Religion as a protected class?

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yes. But do you want to be forced to hire one?

Sure. But I won't hire you since you're an atheist. Don't complain.

 

[icehorse]

You aren't forced to hire anyone based on their beliefs. You are just not supposed to discriminate against them based on them being within a protected class. You can't walk up to someone and say, "I'm not hiring you unless you denounce your atheism." You can, however, hire a more qualified candidate or one that will fit into your work environment better.

Correct, but.. What if I simply do not want to be forced to hire a very qualified person who openly espouses eating babies? I could be said to be discriminating against baby eaters, which would be true.

 

[icehorse]

Sure. But I won't hire you since you're an atheist. Don't complain.

Ha!

Well, I wouldn't want to work for anyone who would be concerned with my atheism

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Correct, but.. What if I simply do not want to be forced to hire a very qualified person who openly espouses eating babies? I could be said to be discriminating against baby eaters, which would be true.

You wouldn't be forced to hire someone promoting illegal acts, obviously. I would imagine they wouldn't make it past the first interview.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Ha!

Well, I wouldn't want to work for anyone who would be concerned with my atheism

And you don't have to worry about this issue because of religion being a protected class.

 

[Debater Slayer]

This kind of argument seems to me a clear demonstration that "New Atheist" tropes sometimes end up feeding into discrimination against a subset of religious people, despite protestations from the likes of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins that they're just criticizing ideas and don't demonize religious people.

Yes, I think religion should be a protected class because coexisting and working productively under the rule of law is the essence of a functioning pluralistic society. If everyone were able to discriminate against others based on religious or irreligious beliefs in hiring, education, service, and many other fields, the result would ironically be similar to theocracies that try (and fail) to forcibly reach religious homogeneity in society.

 

[JDMS]

Correct, but.. What if I simply do not want to be forced to hire a very qualified person who openly espouses eating babies? I could be said to be discriminating against baby eaters, which would be true.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't follow. You are conflating religious affiliation and specific beliefs.

A Christian might believe a lot of things. They may or may not believe the Bible is inspired by God, they may or may not support gay relationships, they may or may not believe in Hell or salvation requirements. They may or may not believe ANYTHING, yet still claim the label of Christian. They are not protected as a Christian because they follow the Bible literally, word by word... they are protected because they say they are Christian. And same with any other recognized religion.

So, a self-proclaimed baby cannibalization supporter SUPPORTS baby cannibalization. Their belief is in baby cannibalization is guaranteed, because that is their defining trait.

On the contrary, a belief in Hell or lack of support for LGBT people is NOT a defining trait for Christians.

If you don't hire a Christian because you assume they are a bigot based on their religion, THAT is discrimination. You are assuming things about them out of prejudice.

However, if you checked their Facebook and saw them spewing bigoted garbage on behalf of their faith, or saying we should eat babies, you are more than free not to hire them. You are identifying hateful behavior and avoiding that.

Also, by the way, even if religion is a protected class, doesn't mean their religious beliefs are all protected in the workplace. A Christian is not allowed to spew hate towards a gay coworker just because they are Christian and claim its supported by their Bible.

I'm a staunch atheist who has more than one bone to pick with the Christians in my past, myself. But that doesn't mean I justify discrimination.

 

[icehorse]

You wouldn't be forced to hire someone promoting illegal acts, obviously. I would imagine they wouldn't make it past the first interview.

Well believing in something and doing it are different. (That is until thought-crimes gain more traction :O)

But to me, there are aspects of Wahhabism that are abhorrent. And I am forced to let a Wahhabi continue to interview in my company lest I be called out for discriminating against a protected class.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Well believing in something and doing it are different. (That is until thought-crimes gain more traction :O)

But to me, there are aspects of Wahhabism that are abhorrent. And I am forced to let a Wahhabi continue to interview in my company lest I be called out for discriminating against a protected class.

Get over it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You aren't forced to hire anyone based on their beliefs. You are just not supposed to discriminate against them based on them being within a protected class.

It is a not so subtle distinction that, sadly, seems difficult for some to comprehend.

 

[icehorse]

This kind of argument seems to me a clear demonstration that "New Atheist" tropes sometimes end up feeding into discrimination against a subset of religious people, despite protestations from the likes of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins that they're just criticizing ideas and don't demonize religious people.

Yes, I think religion should be a protected class because coexisting and working productively under the rule of law is the essence of a functioning pluralistic society. If everyone were able to discriminate against others based on religious or irreligious beliefs in hiring, education, service, and many other fields, the result would ironically be similar to theocracies that try (and fail) to forcibly reach religious homogeneity in society.

But many religions ARE intolerant. The religions themselves are antithetical to the pluralistic society we'd both envision. The most obvious example is religions that are extremely misogynistic.

 

[Debater Slayer]

But to me, there are aspects of Wahhabism that are abhorrent. And I am forced to let a Wahhabi continue to interview in my company lest I be called out for discriminating against a protected class.

If I ran a company, I would also be unable to immediately reject a believer in the supposed superiority of "Western culture" if they were qualified to do the job and kept their beliefs out of the workplace.

Should I be able to reject them?

 

[Debater Slayer]

But many religions ARE intolerant.

I think that depends on the interpretations and sects or denominations in question. Religions are vast and diverse, not monolithic.

The religions themselves are antithetical to the pluralistic society we'd both envision. The most obvious example is religions that are extremely misogynistic.

A subset of religious beliefs are antithetical to pluralism, but mere identification with a religion doesn't entail support for more extreme varieties thereof.

Also, harmful beliefs aren't exclusive to religions. Should we also be able to immediately deny employment to a qualified candidate who was a cultural supremacist or a supporter of denying medical care to a subset of trans people?

 

[icehorse]

You are conflating religious affiliation and specific beliefs.

If it's more than beliefs, what are those extra things?

 

[JDMS]

If it's more than beliefs, what are those extra things?

Did you read my post at all?

Edit: You know what, why am I even asking that. You aren't worth engaging, clearly.

 

[Quintessence]

This seems to me to be a subtle - but understandable - slight shifting of the goalposts:

The claim I was pushing back against was that historically there has been a lot of religious discrimination. As if the religious were somehow squeaky clean victims.

I do not care about "goalposts."

I did not say "the religious were somehow squeaky clean victims." In fact I said precisely the opposite - that humanity in general has a "checkered" past. All of humanity. All of it.

I get how many would rather scapegoat some group of humans to avoid dealing with the complex realities of humanity's "checkered" past. That is, after all, how discrimination and bigotry is born - undiscerning prejudice that paints entire groups of humans as "all the same" and "bad" therefore it's okay to be a jerk to "those people." Any consideration of a human as an individual is discarded to make snap judgements. Easy peasy, and requires a lot less thinking; that's part of what makes bigotry attractive. Heuristics gone awry. If a human society wants to claim it is more "rational" then it needs to put a cork in that. Enter: protected classes... a safeguard against cognitive shorthands that produce undiscerning prejudice and discrimination.

 

[icehorse]

I think that depends on the interpretations and sects or denominations in question. Religions are vast and diverse, not monolithic.

so the "good" ones give cover to the "bad" ones, correct?

Of course not all religions are bad. But some are.

Also, harmful beliefs aren't exclusive to religions. Should we also be able to immediately deny employment to a qualified candidate who was a cultural supremacist or a supporter of denying medical care to a subset of trans people?

Bad faith reference aside, yes, I believe it's reasonable to not hire someone based on what they believe.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Religion has been at both ends of those swords, correct? Even today religious inspired violence is a huge issue all over the world. Religion tends to be a divisive force, not a uniting one. E.g., if we were to list the most probable ways that the world could end, we'd have to put the religious dispute between Israel and its enemies high on the list.



<yawn> This is the type of sanctimonious nonsense you're famous for </yawn>

Those who are doing it right should be uniting, not dividing.

 

[Nakosis]

As I read through the SCOTUS, web designer thread in the NA Politics forum, it seems a number of spin off threads are worthy..

The idea of protected classes is now common in the law. Here's a typical list of protected classes:



It strikes me that "one of these is not like the others". All of these classes of people (except one), are based on immutable aspects of a person's identity that they are born with... except religion (and perhaps gender identity, but that's for a separate thread?)

So for this thread, I'm going to argue that - despite the fact that religious people have suffered enormous persecution historically - RELIGION SHOULD NO LONGER BE A PROTECTED CLASS.

A religion is just a set of ideas. A person can change the ideas they believe. Why should a religion be a protected class?

So you want to discriminate/harass Catholics, Muslims, Jews?

Or do you just want to insist they all think like you?

I'm don't think it is that easy to choose our beliefs. I didn't wake up one day and decide to be an atheist.
I didn't choose to believe in God prior. It was just a part of who I was.

 

[Debater Slayer]

so the "good" ones give cover to the "bad" ones, correct?

Neither gives cover to the other; it's just that one can't assume a religious person's beliefs based on a general identity like merely being Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc., due to the diversity within each religion.

Of course not all religions are bad. But some are.

I think that applies to all types of ideologies and worldviews, not just religions.

Bad faith reference aside, yes, I believe it's reasonable to not hire someone based on what they believe.

That would open the door to a lot of ideological discrimination in employment and various other areas. I think it would be a huge can of worms, and we can see what such discrimination leads to in theocratic countries.