Do religions have carte blanche to discriminate?

I was searching through Craigslist at the job postings and came across this gem (name XXX'd out for privacy)

"The XXX Company seeks to make employment decisions in accordance with applicable federal and state employment discrimination laws and regulations. As a religious organization, The XXX Company is entitled to make employment decisions on the basis of religious beliefs and practices of the applicant or employee. All positions require a personal commitment to Christ, evidenced by personal testimony and identification with a local church. "

Original posting here

Now my question is , albeit a legal one, is do religious organizations have the legal right to only hire those that follow their beliefs? If so, then what would be the difference between hanging a sign outside of your factory stating "Whites Only - Colored need not apply" or something along those lines?

Could I, as an employer, state in my job postings "Followers of Christ and/or Judaism will not be considered for this position" ?

[edit on 2-6-2009 by TXRabbit]

Here's the deal... if you applied and were rejected for not being, "Christian" then you could sue. that is a violation of EEOC and ACLU would have a field day with those folks... however they could argue it was never about your not being their kind of person but that you were simply unqualified... maybe worse is the department of labor would force them to hire you then you'd really be stuck in a hostile work environment

[edit on 2-6-2009 by DaddyBare]

[edit on 2-6-2009 by DaddyBare]

I think any business should be able to hire whoever they want, for whatever reasons they want. I personally believe the company is only hurting themselves when the discriminate for such reasons rather than taking the best candidates for the job.

IMO, it's about time people get real. People are going to discriminate and do whatever they want. I think anyone who's been in the "real world" knows this. The only thing that really changes are the excuses given for not hiring, or firing the person.

2 people can do the exact same thing. Lets say they are late. All you do is apply selective enforcement, you fire the person you didn't like for being late, and let it slide on the other guy. Happens everyday in the real world, and people pretending it doesn't isn't helping anything.

Go ask a black man who's over the age of 50. They had to walk a tight rope just to keep excuses like the above from even being possible. Slip up and gone. No promotions and probably not a fun working environment.

Luckily, people aren't so stupid anymore most of the time.

So if this company is made to hire other people, then they will just be quite about it in the future, and use other excuses and reasons to do things. Personally, I like it when it's out in the open. Then I can do my best not to buy from the company.

First of this is craigs list for all we know the OP could have written the add to start a thread.
Buisnesses should be able to hire whoever they want. Why would an atheist want to work for a person like that? I know how much they love to bwwwwaaaaaa about the "descrimination" they face while they drag the religious beliefs of thers through the dirt. Even if an atheist got a job there he would sue if his employer mentioned god in the workplace, or gave him a 15min break for prayer.
According to atheist law the only way you can say God and not infringe on anyone's rights is if you are talking about the God delusion or bashing god in some manner. Any positive use of the word God is seen as an attempt to convert and will trigger an atheist rage in which they will get on you tube and bbbbwwwwwwaaaaaaaa.

Religious Non-Profit Groups are not subject to the Federal anti-discrimination laws which might apply to similar organizations serving the public for profit. Most states and municipalities don't subject Religious Non-Profit Groups to anti-discrimination laws either, but they have the right to expand the Federal anti-discrimination laws as they see fit.

If the position is a Volunteer position, or even a Contracted or Independent Consultant position, then even if they were a For-Profit business, they would not be subject to Federal anti-discrimination laws.

I wonder how many devout christians Dawkins has working under him.

reply to post by fraterormus


Thanks for the info. I had no idea. Very enlightening.

Like some others who posted, the libertarian in me salutes the idea that an employer should not be told by big brother who he can or can not hire.

I would think that any company that would want to discriminate based on adherence to a particular religion would make some small part of the job based on a knowledge of that religion. If everyone at the company had to spend one Friday a month answering the phones on a Christian hotline then they could claim that it is a lack of subject matter knowledge that kept the person from being hired.

I would hate to see that sort of duplicity be necessary, but I guess that's what you deal with when the government intervenes in private business.

It's also hard to deny the good that has come from anti-discrimination laws. I guess I'm of two minds on this.

Eric

reply to post by EricD


You could also go and arrest all males from the age of 18-25 and probably put a dent in crime. The problem is not the "good" that is being done there, but the number of times innocent people are punished as a result of the things others do.

I've been on the reverse side of these anti-discrimination laws. I used to live in a small town(less than 2500 people). It was 99% white. There was a total of 1 black person who lived in town. That person was my roommate and I actually brought him to the town.

In this town there are only a few companies to work for. The best company in town starts hiring again. It's a welders job, something I have experience in. My roommate has no experience. We both apply.

Even though I am more qualified for the job, my roommate gets the job because he is black. The company pretty much has no choice in the manner due to anti-discrimination laws. As they had 0 black people working there before.

I didn't mind so much because he was my friend and roommate. I was glad he got a job. But I know why he got it and it still wasn't right.

I can see the "good" in it. But I can also see and know the bad in it as well, and the people who are punished for the things others do. So that is why I am against it. In the case above I should have gotten the job because I was more qualified and had experience(as well as plenty of references from people who worked there). I would have been a sure in if not for my roommate. It doesn't really upset me, but I know it's not right.

I think Chris Rock said it best. People shouldn't be given a job over people with more experience. But I guess if it's a tie, I had a head start and that is hard to deny.

Now when it comes to civil rights. I think the federal government had every right to come in and ensure people were being allowed to vote and such. As matter of fact, that is supposed to be their main function.

Originally posted by fraterormus
Religious Non-Profit Groups are not subject to the Federal anti-discrimination laws which might apply to similar organizations serving the public for profit. Most states and municipalities don't subject Religious Non-Profit Groups to anti-discrimination laws either, but they have the right to expand the Federal anti-discrimination laws as they see fit.

Exactly so.

The thing is, though, it's a religious based group. I know one that has an atheist for a bookkeeper -- but said atheist keeps her religious opinions to herself and this is not one of those evangelical churches.

Originally posted by The Mack
I wonder how many devout christians Dawkins has working under him.

Probably the same as the number who applied for positions working under him.