s.

My problem is not that this is taking place per say, but that the church on one hand wished the protection of discriminatory laws but does not wish to abide by them.

Personally i believe that many of these equal rights legislations can be done without. Private groups have a right to decide their membership and individuals and firms may choose those who they wish to provide with their goods or services. If there are bigoted firms or individuals, then public pressure should change their attitudes, if people are truly against racism/sexism etc then it should not have to be forced on them by legislation, the public must make it known openly that it is not approved of and it is in nobody’s best interest.

That’s what it boils down to. If a Christian group wants to refuse entry to gay people or any other group of people, then fine. But they should then expect that if someone wishes then they may discriminate against Christians on the basis of their faith. It has to be one rule for everyone.

Personally I have no problem with private clubs and organizations having membership requirements. If you don’t like the rules, just don’t join. The idea of expecting a Christian students organization, to for example, accept Muslim members, is asinine. I believe in the concept of equal rights for all, but at some point you have to wonder when people are going too far in nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking. Look at it this way: “selective membership”, if you will, is perfectly fine, provided the group does not interfere with the rights of others. Now, if the Christian students group was protesting and harassing, say, Muslim or Jewish organizations, or publicly speaking against gay students groups, then you have a problem. But if they simply keep their beliefs and their organization private, then they aren’t hurting anything. They aren’t interfering with the rights of the aforementioned gay students to have their own group and enjoy a hassle-free school experience.

Besides, this isn’t exactly discrimination either. A non-Christian is not being discriminated against if he is not allowed entry into a Christian student’s group. Now he IS being discriminated against if, for example, he isn’t hired solely because he is not a Christian. Some people might consider that a grey area, but it isn’t exactly a grey area if you fully grasp both the definition and the intent of the anti-discrimination laws.

If you want to get rid of religious organizations, then you also by definition have to get rid of political parties. They have selective membership. Same goes for any male-only sports. If you get rid of religious organizations, you’ll have to abolish mens and womens leagues and only have one league containing both sexes. Which will it be?