As an employer, I have to agree with Peter D.

>>Nobody on this earth has any moral or legal obligation to employ anybody, and it follows logically that, when they choose to do so, they have the right to state the terms on which they will employ a person<<

Where the author of the piece strays furthest from reality is here:

"Where the law of the land does not allow them to impose obedience they try to get around rights by insisting on rights they do not have... they claim a right to withold employment or service from those that do not pass religious orthodoxy tests, or moral tests."

This should never become an issue. If we accept that an employer has the right to hire on the basis of "fitness for purpose", the sole reason for rejection need only be "unfit for purpose".

It is hard enough, believe me, to wade through all the sticky red tape necessary to run a business in this country, without some PC busybody telling me whom I can and cannot hire.

The problem arises when people consider employment as a right, rather than a privilege that needs to be earned. Sadly, this attitude is also the reason why the ranks of the public service are so horribly overburdened with really nice people, who are patently "unfit for purpose".

(Sad about the spelling, too. I also winced at "concience", "innevitably", "exagerated", "withold". And "effected" where "affected" was needed.)

Pericles,
>>the sole reason for rejection need only be "unfit for purpose"<<
I completely agree. Perhaps an illustration of a situation similar to the one the author refers to, which does not involve religion: Microsoft might or might not want to employ a person who they suspect prefers Mac OS to Windows, but I do not think they would - or should be asked to - employ a person who publicly proclaims his/her belief in the superiority of Mac OS over Windows (Yes, I know Microsoft has also a Mac OS Department for MS Office, so this is not a perfect illustration).

Attention author & everybody else, just a thought, but do we even have "freedom of religion" in ANY modern, western, christian, democracy?

Our fore fathers here, in Britain, Europe & North America fought & died for the right to be "protestant" Christians. NOT anything else.

Cast your minds back several hundred years. Mr Gutenberg invented the printing press & hey presto soon there were bibles in French, German, English. People could read it for themselves & began to argue with the local preacher, NOT about the validity of Christianity itself, but about dodgy RE interpretation of scriptures by the Pope.

They also objected to corruption in BOTH, the Unholy Roman Catholic AND Anglican Churches of Satan.

Millions of dedicated, concerned Christians wanted the right to be Methodists, Baptists, Quakers, etc. NOT Muslims, Buddhists, Communists or Red/greens. (have we forgotten about GAIA?)

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/do-not-feel-afraid-gaia-is-with-us/story-e6frezz0-1225980594646

They did NOT want be anything other than, "Protestant" Christians.

Just a thought.

I would be curious to see the reactions of both fellow Christians, like Runner, AGIR to that thought, as well as the proponents of radical, extreme, NEW, Religions, like Fe"Man"Nazism & Environmentalism.

BTW, the Loony Left, in the "land of OZ" have done more damage to our environment, with their lack of "Bush Craft" than anybody else in history. Our forests are now much less healthy, because of the Red/greens than ever before.

http://www.infowars.com/ipcc-professor-calls-for-elite-warrior-leadership-to-rule-over-eco-dictatorship/

Our children have never been neglected &/or abused in such epidemic proportions, as now because of the Anti Christian, Anti Family policies of the Fe"Man"Nazis.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/docs-accused-of-hiding-truth-over-baby-death/story-e6freuzr-1225963635072

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/sunday-telegraph/secret-files-show-kids-left-for-dead/story-e6frewt0-1225984283683

http://www.cis.org.au/publications/policy-monographs/article/903-fatally-flawed-the-child-protection-crisis-in-australia

And don't try the radical or extreme tag on me either, i am a moderate, middle of the road, mainstream, Centrist, bloke from the burbs, whose views are agreed with by over 90% of the population everywhere i go.

You people dare to question the motives of concerned, centrist, Christians? Oh i forgot.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236#

You people question everything, as a "sophistry" debating tactic in your efforts to "reform" Australia out of existence.

Dear Formersnag,

Thank you for the most interesting presentation of "The History of Political Correctness".

It is such a pity that in the course of history we needed that bunch of silly marxists just in order to maintain our God-given right to Free Choice. It would indeed have been better if the job of reminding us was performed by the Churches instead.

For you to have the unquestionable freedom to practice your protestant faith, you must also allow others to practice their own faiths and their own practices: be they Catholics, Anglicans, Muslims, Buddhists, or Gaia-worshippers. Even Reds/Greens should be totally free to practice what they preach, so long as they do it in their own backyard.

For you to have the unquestionable freedom to run a traditional family and educate your children in traditional wholesome values, you must also allow others to do their things sexually. Even if they kill their babies, it's their babies which they kill, not yours.

You cannot ask for your freedoms without allowing others to have theirs. Each to their own.

Oh, and don't tell me that only leftists have sex...

Having run a business, I too wonder at the need for all the red tape.

It is not always easy to apply a fair assessment of employer and employee rights in pursuit of the 'greater good'. The greater good camp is an honourable goal but is much open to interpretation and should ideally protect both parties.

The act of recruiting a suitable person can be a risky business. Employers and business owners also have rights and an investment to protect as well as having to properly adhere to some common law obligations around treatment, safety and payment of employees.

Many religious schools hire non-religious staff in teaching positions even if a particular religious ethos is preferred.

Students who attend private schools are often required to attend religious services and RI. There is no opt-out on these and one could equally argue this to be against the idea of a secular society and constitute some form of discrimination. However, the option is clearly stated, and if one chooses not to attend on that basis, that is also their right. I would like to see an increase in private secular schools to afford greater choice, but ideally the public school system should be up to muster.

People often go on a lot about rights but much is left unsaid about responsibilities.

As an atheist, I cannot see a problem with a Christian school preferring a Christian teacher. In a perfect world the best person for the job would get the job and for a religious school the best person may also include a sharing of a particular ethos.

It works both ways. Employers also have the right to discriminate should a religious person's devotion to God interfere with their obligations to their employee. eg. not being able to work on a particular day due to religious commitments where a business requires flexible people to work a shift work rotation etc.

Disabled people have less access to employment in some sectors and face more discrimination than anyone's religious or non-religious affiliations might incur.

Formersnag

You have obviously done your homework. I am no history buff but would generally agree with your comments

'Our fore fathers here, in Britain, Europe & North America fought & died for the right to be "protestant" Christians. NOT anything else.'

Personally I don't like the term protestant. To practice ones Christian faith would suffice (as in contrast to Roman Catholicism).
There is no denying your comments such as

'Our children have never been neglected &/or abused in such epidemic proportions, as now because of the Anti Christian, Anti Family policies of the Fe"Man"Nazis.'

Unfortunately though I disagree that your views are not extreme. They are not extreme when talking to the general population but to a godless perverted left wing media they are extreme. Just look at the vitrionic response when you defend the unborn, speak highly of stay at home mums, express a view on sexuality or demand proof for evolution from its high priest. Through indoctrination and the tolerating of the intolerable your views are becoming extreme unfortunately.