Pope Benedict attacks government over Equality Bill

[kai]

The Pope has urged Catholic bishops in England and Wales to fight the UK's Equality Bill with "missionary zeal".
Pope Benedict XVI said the legislation "violates natural law" and could end the right of the Catholic Church to ban gay people from senior positions.
The Pope has confirmed he will visit the UK this year, the first since Pope John Paul II in 1982.
The government said the bill, which is currently going through Parliament, would make the UK a fairer place.
And gay rights campaigners have condemned the Pope's comments.



BBC News - Pope Benedict attacks government over Equality Bill




Churches have warned new equality laws could force them to go against their faith when hiring staff.
They say the Equality Bill may force them to employ sexually active gay people and transsexuals when hiring staff other than priests or ministers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8476862.stm





The equality bill

http://www.equalities.gov.uk/equality_bill.aspx







any thoughts?

 

[Smoke]

I wish these Catholics (and others) could explain their position in a way that makes some kind of sense.

Okay, it's against your religion to be gay because of whatever ******-up, superstitious reason or ritual purity hangup you happen to endorse. Whatever; it's your life. But could you please explain exactly why it's against your religion to hire gay people? Can you please explain exactly why it's against your religion to give your gay employees the same benefits as your straight employees? I mean, seriously. Just how messed up is your religion? Just how screwed in the head are you?

 

[Mr Cheese]

Pope Benny the Jet represents a faction, a huge faction of non thinking dinosaurs...

He'll be dead soon.

That's my thoughts...

 

[Autodidact]

The question arises whether English Catholics are deserving of equality. Should their employment status be protected? Might not gay organizations be forced to hire practicing Catholics?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The question arises whether English Catholics are deserving of equality. Should their employment status be protected? Might not gay organizations be forced to hire practicing Catholics?

You may have a point. As they say, turnaround is fair play.

 

[MSizer]

Ratzinger is the worst thing the vatican could as for when it comes to public relations. What a jerk.

 

[Autodidact]

I would think that any school or other organization serving children would want to discriminate against Catholic priests. Since the Catholic Church does not allow gay priests, perhaps one way to accomplish this would be to hire only gay men--then there would be no risk of hiring any pedophile priests.

 

[monta]

One unpleasant individual gets barred and the other gets the red carpet treatment, telling a group of people their behaviour is earning them a place in hell isn't defaming them

Michael Savage banned in Britain

 

[Baydwin]

Since the Catholic Church does not allow gay priests, perhaps one way to accomplish this would be to hire only gay men--then there would be no risk of hiring any pedophile priests.

Except of course that paedophilia isn't confined to heterosexuals.

My thoughts on this are... meh. It's not going to make any difference, the bill will be passed.

 

[TheKnight]

These "equality" laws are a great way for governments to supersede standards set by groups or businesses that may be higher than those set by the government.

Personally, I believe that an organization or business should have the right to exclude employees based on whatever standards they decide are appropriate. If a religious organization wants to exclude gays, non-believers, women, children, etc. Then so be it. If a business only wants to hire people of a certain race, so be it.

I don't believe that the government should get involved in micromanaging employment practices.

 

[Baydwin]

These "equality" laws are a great way for governments to supersede standards set by groups or businesses that may be higher than those set by the government.

Personally, I believe that an organization or business should have the right to exclude employees based on whatever standards they decide are appropriate. If a religious organization wants to exclude gays, non-believers, women, children, etc. Then so be it. If a business only wants to hire people of a certain race, so be it.

I don't believe that the government should get involved in micromanaging employment practices.

I believe that a government has the obligation to act in the best interest of its country's citizens, ALL of its citizens. Passing laws that prevent bigots from exercising their xenophobia protects the right of all the people living in the UK to be able to earn a living.

 

[TheKnight]

I believe that a government has the obligation to act in the best interest of its country's citizens, ALL of its citizens. Passing laws that prevent bigots from exercising their xenophobia protects the right of all the people living in the UK to be able to earn a living.

The government has an obligation to act in the best interest of its citizens. I would generally agree with that statement. However, allowing businesses to hire who they want for what reason they want does not interfere with the government's obligation. Earning a living is something you have to work for. If you can't find somewhere to work because you don't fit the standards of any companies, then you will be forced to get better at something or start your own company. Whether or not you disagree with the standards of a particular company or organization aren't the government's problem. The government should not interfere with that to which the government has no claim.

If I have a business of selling a product I invented, it should be totally up to me who works at my company and for what reasons simply because it's my company.

 

[Erebus]

These "equality" laws are a great way for governments to supersede standards set by groups or businesses that may be higher than those set by the government.

Personally, I believe that an organization or business should have the right to exclude employees based on whatever standards they decide are appropriate. If a religious organization wants to exclude gays, non-believers, women, children, etc. Then so be it. If a business only wants to hire people of a certain race, so be it.

I don't believe that the government should get involved in micromanaging employment practices.

Sometimes it's necessary. It's only recently in the UK that certain groups have begun to be treated more fairly. We're still a long way off and it's had some unpleasant side effects (such as political correctness gone mad) but it's gradually getting better.

 

[Baydwin]

However, allowing businesses to hire who they want for what reason they want does not interfere with the government's obligation. Earning a living is something you have to work for. If you can't find somewhere to work because you don't fit the standards of any companies, then you will be forced to get better at something or start your own company.

Tell me, how does one get better at not being black? Or Jewish? Or gay?

We're not talking about preventing discrimination against inexperience or lack of qualification, we're talking about discriminating against people for their biology or culture.

 

[TheKnight]

Sometimes it's necessary. It's only recently in the UK that certain groups have begun to be treated more fairly. We're still a long way off and it's had some unpleasant side effects (such as political correctness gone mad) but it's gradually getting better.

I don't think there is any evidence to support that (depending on your definition of necessary).

 

[TheKnight]

Tell me, how does one get better at not being black? Or Jewish? Or gay?

We're not talking about preventing discrimination against inexperience or lack of qualification, we're talking about discriminating against people for their biology or culture.

I understand that. So let's suppose you have two computer science graduates who are equally good at what they do. I, owning a computer software company, decide to hire the one that's not gay simply because I don't like gay people.

Guess what, it's not my responsibility to ensure that the gay person finds a job, earns a living, or becomes successful.

If I don't hire that person, it forces him to either go somewhere else, or perhaps start his own company. Either way, it forces that person to figure something out to earn a living.

My point is simply that it is not and should not be the company's problem to figure out how the rejected person earns a living. That's the rejected person's problem.

 

[Mr Cheese]

I understand that. So let's suppose you have two computer science graduates who are equally good at what they do. I, owning a computer software company, decide to hire the one that's not gay simply because I don't like gay people.

Guess what, it's not my responsibility to ensure that the gay person finds a job, earns a living, or becomes successful.

If I don't hire that person, it forces him to either go somewhere else, or perhaps start his own company. Either way, it forces that person to figure something out to earn a living.

My point is simply that it is not and should not be the company's problem to figure out how the rejected person earns a living. That's the rejected person's problem.

fortunatly we have anti discrimination laws...

Your analogy leavs it way open...back to the dark ages of less than a century ago...

we could equally allow the employer to not employ due to color of skin.

 

[Baydwin]

I understand that. So let's suppose you have two computer science graduates who are equally good at what they do. I, owning a computer software company, decide to hire the one that's not gay simply because I don't like gay people.

Guess what, it's not my responsibility to ensure that the gay person finds a job, earns a living, or becomes successful.

If I don't hire that person, it forces him to either go somewhere else, or perhaps start his own company. Either way, it forces that person to figure something out to earn a living.

My point is simply that it is not and should not be the company's problem to figure out how the rejected person earns a living. That's the rejected person's problem.

And if everybody decides not to hire him because he's gay, what then?
You can't have a society that endorses irrational discrimination, it's immoral.

 

[Mr Cheese]

I believe that a government has the obligation to act in the best interest of its country's citizens, ALL of its citizens. Passing laws that prevent bigots from exercising their xenophobia protects the right of all the people living in the UK to be able to earn a living.

:sarcastic xenophobia is a fear of foreigners...
it doesnt have anythign to do with homosexuality

 

[MSizer]

These "equality" laws are a great way for governments to supersede standards set by groups or businesses that may be higher than those set by the government.

Personally, I believe that an organization or business should have the right to exclude employees based on whatever standards they decide are appropriate. If a religious organization wants to exclude gays, non-believers, women, children, etc. Then so be it. If a business only wants to hire people of a certain race, so be it.

I don't believe that the government should get involved in micromanaging employment practices.

But businesses don't exist in a vacuum. They benefit from governmental agencies, and their profits come from their customers, whom are members of society. So owners of a business gain wealth by being part of a society. To turn around and exclude certain members of society to benefit from the existence of the business, such as by eclusion from employment opportunity is unfair.