Discrimination ok, if based on religion? what else then?

Lets rewrite this as If one group is allowed to discriminate against another in the provision of public services then why doesn't this apply to anyone? We have a political group in the UK called the B.N.P, that has a policy called the 'Homeward Bound' policy. Basically they would send home all 'non-British' people. So a member of the B.N.P clearly has a moral objection to immigrants living in this country. Would a Landlord who is a member of the B.N.P be allowed to evict a non-british tennant in one of his properties purely because he does not agree with them living in this country? That would be against the law (and the tennants rights) if anyone else did it, but since the member of the B.N.P feels strongly that it is morally wrong for them to live here he has the right to do it?It is impossible to logically allow one group exemption from a law simply because they do not like it, but then not allow another group exemption from a law that they do not like. Stating that "they can always go somewhere else" (even when it is said with good intentions) will lead to something akin to Appartheid in South Africa. That is precisely what the law against discrimination in the provision of goods and services is about. If you're offering a service you are not allowed to irrationally discriminate on who you provide it to on the basis of sex, gender, race or sexuality.

Well why should Quakers get preferential treatment over non-Quaker pacifists who were presumably forced to conscript? Why should Jehovas Witnesses be excused, but not a non-Jehovas Witness with equally strongly held objections to saying the Pledge of Allegiance? It doesn't to me, especially since the law is an Anti-Discrimination law. In this country (and I assume in the US too) it is illegal to turn someone down for a job purely because they are black (among many other things that aren't allowed to be discriminated against). I imagine someone on an interview panel with deeply held racist views would find this law very objectionable. Should they be allowed to opt out? What use is an anti-discrimination law if "But I want to discriminate" is a valid reason for exemption? Ahh, but I wasn't asking whether people thought the Church should be allowed to request to be made exempt, just if they thought they had grounds to actually be exempt.In hindsight I would have worded the question a little differently. Should the Church (or anyone else) be allowed to be exempt from a law simply because they don't like the law? If the church can be made exempt from laws for that reason, can anyone?

Not exactly. I'm not saying that no one should be allowed to conscientiously object to anything. The problem I have is when one arbitrary group of people is allowed to conscientiously object but another arbitrary group isn't.Take the Quaker example. I imagine from the analogy you presented that they are pacifists and given the right to avoid conscription. I also gather from your analogy that a non-Quaker would not have the right to conscientiously object for the same reason (being a pacifist). Why allow the the Quaker to have a conscience but not the non-Quaker?The only reason I can think is that if you gave everyone the right to opt out of conscription then almost certainly most people would, at least in a time of war. But if you can force some people to conscript then you should force everyone. If some people are allowed to opt out then everyone should be allowed to opt out. None whatsoever, so either have conscription or don't (I'm not arguing which one is the 'right' choice, that is irrelevent). But don't arbitrarily allow some people the right to opt out but not others. (Emphasis mine)This gets to the crux of the issue. Why should deeply held religious beliefs be more important/worthy of objector status than deeply held non-religous beliefs? Either you have an anti-discrimination law that everyone must follow, or you don't have the anti-discimination law. Which option is picked is irrelevent (to this argument), but the middle ground where one person is allowed the right to disciminate but another (arbitrary) person is not allowed that right is deeply unfair. Either the belief that 'A' should be allowed is acceptable, or the belief that 'A' should be allowed is not acceptable. It shouldn't matter who's mouth it comes out of. (Replace 'A' with anything you like)

I'm pretty certain that here in the UK no one is allowed to discriminate when hiring. My company sent all its employees on an anti-discrimination course to make sure everyone was aware of the rules and implications, and it was spelt out pretty clearly that even religious institutions were not allowed to discriminate on the grounds of religion and sexuality when hiring staff.The only exception to this was in positions where the role had a specific (justifiable) requirement for the person to be of a certain religion (such as priests, vicars, bishops etc), but it did not extend any further than that. I don't know how far it has been tested in court, but it would be illegal for a catholic adoption agency to refuse to hire a homosexual Jew simply because the person wasn't a catholic or a heterosexual.

I don't know how it works in the US, but over here the criteria for picking candidates for a job have to be relevent to the candidates ability to perform the job. You can't say 'no non-christians' without first proving why non-christians would be unable to perform the duties. In the case of priests, vicars, bishops, and probably even sunday-school teachers it is reasonable to assume that 'being christian' is a valid criteria for the job. For any other job it's not. You seem to have gone off on a tangent here. In the quote above we were talking about employer/employee relationships. Now we seem to be talking about membership to a private club; a completely different matter. I see no problem with a church denying someone membership of their 'club' if the person doesn't meet the criteria. Employment isn't membership within a club though, it is goverened by legal rules (at least here in the UK, I have no idea about the US).If however you actually meant something along the lines of 'How well would it work for a Christian to seek employment by the Secular Humanists for America?' then my position would be consistent with above. If 'being a Christian' has no bearing on the candidates ability to perform the role being applied for then christians should not be discriminated against. I'd stand up for a christians right to equal employment opportunities as much as a non-christians. (link not reproduced)That article really doesn't make the situatin clear. Basically the universtiy has declared that the course "Christianity's Influence on American History" does not meet the requirements to gain admittance to the University. The article does not explain why it fails to meet the criteria. Does the course teach bogus history? Does the course lack educational content? What skills does the course teach its students? I imagine if the students sit and listen to someone without putting in any input of their own then they aren't learning any skills at all that would help with a degree course. All of these are valid reasons to reject a course (any course).On the other hand, if the only reason the course is rejected is that it has the word 'Christianity' in the title then absolutely, that would be an unfair reason to dismiss the course. It should be judged on its educational content like all other courses.When talking about a biology course that was rejected it quoted the blurb from the front of the textbook used: Obviously it is clear that this course is unsuitable for people who want to enter a place of learning. Has the other course been rejected on similar grounds? I'd be interested to find out.So again, if the university is rejecting courses because they are 'pro-christianity' then that is bad. If it is rejected courses because they fail to meet educational standards, then that is good. From that article it seems to be the latter in at least some cases, but there really isn't enough information to be sure. I tend to dislike all art, especially modern art. I'll stay out of the art-appreciation debate! Edited by happy_atheist, : I missed the last comment about art.

Again, it depends on the job position. For example, religious beliefs would not get in the way of a secretary doing his/her job. Being Christian is not a valid reason to refuse someone a position as a secretary (even at the ACLU). If someone is capable of performing the role they're applying for then they have a right to be considered along with anyone else. As I said, if a role explicitly requires you to be a christian (such as someone preaching christianity), then it's perfectly reasonable to expect applicants to be a christian. I don't know what a youth pastor is exactly, but I imagine it involves mentoring kids in christianity? Perfectly reasonable to expect the applicants to be christian. But both the church and the ACLU will have positions where the applicants religion doesn't affect it. Those are the positions that should be open to anyone. But there's no indication as to why those courses are allowed, and the christian history of america course wasn't. If it's purely because those two courses make no mention of christianity then sure, it shouldn't be allowed. But based purely on the titles of a course it's not at all possible to judge the edcuational value of the course. There was only mention of the one course that wasn't allowed. Does the university have a policy of disallowing all courses with christianity in the title simply because of the christianity? That would certainly be bad. Sure, hopefully they're intelligent enough to realise. The University has to expect a minimum level of competency to be taught to the kids though, it can't rely on them figuring it out for themselves. I agree, there's much more important things the money could have gone on such as hospitals etc.

Maybe it's different in the US, but I believe here in the UK all doctors are regulated (private or otherwise). Doctors have to meet a minimum standard to be allowed to practice. This covers the treatments they're allowed to administer, the drugs they're allowed to use, and their practices with dealing with the patients. Private doctors aren't allowed to do anything they like just because they're private. The doctors are in a position of authority and power, and they have a obligation to use it on everyone equally. When wearing their 'Doctor hat' they cease to be 'Joe Public', so their inaction is accountable, just like a Police Officer would be accountable for failing to attempt to arrest a person because he didn't want to. If a person who works as a doctor was just walking down the street he would have no responsibility to help a black person he saw in need of medical treatment because he isn't a doctor, he is just a person walking down the street. When he takes on the role of a doctor he has to fulfill it.(At this point I'll note that I believe medical treatment in the UK is substantially different to in the US. Most hospitals are run by the Government, and we have the NHS that guarantees free medical treatment to all people. This could be the reason why we differ in opinion on Doctors' obligations). The law (in the UK) doesn't say that discrimination is illegal, far from it. It lists certain types of discimination that are illegal. As far as offering employment you are not allowed to discriminate on sweeping generalisations or stereotypes. You are not allowed to discriminate on age, gender, sexuality etc. You are perfectly allowed to discriminate on an individual basis, on issues that directly affect a specific individuals ability to perform a job.
For example it is illegal to say "You can not do this job because you're a woman, and women aren't strong enough to lift these boxes that need lifting", but it is perfectly legal to say "If you can't lift this box then you can't have the job, because the boxes need lifting as part of your job", thus giving everyone the chance to prove they can do it.In the example you quoted it would not be allowed for Microsoft to fail to offer the guy the job simply because he prefers Fortran and transistor/vacuum based computers if he was perfectly capable of using C/C++/C#/VB(shudder) or anything else that Microsoft happen to use, to the standards that Microsoft require. However if he is unable to use the software/hardware that the role requires then it is perfectly fine to 'discriminate' against him and give the job to someone who can.The same law is now being extended to the provision of goods and services, no discrimination on sweeping generalisations. This applies to all (not just publically funded institutions).The issue in this thread is straying subtely from the topic. The catholic church in this country had no problem with the anti-discrimination law. It was not arguing for the right of individual people or companies to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality. What it was arguing was that the Catholic Church and only the Catholic Church (and possibly other religious institutions, but I never heard anyone say this) should have this right. It wanted an exemption from the law, not to abolish the law.

Ok, I wasn't aware that a doctor was officially 'always a doctor' as far as the General Medical Council was concerned, but I'm certainly glad that is the case. Thanks for pointing out my mistake.

I think the differences between the examples being thrown around are ones of authority and responsibility. In this example it is purely a coincidence that Joe is there. It is not his job to be there, he would not be liable if he had not been there. He has no duty of care to Bob, and absolutely no responsibility for Bob's safety. In this example Doctor Joe has a duty of care over Patient Bob. He is trained in life preserving techniques and is in a position of authority, with the power of life and death over patients. People are brought to him for the specific purpose of receiving treatment, it is not a coincidence that Doctor Joe is present when Patient Bob requires help, he was brought to him. Because of the power at Doctor Joe's disposal he cannot be afforded the 'luxury' of choice over who he treats. He trained as a doctor, and has to take on all of a doctors responsibilities. He is ultimately responsible for whatever happens to Patient Bob once Patient Bob has been assigned to him.I believe this is exactly what Jazzns has been saying, but I wanted to make sure it wasn't lost in the discussion of democracy etc.Note this analogy doesn't really require life or death situations. It isn't legal for someone who is providing a service to discriminate against black people, even if they are not receiving government funding (in the UK at least).