Journal pudge's Journal: Firing Atheists 20
There was a story in the news recently where someone was allegedly fired for being an atheist.
I can understand -- and agree with -- people who find that to be distasteful. But this was a private business. As best I can tell, the First Amendment guarantees us the right to discriminate against other people's views, through the implied right to free association.
As the Court has put it, "the freedom to join together in furtherance of common political beliefs
As such, I fully support the right to fire atheists, and anyone else, for any reason, with two exceptions: women, and ethnic minorities. I hope someday even those antidiscrimination laws will be unnecessary, but given our history of institutionalized discrimination, I believe such policies are good ones, for at least another generation or so. But firing atheists? Christians? Muslims? Jews? Fatties? Gays? Straights? Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. I believe firmly that is your civil right.
If you're not convinced
There's no reasonable legal guideline to follow for what beliefs are good or bad: so, either you can fire people because of their religious beliefs, or you can't. And if you can't, then you can be forced to hire people who think "God Hates Fags" and that the Creator is bringing judgment upon us all for allowing gays to freely walk among us.
While I am on the subject of gays and workplace discrimination, Congress is working on a bill to ban workplace discrimination of people based on sexual orientation or gender identity. I am absolutely against this, mostly for the reason I mentioned above. The only reason I support protection for women and minorities is because of our long national history of institutionalized discrimination, and for another generation or two, I strongly believe that this is an effective way to help combat the social problems created by that discrimination. I see no such justification for antidiscrimination laws for gays, fatties, or even people of alternative religious beliefs. As such, I cannot support such restrictions on our First Amendment liberties.
I don't like the idea of firing because of religion or sexual orientation. Other than working at an explicitly religious or political institution, I would never fire (or not-hire) someone merely because of their religious, cultural, or political views. Indeed, I know many atheists and gays and others whom I would hire in a second if I had the opportunity. But I dislike more the idea that the government would dare tell us we are not allowed to fire because of religion, because that is a simple and clear violation of our civil liberties. This country is plenty big: go somewhere else.
Yes, it sucks. I would hate to be fired from my job because of my political or religious views. And I would likely be quite angry at the company for it. But it's not the government's place to tell them they can't do it. The First Amendment prohibits it.
Now Playing: Gillian Welch - Ruination Day (Part 2)
Interesting... (Score:1)
Parallel issue (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
a lot of people seem to have developed the idea that they own their job
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny (Score:1)
Discrimination is an all or nothing thing. You cant say it is ok to discriminate based on X but not include Y and Z as well. If I'm not there shoving the fact I'm an atheist in the employers face then do they have any right to ask if I am an atheist? Likely not, since its also illegal to ask about marital status, religion, sexual orientation, etc... when hiring people.
After all
Re: (Score:2)
So its perfectly fine to discriminate based on religious beliefs but its not ok to discriminate based on gender or ethnic minority?
I already went over this. What part did you not get?
It depends on the circumstances. In general, I think it's wrong to do it in any case. But in specific cases, I would think it is perfectly acceptable.
But in America have unique problems with past institutional discrimination of women and ethnic minorities. And I think that while we should move away from antidiscrimination laws protecting them, for the time being, I think they serve a legitimate purpose, based on those past wrongdoings.
Discrimination is an all or nothing thing. You cant say it is ok to discriminate based on X but not include Y and Z as well.
You can only ma
Re: (Score:1)
There is an entire legal body of knowledge dealing with 'Wrongful Dismissal'. You can look at the information <a href="http://employeeissues.com/wrongful_terminati on_2.htm">here</a>
<quote>
For example, it might be wrongful termination if an employer discharged an employee:
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it should be technically illegal to fire an employee because you found out that they are an atheist.
Actually, no it shouldn't.
Being religious is not a bona fide requirement in any way shape or form for any job outside of being a priest.
That's your opinion. In a free country, an employer is allowed to have a different opinion.
There is an entire legal body of knowledge dealing with 'Wrongful Dismissal'.
Yes, and I think most of it is wrong. I am not describing what the law is, but what I believe it should be, based on principles of liberty and the Constitution. I don't need your help in understanding the law.
Basically what it all boils down to in this case is... Did the employer make it known at the time of employment that being religious was a job requirement? being of a particular religion? If not then the employer was not bargaining in good faith.
No, what it boils down to is that any restrictions on an employer's ability for reasons of association take away the employer's First Amendment rights.
You can only make that case from the "discrimination is perfectly acceptable" perspective. From the other perspective it makes no sense. I would discriminate against people who are stupid, people who are excessively obnoxious, people who don't respect the customers, people who smell really really bad, and so on.
Yes, but in context all those things are things which affect employee performance for the negative.
And who are you to tell an
moof (Score:1)
As such, I fully support the right to fire atheists, and anyone else, for any reason, with two exceptions: women, and ethnic minorities.
But what if I start an inflatable dart board manufacturing business, and decide that I consider it to be a Constitutionally-protected association to further my political belief that women and ethnic minorities
Re: (Score:2)
And you don't think gays have suffered institutional discrimination? Or fat or ugly people?
Nope. Not at all.
Studies have shown that fat/uglier people don't make as much and aren't promoted as much in the workplace as attractive people.
I don't think you understand what I meant by "institutional discrimination." Here I am talking about a system, that is not merely allowed or condoned but intentionally fostered or supported by the government, where it is built in to the very foundations of the system, where the problem is so pervasive that it is rare that anyone belonging to that classification has not been adversely affected by it.
Merely saying fat people are discriminated against is meaningless in the context of the a
Re: (Score:1)
I didn't. Now that I do, my reaction is "so?". Who cares what the source of it is, whether govt. or other, when we have a problem that is "so pervasive that it is rare that anyone belonging to that classification has not been adversely affected by it"? People suffering from discrimination is still people suffering from discrimination, no matter where it comes from.
You seem to be trying to defend your stance by focusing on a tangenti
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares what the source of it is, whether govt. or other, when we have a problem that is "so pervasive that it is rare that anyone belonging to that classification has not been adversely affected by it"?
Obviously, not you. Shrug.
You seem to be trying to defend your stance by focusing on a tangential quality, "supported by govt.", instead of where the rubber meets the road, discrimination's effect on people.
False. I am not defending my stance, I am explaining it. I don't arrive at positions and then try to defend them, I think through issues and arrive at conclusions.
You seem to be coldly asserting that govt. should make amends for past govt.-instituted discrimination, and as far as all the other kinds of discrimination, let people suffer, and injustice rule.
No. I said nothing about making amends. Amends are trying to make up for past wrongs. On the contrary, I want the government to work to fix existing problems caused by those wrongs.
... I see no injustice. I don't consider individual discrimination to be injustice.
And as to all the other kinds of discrimination
You're choosing to confine your view to a narrow, relative one, relative to what govt. did in the past, instead of looking at the big picture, and making judgments based on over-arching principles of human rights and dignity, and govt.'s general role (and proper scope) in protecting them.
Re: (Score:1)
It is in the sense that if govt. is going to protect against discrimination, it should protect against all discrimination. Afterall, the effect of the various forms of discrimination, on people, is the same.
It's not in the sense that all forms of speech do not have equal protection under the law, but all people do. (Or should.)
Re: (Score:2)
That's like saying either government should not regulate any speech, or it should regulate all speech.
It is in the sense that if govt. is going to protect against discrimination, it should protect against all discrimination.
No, it shouldn't.
Afterall, the effect of the various forms of discrimination, on people, is the same.
If I had based my view merely on the effects of discrimination, then you'd have a point, of course. Although even then, certainly it is not true that the effects are the same. Being discriminated against for a job at a church because you are not a Christian is extremelty dissimilar to being discriminated against for a promotion at a factory you've worked at for 20 years because you are black.
Civil Rights Act (Score:2)
OK, so you're against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The problem is that you don't understand how it works, so your opinion is not especially valuable. You should learn more about reasons people can hire and fire in this country, and then maybe revisit this.
And it wouldn't hurt to learn a bit about the history of the Act -- the vicious, century-old, opportunity-crushing, institutionalized prejudice that kept black people as American's permanent underclass until the Democrats broke with the racist South in
Re: (Score:2)
OK, so you're against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Parts of it, yes, of course. I am a "Goldwater conservative" after all!
The problem is that you don't understand how it works, so your opinion is not especially valuable. You should learn more about reasons people can hire and fire in this country, and then maybe revisit this.
The problem is that you don't understand my view, so your opinion is not especially valuable. You should learn more about my view, and then maybe revisit this.
And it wouldn't hurt to learn a bit about the history of the Act -- the vicious, century-old, opportunity-crushing, institutionalized prejudice that kept black people as American's permanent underclass until the Democrats broke with the racist South in the 1960s to pass this and similar laws that finally killed Jim Crow. You'll understand, I hope, that I'm not too impressed with a white heterosexual Christian male proudly chirping that he would be perfectly willing to be fired for those reasons.
You'll understand, I hope, that I'm not too impressed with people comparing the employment struggles of atheists and homosexuals to those of women and blacks.
So does that mean I can fire all Christians? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And if I ever did mistakenly hire a christian, I’d lose no sleep over dismissing them for gross lack of critical thinking abilities. After all, their god will provide for them; no need for me to help out.
Re: (Score:2)