Britain versus The Pope

[Ben Kenobi]

Our equality law isn't saying you have to have quotas, it's saying you can't say "He's not the best person for the job because he's gay/black/white/muslim/christian/female" no matter what your personal beliefs are.

So a Catholic charity must hire Muslims?

[MikeH]

STRAW MAN!

They aren't being forced to hire a Muslim. However if one applies, and is the best qualified for the role, they can't refuse to hire them purely because they are Muslim. Why would being a Muslim stop someone being able to do, say, an office administration job with a Catholic charity?

It's a simple concept. It's exactly the same as, say, Microsoft not being allowed to say "we believe black people are stupid so we won't hire any" or Macdonalds not being allowed to say "we won't hire any women because they can't make burgers when they are unclean during menstruation".

[Ben Kenobi]

They aren't being forced to hire a Muslim. However if one applies, and is the best qualified for the role, they can't refuse to hire them purely because they are Muslim. Why would being a Muslim stop someone being able to do, say, an office administration job with a Catholic charity?

For the simple reason that the Muslim is a representative of the Catholic church. Again, I would find it very difficult to believe that the only qualified person applying for the job was a Muslim.

It's a simple concept. It's exactly the same as, say, Microsoft not being allowed to say "we believe black people are stupid so we won't hire any" or Macdonalds not being allowed to say "we won't hire any women because they can't make burgers when they are unclean during menstruation".

The issue is with someone wearing a burger king hat working at McDonalds. Go ahead, and try it and see how long you remain employed.

[MikeH]

For the simple reason that the Muslim is a representative of the Catholic church.

So what?

Again, I would find it very difficult to believe that the only qualified person applying for the job was a Muslim.

STRAW MAN - read this carefully:

"IF THEY ARE THE BEST QUALIFIED THEY CAN'T CHOOSE NOT GIVE THEM THE JOB PURELY BECAUSE THEY ARE A MUSLIM. THEY CAN NOT GIVE THEM THE JOB IF THERE IS A BETTER APPLICANT"

You can't pick who you choose to hire based on your own prejudices. Whether your invisible friend in the sky told you them or not.

The issue is with someone wearing a burger king hat working at McDonalds.

No it isn't. It's saying that everyone who applies to a job should be judged on their skills and experience ONLY.

How you consolidate uniform/dress code with religious attire is a completely different issue.

[MikeH]

Why do I even bother arguing with you. It doesn't matter that you're homophobic. The law protects homosexuals from you being able to discriminate against them and that's a very good thing.

CASE CLOSED.

[MOBIUS]

Oh. So there's not too much point making a fuss. The gays aren't going to want to work there anyway, it's like the definition of a hostile work environment.

For equality to work, it is important for everyone to have the same choices available to them, whether they choose to use them or not.

Your seeking to maintain the status quo in this respect is the thin end of the wedge as you are in effect condoning the ‘right’ to perpetuating a homophobic work environment.

Indeed it is precisely this sort of unjust tyranny that has been fought against in many guises down the ages, be they workers’ rights, voters’ rights (male and female), the right to free schooling and healthcare, against slavery, against racism, against sexism, and in this case, against homophobia.

If you are against this form of equality, then it stands to reason that you are against all other forms of equality and basic human rights fought for the same reasons.

After all, you take for granted your own rights that were fought on your behalf – it is therefore hypocritical that you should not therefore support the rights of others…

It really begs the question, Elok, are you being homophobic?

As for BK, we already know that he is a homophobic hypocrite.

[MikeH]

I took his point to mean that there was no point the Catholic church making a fuss about it.

[MikeH]

Which is true, it's just them using it as an excuse to try and pimp their homophobic views.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I do believe in a freedom of association, so I wonder how far the law goes. I do see what MikeH put, that you can't discriminate solely on the basis of homosexuality, but does that mean that if the Catholic Church teaches that homosexual acts are sinful can the Church refuse to hire someone who believes that homosexual acts are not sinful (ie, is that a way to get around it - because you aren't discriminating on the basis of homosexuality of a person, but whether that person believes in the ideals of the organization - though questions of it being a pretext arise afterwards, etc)?

[MikeH]

That would be one for a UK employment lawyer, but I don't think so because I think that would count as discrimination based on religious beliefs.

And, of course, that wouldn't stop them hiring the muslim. And someone could be both gay and believe that homosexuality was sinful. (plenty of priests in this category)

[Ben Kenobi]

So what?

I'm applying for a similar job, and the most important question for them, is my stances on peculiar Catholic issues such as Mary, etc. They wanted someone who would be willing and capable of defending the Catholic faith. Therefore, by definition, the Muslim would not be qualified for this job, for the simple reason that they would not be willing to act contrary to their faith. This is an office manager position, that for all intents and purposes is indistinguishable from any other, except for the fact it is working with the Catholic church.

In the end, I think all organisations have a right to hire people who are in-line with their corporate policy. This works both ways, I would not suggest for example that any gay and lesbian organisation be charged for rejecting someone who is a faithful Christian, on the grounds that he was not a good fit with the organisation. This is what freedom is all about.

You can't pick who you choose to hire based on your own prejudices. Whether your invisible friend in the sky told you them or not.

Well, you've proven here why it's a wise decision for the Church to hire people in line with their beliefs.

How you consolidate uniform/dress code with religious attire is a completely different issue.

The analogy works, does it not? What would be my impression of a Catholic charity when I entered if I saw a Muslim working with them, when they were obviously qualified Catholics? I would not donate to them, as I would wonder whether I can trust that my donation would benefit the people that I want to help.

[MikeH]

I'm applying for a similar job, and the most important question for them, is my stances on peculiar Catholic issues such as Mary, etc. They wanted someone who would be willing and capable of defending the Catholic faith. Therefore, by definition, the Muslim would not be qualified for this job, for the simple reason that they would not be willing to act contrary to their faith.

That might be important to them, but legally in the UK it can't be how they make their choice. And people advertise and market **** they don't believe in all the time. No reason a Muslim or a gay man couldn't do a marketing job for the catholic church. Unlikely that they'd choose to, but they'd be quite capable.

This is an office manager position, that for all intents and purposes is indistinguishable from any other, except for the fact it is working with the Catholic church.

Exactly. And that bit is legally irrelevant in the UK.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Btw, wasn't this Britain vs. the Pope thing taken care of like 400-500 years ago?

[MikeH]

What would be my impression of a Catholic charity when I entered if I saw a Muslim working with them, when they were obviously qualified Catholics?

That they are generous, forgiving, inclusive, equal opportunity employers and therefore excellent.

[MikeH]

Btw, wasn't this Britain vs. the Pope thing taken care of like 400-500 years ago?

Absolutely, you'd think they'd learn what happens when they try and tell us who we can or can't shag or marry!

edit: this was meant light heartedly, I'm obviously not suggesting we persecute catholics in the same way they did then.