Should faith-based organisations be allowed to refuse to hire people who don't live according to the organisation's belief system?

This was the question the SMH asked in a poll after this article:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/gillards-bizarre-act-of-faith-leaves-vulnerable-unprotected-20130113-2cnf0.html

“The new law will back any faith-based organisation that refuses to hire Penny Wong if having a lesbian on the payroll injures "the religious sensitivities of adherents of that religion".

“It's a bigots' charter.”

“Some faiths, denominations and dioceses want nothing to do with these privileges.”

“Labor is insisting on one tiny concession: the faiths will have to accept same sex couples in retirement villages and nursing homes that have Commonwealth funding. But those same homes and villages will still be able to refuse to employ gays and lesbians to look after them.”

My opinion is that they should have the right to hire who they want, absolutely. But let’s not give those organisations any public money or public clients and contracts.

Exemptive laws need to be very carefully considered… In a secular society, equality before the law requires equality of the law, its treatment and its application.

"My opinion is that they should have the right to hire who they want, absolutely." is no guarantee of correct religious interpretation and therefore protection of religious sensibilities.

As long as humans are involved in the selection process there is the risk of moral relativism. Or relative nepotism.

So the only way to guarantee moral absolutism would be for God to make the choice – this would increase efficiency as it obviates the need for a selection panel or any subsequent appeal process.

It's not like *He* is incapable of doing this, is it?

An exemption in the case of Christian organisations for Jesus to be substituted would seem acceptable.

On the other hand, no exemption for L. Ron Hubbard seems acceptable.

and as for ATSIC. Should we give them money or is this just another Christophobic rant.

Ethical people need to email the PM and their local MP with a message similar to the following;

I note from a new reports that Jim Wallace, of the Australian Christian Lobby, is claiming that you have "assured religious groups they will have the "freedom" to discriminate against homosexuals and others deemed sinners under the new Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill".

If that is correct I am appalled, particularly if that applies in an employee/employer situation. Obviously The Australian Christian Lobby (and other likeminded religious), when 'deeming sinners', ignores the biblical injunctions, "Judge not that ye not be judged" (Matthew 7) and " He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her" (John 8, 7)

Surely in any employment situation, no employee has the right to deliberately undermine, internally, their employer's position on any societal issue but, surely, that should be the limit of the employer's rights to exercise any control at all over an employee's private life.

A blanket ability to discriminate is decidedly unchristian.

While 22.3 % of respondents answered no religion to the deliberately skewed religion question in the last census I suggest that that result is very misleading and that well over half of all Australians are no more than "Cultural Christians."

The discrimination in the proposed Bill ignores the views of the majority.

Dear Piper,

Reminds me of the old saying: "You can lead a horse
to water but ..."

Most people and organisations will find a way of
getting around laws. Laws may act as a deterrant
for some but not for all. Those that are determined
to do what they want will find a way to circumvent
the laws and get what they want.

I remember when working in Los Angeles there were laws
in place that tried to uphold blacks being treated
with equality. Yet employers still found a way and a
reason for not hiring black people or for that matter -
renting apartments to them.

'But let’s not give those organisations any public money or public clients and contracts. '

Yeah lets just take taxes from Christians and fund killing babies, promoting porn and saving the whale. Nothing like hypocrisy.

Hay piper you forgot a couple of things. You want that bloke to have a couple of kids, & a big mortgage, makes them more compliant.

Sorry piper, you are talking garbage. Anyone who has a job to offer has a perfect right to offer that job to whoever they chose, for what ever reason they chose. Who are you, or anyone else to decide who I must employ, or rent a flat to.

When I was hiring a skipper for a tourist boat I had a number of criteria.

I wanted someone who could drive well, & not hit things like rocks or jetties. Of course they had to have the relevant skippers ticket, for the boat & area.

I wanted someone who could manage the crew, & the boat, keeping it sound, clean, & in good condition.

I wanted someone who could relate to their passengers, maximising their enjoyment by public address, & personal contact.

I needed someone who looked like a skipper to the tourist, which was quite a different person on an old pearling lugger sailing afternoon, or a resort trip. Neglect this requirement, & you soon lost customers.

Most of all I needed someone I could work with. This obviously is a value judgement, & anyone who thinks they can dictate that to me is kidding themselves.

This latter is critically important in small business. I often chose less experienced, & sometimes less qualified people, because I knew the person.

Some of these had started with me as a deck hand, aquired the necessary tickets, & earned the job. Others I had observed working elsewhere, & liked their attitude.

The moment someone else had the right to tell me who I could, couldn't or must hire, I would stop hiring, & close the shop. I presume business owners still have that right

Wanted: White Straight Married Christian Male.

Obviously not a job advert for ABC TV...

Here’s an example of what is happening now;

Wesely Delmar will not recruit same sex couples as foster parents.
State gives them children to place with foster parents they will recruit and pays them all costs for that child.

This is not saving whales runner and it isn’t promoting porn. It is the govt giving money to organisations who openly discriminate. I’m unsure what kind of affect that would have on say a hindu lesbian mother whose child is placed in short term care with such an org.

Does the Christian community like this you reckon? Now imagine a Muslim foster care agency taking your little Christian children and refusing to recruit Christian carers.

What I want is state contracts not go to any service that discriminates Hasbeen. I am all for any business or org or church hiring based on what their faith dictates just not with public monies.

I’m sure the same is happing in LA today Lexi… but I’d rather have a law just the same.

Somebody mentioned Penny Wong. Really she shouldn't be employed by anyone after her political career closes. Personally I thing lesbians have their place....in the police force, the army or driving heavy machinery but certainly not in everyone's face.
Their activities are not natural and that's a fact however if the mind their own business I am sure there is a place for them....Ask Bob Brown or Don Dunstan.
CG

Houellebecq said;
Obviously not a job advert for ABC TV...

Perhaps you worked there; Never such a true word said in jest !

Pied Piper, your comments are to the point.
If you were a public servant in Docs and had an application from a
pair of homosexuals to adopt a young boy, would you feel at ease about that ?

Perhaps in 20 years time you might get a writ from that boy's solicitor
for damages !
Not beyond the bounds of possibility, or perhaps even likely.

Should the law protect that public servant or should it prosecute him ?

As a general principle adopted children are placed in homes of similar faith if requested by the genetic parent.

Having recently visited a friend in a Seniors Home, it was discussed that persons who offend other clients by continual bad language or offensive behaviour are restricted from the home. Similar with persons employed by the Centre. They must have sympathy and understanding of the clients in their care. Attitude to clients is more important than certificates of education.

The Government is there for all citizens not just secular institutions. Welfare is given to all irrespective of beliefs and how the recipients choose to spend is their choice. Nursing homes are funded by the retirees who live in them, and most retirees prefer to be with persons of similar values and interests.

Lots of same sex couples currently foster children Bazz, Wesley is the only one that will not accept them in NSW that I know of.

When allegations are made it’s generally for compensation from DoCS not individuals. That sounds a bit cold. Survivors of abuse within the system first want acknowledgment I believe.

Complicated Bazz, if procedures were followed at the time etc I can’t see how damages would be awarded on the adoption side of things.

Adoption is something I know very little about besides wanting it kept separate from the out of home care of children. Same sex couples can adopt children here in Aussie last I heard.

In fostercare Josephus the genetic parents generally get no choice about placements.

You mention a Seniors Home and I know abuse happens in them but often they can articulate the abuse and vote, do they not get to choose which type of senior home they will enter? Children in Fostercare have no voice, no choice.

I’m all for businesses, but I think beliefs do matter, I think public funded services should not be handed to non govt services if they can discriminate against various groups in society at their own discretion.

Should these churches/charities/not-for-profits be allowed to take our state wards and convert them to a religion? Actually that might be a whole different discussion but there is near 40,000 children in care in Australia that very few people ever hear about until apology time.

Pied Piper said;
I can’t see how damages would be awarded on the adoption side of things.

Seems to be a particularly stupid thing to do, the risk just should
not be taken. Much lower risk I think to allow adoption by couples over 50 yrs of age.

"Wanted: White Straight Married Christian Male"?!

That is novel. White males are only group you can discriminate against. Legalised and encouraged too!

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/white-men-can-go-jump/story-e6frf7jo-1111118260457

Pied Piper,
If you take away public funds from religious groups you are effectively shutting down the support system for refugees and many new migrants. Many (most) African migrants are Catholics or Pentecostal Christians, as are about 25% of Indian migrants, 20% of Chinese and the majority of Pacific Islanders and Koreans and of course we have almost half a million Muslims here too.
So you can choose, if you seek to convince us that interests of the 1-2% of the population who are "gay", the 9% of couples who live in de facto marriages or the 14% of the mums and dads who are single parents are to take precedence over the 30% of the population who observe some form of religion and the 40% who supposedly hold "conservative" views then you're setting yourself a Sisyphean task.
If this political system was truly democratic we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

Might I also add,
Many of us on the radical right hold the view that Third World migration had by the turn of the millennium halted so called "progressive" public policy, now we're starting to see this "progress" reversed.
We're generally pretty comfortable with the things most Third Worlders believe, for example the influx of Chinese gives us licence to discuss things like eugenics and racial fitness since they are brought up to accept such concepts and are open to such conversations. Islam promotes healthy ideas on gender roles, political organisation and ethnic solidarity while the Indians are open to discussions on elitism and racial supremacy, it's all good
The "New Australia" of the mid 21st century will be built upon a reactionary substrate, reactionary being the absolute polar opposite of "progressive".

Why doesn’t Australia have these services in place? Why privatise them Jay?

Since there is a mix of religions wouldn’t it make more sense to have state run facilities that accept all faiths as well as those that have none?

We can add up stats but we have a harder time adding up the damage done to individuals by systems that discriminate. Isn’t this why we make laws that cover even the smallest groups in society?

I’m not sure what adoption risks you refer to Bazz, I’m unsure what research has been done and if there are greater risks to children being raised by same sex couples.

With a lot of attention at the moment being on the Royal Commission in Response to Child Sexual Abuse aren’t we looking at a bigger risk by placing children in the arms of church run services? If we can’t and couldn’t save children the public placed in their care I think giving them more power to treat people any way they want is not sending the best message.

Jay:” The "New Australia" of the mid 21st century will be built upon a reactionary substrate, reactionary being the absolute polar opposite of "progressive".”

Sorry Jay, the above I need to go google for awhile unless you can explain it to me

Runner I shake my head to think your brand of extremism hides behind Christianity.
One seems to reserve the right to employ homosexuals and pedophiles.
Raw and rude?
Yes in all probability but watch this Royal Commission then answer'
I think harsh words in this case may bring about the needed result, ending forever this practice.
You, every boss, can pick who you want.
It is not hard interview every one.
Then pick the one you want, and who fits you brand of requirements.

Pied Piper.
What I'm saying is that due to demographic and ethnic reorganisation the underlying ethos of post millenium Australia will be reactionary or fundamentalist as opposed to materialist "progression", I can't make it any clearer than that.

Dear Runner,

<<Yeah lets just take taxes from Christians and fund killing babies, promoting porn and saving the whale. Nothing like hypocrisy.>>

You must admit that it's a far better deal than what Christians got under the Romans, Muslims and Communists. The world has changed in the last century and is now controlled by secular people, so take what you've got and let Caesar have his tainted coin, thanking God for our good fortune that we can still freely serve God, that we don't have to sneak into caves in the middle of the night to pray or be tortured and taken to a concentration camp for having a bible - as is the case in North Korea.

If you want to minimise taxes, then the best way is to live as a true Christian - serve your fellow freely without asking for Caesar's money in return, then pray for your daily bread and others may serve you in turn. With no money exchanged there will be no taxes, so none of your efforts will go towards morally reprehensible actions.

May God bless you in this hard but worthy path!

---
On the topic itself, I can only support Pied Piper saying:

>>My opinion is that they should have the right to hire who they want, absolutely. But let’s not give those organisations any public money or public clients and contracts.<<

Applying the same to everyone, not only to religion-promoting bodies.

"My opinion is that they should have the right to hire who they want, absolutely. But let’s not give those organisations any public money or public clients and contracts"

Does that also apply to affirmative action? Thinking in particular of of the government as an employer. But also its initiatives to lean on private employers to achieve affirmative action goals. Membership of Company Boards is topical.

Jay:”due to demographic and ethnic reorganisation the underlying ethos of post millenium Australia will be reactionary or fundamentalist as opposed to materialist "progression…”

[gulp]

Isn’t the timing weird, initiate a Royal Commission into abuses by the religious (covers state institutions as well but the churches kicked this one off) then offer them more power a few days later. Mr Opinions thread is starting to make sense to me on one paranoid level.

OTB I believe it should apply to everyone, no public contracts for services to the flora, fauna and peoples of and on Australia to be dished out to those that do not have to follow the same rules as a govt employer. Affirmative action hasn’t made a lot of sense to me.

Pied Piper,
Indeed, but in reality the modern western churches are bastions of liberalism, in many cases the pastors are unabashed Leftists, the third world interpretation of scripture is far more literal, the Bible and Koran are living documents in Africa, Asia and South America.
Look further afield than the West for your impressions of Christianity because it's no longer a White religion, it's a third world faith, what's happening in Africa is more important than what's happening in Rome or London.The Western churches will have to return to fundamentalism to accommodate migrants who are now their only sustainable source of new followers. In the Islamic world too democracy is being rolled back and the last vestiges of socialism are being mopped up by the mujahideen, to the satisfaction of the vast majority of Muslims, look at Syria, the best case scenario will see a Muslim Brotherhood or Salafist type of group in power.

Yuyutsu

'You must admit that it's a far better deal than what Christians got under the Romans, Muslims and Communists. The world has changed in the last century and is now controlled by secular people, so take what you've got and let Caesar have his tainted coin, thanking God for our good fortune that we can still freely serve God, that we don't have to sneak into caves in the middle of the night to pray or be tortured and taken to a concentration camp for having a bible - as is the case in North Korea.

good point Yuyutsu. God deniers have often been the cruelest similar to the Catholic church and Islam when their doctrines are challenged or hypocrisy exposed. John the BAptist did lose his head. We are in a very blessed country thanks to the early godly influence. The rotton fruit of secularism is now clear for all to see.

Whenever and wherever govt’s are letting people down the solution is to look for something different instead of insisting the govt services improve. Privatising prisons, hospitals, armies, child care, homes for the elderly ad infinitum.

NGO’s riding Church coattails leap into lobby mode and get the contracts. The service often doesn’t improve but the public are fooled for a while by action alone, it takes a long time for the problems in people related services to reach the public with our privacy laws. Often we have to wait for children to become adults before they can speak out.

The Churches failed so many already, they have failed for a long time and lined pockets while abusing their clients. Let them discriminate, but we should not be letting them have anything else paid for by a supposedly secular govt. People should not be forced into church run businesses.

Yes runner, I think we’ve seen a few apologies from those godly influences, if you check the websites you will see the priests and nuns apologies to children they have abused in various ways while in their care over several generations in Australia. I’m guessing The RC will lead to quite a few more as well and a few more horrific tales or what was done to children placed in the hands of the Church.

The Pied Piper

'I’m guessing The RC will lead to quite a few more as well and a few more horrific tales or what was done to children placed in the hands of the Church. '

Yeah and hopefully the BBC and latte sippers who ignored Saville and others in their organisations might also apologise.

I hope they do runner. And I don’t ignore how often we’ve seen govt employees appear in the news either.

Big problem in foster care is too many cooks in the kitchen. It would be nice to simplify human services, get them back in govt, and become way more transparent, accountable and responsible.

I think the not-for-profits and charities would be wonderful in support services. Early intervention etc. Balance things out. But not if they can legally discriminate against members of the very public they are supplied funds for to help.

<Whenever and wherever govt’s are letting people down the solution is to look for something different instead of insisting the govt services improve>

That was government's own solution to its own inability to manage services effectively and efficiently. It is government too that is trying to outsource its responsibility and its arrangements often muddy (deliberately?) appeal and review mechanisms, and avoiding its fiduciary accountability.

<The service often doesn’t improve but the public are fooled for a while by action alone>

The crux of the problem is that government fails to plan, it adopts convenient populism in policy and where services are outsourced through market testing, the senior public agency managers who couldn't manage, remain while their hard working but poorly led juniour staff are given the bullet.

Few voters are aware that the structure of the federal public service is now highly skewed. Unlike private industry the federal public service has very few juniour workers, or even supervisory positions. The top echelon is bloomed both in number and in pay and benefits. The management overheads are enormous. The 8information is available in departmental reports if any care to look.

<The Churches failed so many already>

Yet the OP is silent on the well documented abuses by the State of its wards, policies to take new-borns away from mothers for adoption and so on.

http://www.forgottenaustralians.org.au/

"The Forgotten Australians is a national group established for the primary purpose of promoting the interests and welfare of Forgotten Australians and their dependents and for this purpose the Forgotten Australians Inc."

contin..

contd..

A Nation's Shame
"During his days as a medical student at the Crown Street Women's Hospital in Sydney, the Nowra obstetrician repeatedly saw babies taken from their unwed teenage mothers moments after birth.
Dr Brian Hoolahan ... 'I can still remember it, it was absolutely horrific, it was the cruellest thing I’ve ever seen.'

'I remember the girls calling out "I just want to touch my baby, please let me see my baby' and they were crying and howling and it was the most horrific thing I've ever seen in my life,' Dr Hoolahan told the Illawarra Mercury."

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/a-nations-shame-it-was-the-most-horrific-thing-ive-ever-seen-20120228-1tzxi.html

Yes, churches and other NGOs are blameworthy too, but it was the State that that led and facilitated, and it was the State that should have protected the rights of the vulnerable.

It is the State we should always fear most for our rights and treatment. We should always be aiming for the State to have less control because it is certain to be abused, and for private industry to deliver whatever services are possible on contract to ensure more openness, review with less political interference and better value for (taxpayers') money.

“Yes, churches and other NGOs are blameworthy too, but it was the State that led and facilitated, and it was the State that should have protected the rights of the vulnerable.”

Which is why compensation claims go back to the state as the responsible party I guess. My biggest question is… aren’t we the state? Well not me I’m not a citizen… aren’t you the state?

Why should the services be contracted out?

Why can’t govt be open?

Why would state having control be more open to abuse than an NGO? The NGO’s have less to worry about if fault is found since it does keep going back to govt for compensation meaning the fault is theirs. Great business if you can get it.

Shouldn't it be govt that provides better value?

Having NGO’s provide state services is not saving us from excessive middle management either.

Isn’t protecting the rights of the individual the reason why NGO’s should not be given our vulnerable peoples?

My thoughts are all over the place, air con broke… way hot here.

The Pied Piper, "Well not me I’m not a citizen"

Your country of citizenship is?
Is it better (apropos to the thread) and how?
How long have you been in Australia and why?

I’m from NZ OTB, got here near seven years ago after husband got a job in Sydney.

Last I heard NZ was also busy contracting out public services to private companies. I’m unsure about the discrimination in law over there right now. Keeping up with two countries is not easy and at this point I have no intention of returning.

The Pied Piper,

Thank you. The NZ of former years has changed a lot. Not for the good, many find it tough. But the people remain warm and accepting. Apart from the regular bottle attacks that is.

I would like to return to the South Island for a month or so sometime soon. A welcome respite from the Nanny State that is Australia

http://crooksandliars.com/nonny-mouse/greatest-nation-earth-isnt-us
I read the above (and watched the video) in the weekend – groovy sounding stuff about NZ. I almost missed it until I remember the blizzards, the driving rain and the frosts. I prefer to constantly whinge about the heat instead.

NZers like Aussies when they are in NZ, I think Aussies in general like NZers when they’re in NZ too.

North Island is much more exciting, I think a few volcanoes are making noises lately and shooting a bit steam out.

My perspective on things come from what I witness fostering children, it’s a weird way to look at the world but what I see is Australia hurts them needlessly and thoughtlessly. Laws that come in enabling these NGO’s to discriminate will trickle down and hurt children.

Since I believe privatising foster care has led to more abuses of children I think we either get the NGO's out or get them more in line with the same services in govt.

I would like to the state to be a nanny state, right now it’s like an old headmaster state.

Funny thing that happens here is a lot of agreement about people should have freedom, people should be free to make choices although it is often pointed out what horrible choices people actually do make all the time for various reasons like they’re just plain dumb. So really what is agreed on is that only the smart people should be able to make the choices for the stoopid ones.

Public servants are people as are private citizens. Both are equally flawed as people and make the same mistakes. Public servants are not a super human race, I had to try and work with some stooped (stupid) public servants.

For contractors a lot of time is lost managing upwards and feeding the reporting that justifies many public managers' jobs. The senior manager who could not manage before is re-classified upwards and becomes part of the contractor's overheads.

So many of these managers are generalists with zilch in the way of subject matter knowledge and expertise, and never any industry experience. Any training (usually written directions) to guide them in their contract management suffers through lack of other expertise and experience. It is especially exasperating for contractors who are professional engineers and the like. Project management is simply not comprehended.

The public bureaucracies do not value professions, or more likely, affirmative action (with the appointment of generalists) has removed the hard edge skills that were previously stated in position descriptions and criteria.