Should a religious bookstore have to hire people who are gay? In the debate on passage of ENDA, the anti-homosexual discrimination law that the House of Representatives passed today, this seems to have been the strongest argument offered against the proposal. Nevertheless, passage in the Senate is uncertain and apparently, the Administration has threatened a veto. The 235-184 vote is not, on its face, enough to override the veto. So, should a religious bookstore have to hire people who are gay? “We’re all sinners” when they want to overlook someone’s misdeeds – or to change the focus of a conversation from someone’s misdeeds to the central idea of Christianity, which (correct me if I’m wrong here, Christians) is forgiveness through the redemption granted by God through Jesus Christ. But “That’s against God’s teachings” is what they say about someone’s misdeeds when they want to be judgmental about them.
Again, correct me if I’m wrong here, Christians, but isn’t everyone a sinner? Why is the sin of being gay qualitatively different than the sins of blasphemy, adultery, lying, or theft – to the point that it prevents someone from being able to put a book on a shelf or cashier out a customer’s order? It doesn’t, of course; a gay person can do the job of working in a bookstore as well as a straight person or an asexual one. The opposition to the bill is based on the idea that it’s okay to use religion as a smokescreen for prejudice against gay people. That, in my view, cheapens the potential of religions to guide their adherents to behave in a moral fashion, and it is one of the reasons I have become so very critical of the way religion is being used in public life these days.
Religious folks: you don’t have to back down from saying gay sex is a sin. This law would make you distinguish between a person’s private life and their ability to do a job. That’s something that you probably already do on a selective basis anyway.
ENDA probably will pass the Senate, but all that we* can do is hope that Bush doesn’t have the balls to actually veto it. Although frankly, I don’t see what he has to lose by doing exactly that. Are gay people going to like him even less? This general defender of Republican ideas would, but for the most part, Bush would lose support if he didn’t veto ENDA. And the Democrats do not (yet) have enough support to override the veto – they will have to wait until (um, I mean “if”) Hillary Clinton becomes President to get the bill passed into law.
* By “we,” of course, I mean people who think that there is no good reason to treat gays any differently than straights.
Posts
3 comments:
Hmm, tough question but here are my views.
The bookstore should not be able to discriminate based on sexual conduct. Just as it should hire and adulterer or murderer, it should hire a homosexual.
Here's the rub though; If I steal or murder, I can realize that it was a 'weakness' and desire not to do it again (but the mistake can happen again). I can be forgiven. That's the nature of forgiveness. It is understood that when asking for forgiveness, I will try to not make that mistake again; I realize it was wrong. However with Homosexuals, the don't think that what they're doing is wrong. So they are not forgiven.
So it should not be a factor in hiring or retaining a job. It is not the bookstore's job to do the judging. How about this situation? SHould a homosexual be able to be hired by the church (in a teaching capacity or administrative capacity)? Should a Catholic church be able to decide employment based on religion (i.e. Jewish, Protastant, atheist)?
There are exceptions in the federal nondiscrimination laws for ecclesiastical organizations. Religious bookstores, however, are for-profit businesses.
There is no reason that anyone should be refused the right to be hired, regardless of whether the bookstore is "religious" or "secular."
Sexual preference does not determine whether or not someone is a competent employee. It also doesn't determine whether or not someone is religious.
Post a Comment