Depends on the size and nature of the company. If they have fewer than 15 employees or qualify as a religious organization (may be profit or non-profit) they are exempted from the applicable federal law. See http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/qanda_religion.html
State laws may still apply though.
Edit: yes it was a typo, thanks.
Edit2: based on the link below it appears the company is Crossways. From their about page:
Crossway is a not-for-profit Christian ministry that exists to proclaim the gospel through publishing in order to, by God's grace:
Assist individual Christians and the church in growing in knowledge and understanding of the Christian life;
Bear witness to God's truth, beauty and holiness, and to the Lordship of Christ in every area of life;
Help bring men, women, and children to Christ as their Lord and Savior;
Glorify our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in every way.
Any surplus which may arise is used solely to further the publishing ministry of Crossway.
Lots of people are offended at lots of stuff because whining is the best they can do to try to fulfill their personal power process.
Atheism should not function as yet another foundation for groupthink.
It's most likely a small company where you'd be in close contact with whomever wrote that, so why would you still think you want to associate with them? You can't change people's minds through laws. Unless it's part of a larger pattern that prevents you from making ends meet, just live and let live.
The only problem with your solution is that you are implicitly condoning and encouraging the behaviour.
Who cares if the OP is Atheist or not. What if the offended person is a Sikh or Muslim or Hindu? Does that change your attitude?
Saying I wouldn't want to associate with them is just as discriminatory. I have nothing personally against highly religious people. I am tolerant and would gladly work with them and have in fact done exactly that.
> What if the offended person is a Sikh or Muslim or Hindu?
I would say the same thing in a different way, because I try to discourage groupthink in general. But your hypothetical person most likely wouldn't have the luxury of being offended, because dealing with their situation is more productive than trying to get a savior to punish people they aren't going to end up working for anyway.
This whole concept of openly proclaiming "offense" is based on the goal of group-shaming people into thought-conformance. If you think this is mature behavior and a good thing to do, then you're no better than any historic oppressive mob.
It just so happens in this case that OP says he subscribes to a belief that's fundamentally based on rejecting social delusions, so I have a direct connection.
> I have nothing personally against highly religious people
It's not that they're religious, it's that they're constantly proselytizing. If you don't want to subject yourself to their drivel, avoiding them is the best you can do, as it would be wrong to force them to shut up.
Many of us can be offended, and not want to work at such a company, but this should be both our and their choice to discriminate.
They discriminate against atheists or others who do not share their beliefs; we discriminate against working for or supporting them.
To ask the law to intervene in what should be a mutually private decision on both sides, is to ask for one or both of the private parties to be coerced and limited in their First Amendment freedoms.
The law currently exempts certain entities from discrimination laws based on religious or other criteria. But all entities should be exempt from laws which interfere with their right to choose.
Here are great arguments for the right to discriminate, one by a Christian, and two by atheists:
This does not condone state-sponsored or state-enforced discrimination. It supports voluntary freedom of association between consenting parties, without coercive force ever being used to try to alter one party's choice.
> But all entities should be exempt from laws which interfere with their right to choose
> This does not condone state-sponsored or state-enforced discrimination
At a certain point, an organization grows past the point of being a "private entity", and functions more like an extension of the state. It's not hard to imagine a few large employers making up the sheer majority of labor buyers in a given area.
I think we're mostly in agreement, as you can see by my other comment. But this fallacy that a large corporation governed by process is akin to a small company controlled by individuals has really got to go.
This is an interesting point. Could you imagine if race and / or religion mixed with capitalism lead to several mega-corporations battling with each other for control of the economy? It sounds far-fetched but the ideas are very plausible when you look at what happened with mining towns in West Virginia.
What if I wanted to work somewhere that excluded people who I did not wish to involve myself with? Why should I be prevented from doing so, or the company prevented from doing the same because you want to work there?
I'm not going to make a comment on the legal ramifications only to say that if they qualify as being able to discriminate on the basis of a religious institute then, as they say, "that's the way the cookie crumbles".
My personal answer to your question by the way is that if a company was only looking for an African-American, homosexual, US-born, male without disabilities then that's what they want and what they want isn't me. Not the end of the world, I'm going to move on with my day and not stress over stuff like this. They live their life and I live mine, I don't see any reason to impose on any part of their life if it isn't directly infringing on mine.
"I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos." - Walter Sobchak
I don't expect that it is illegal, since it is a religious organization. As others have said, it is legal for churches to refuse employment and services to non-members. It's offensive I suppose, and perhaps closed-minded, but not illegal.
Honestly, if your personal values are directly at odds with your employer's entire purpose for existing, how would that ever work out positively?
It's not necessary to be a church to qualify as a religious organization. A non-profit church-affiliated publisher that solely published religious material would almost certainly qualify.
Allusions to sexual harassment or sexism in the workplace are unfair. A more apt comparison would be a male applying for a bar-tending job and being told that only females are hired. It turns out, gender discrimination is allowed in "entertainment" settings. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070603062532AA...
Of course there are countless examples from recent history about certain jobs being only for men. Combat roles in the military are the first example that come to my mind. That is wrong and luckily it's changing.
<In the US> If it's a religious organization, no. For example the Southern Baptist Convention can freely and openly refuse to hire atheists, Hindus, Catholics, etc. Incidentally, your local United Methodist Church may run a charitable food pantry and still refuse to provide services to Muslims and Jews...and yes, donations to the program are tax deductible.
BTW, It's just as well you are offended. You would struggle to fit into workplace culture.
Out of curiosity, how does an organisation gets recognised as religious? Can a sufficiently determined white supremacist set up a church of all blacks are evil and start lawfully discriminating?
Out of further curiosity, would it really be so bad if that were legal? I wouldn't think a black person, or for that matter anyone who isn't a white supremacist, would want to work for that employer even if the law forced the employer to hire without discrimination.
I don't think the liquidity of the job market matters, because again, the only thing a law can feasibly do is prohibit the white supremacist employer from including those ideals in the job listing.
I would assume it offends the OP like a job post for a White Heterosexual Male would make many people implode with rage regardless of interest in the job itself.
If the company is comprised of people who would make the decision to put that stuff in their job listing, I would prefer to know upfront by simply reading the job listing. If such job listings are strictly prohibited, then there's a chance I would waste my time applying to such a company.
It may be that they feel that the mission of their employees needs to be in alignment with their organizations mission which is wholly focused around a certain religious set of beliefs. They may feel like someone with a similar mission would be more likely to bring the necessary passion to the job. To quote the bible and Lincoln, 'A house divided against itself cannot stand'... Some women might find it offensive that you compare your religious (or atheistic) beliefs to being a male or a female as one involves a choice and the other doesn't. Being an Atheist will surely limit your ability to have passion for the mission of their non-profit (which also will probably pay less and require more of a personal passion for the job than just a simple desire to make a paycheck), but being female or male shouldn't have an effect on ones ability to do any given job.
46 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 94.1 ms ] threadState laws may still apply though.
Edit: yes it was a typo, thanks.
Edit2: based on the link below it appears the company is Crossways. From their about page:
Crossway is a not-for-profit Christian ministry that exists to proclaim the gospel through publishing in order to, by God's grace:
Assist individual Christians and the church in growing in knowledge and understanding of the Christian life; Bear witness to God's truth, beauty and holiness, and to the Lordship of Christ in every area of life; Help bring men, women, and children to Christ as their Lord and Savior; Glorify our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ in every way. Any surplus which may arise is used solely to further the publishing ministry of Crossway.
While the legal test involved is complicated, I'm fairly confident this organization would qualify as a religious organization. http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/threshold.html#2-III-B-4-b-i
Atheism should not function as yet another foundation for groupthink.
It's most likely a small company where you'd be in close contact with whomever wrote that, so why would you still think you want to associate with them? You can't change people's minds through laws. Unless it's part of a larger pattern that prevents you from making ends meet, just live and let live.
Who cares if the OP is Atheist or not. What if the offended person is a Sikh or Muslim or Hindu? Does that change your attitude?
Saying I wouldn't want to associate with them is just as discriminatory. I have nothing personally against highly religious people. I am tolerant and would gladly work with them and have in fact done exactly that.
I would say the same thing in a different way, because I try to discourage groupthink in general. But your hypothetical person most likely wouldn't have the luxury of being offended, because dealing with their situation is more productive than trying to get a savior to punish people they aren't going to end up working for anyway.
This whole concept of openly proclaiming "offense" is based on the goal of group-shaming people into thought-conformance. If you think this is mature behavior and a good thing to do, then you're no better than any historic oppressive mob.
It just so happens in this case that OP says he subscribes to a belief that's fundamentally based on rejecting social delusions, so I have a direct connection.
> I have nothing personally against highly religious people
It's not that they're religious, it's that they're constantly proselytizing. If you don't want to subject yourself to their drivel, avoiding them is the best you can do, as it would be wrong to force them to shut up.
They discriminate against atheists or others who do not share their beliefs; we discriminate against working for or supporting them.
To ask the law to intervene in what should be a mutually private decision on both sides, is to ask for one or both of the private parties to be coerced and limited in their First Amendment freedoms.
The law currently exempts certain entities from discrimination laws based on religious or other criteria. But all entities should be exempt from laws which interfere with their right to choose.
Here are great arguments for the right to discriminate, one by a Christian, and two by atheists:
http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/workplace-discriminat...
http://archive.lewrockwell.com/block/block169.html
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2010/10/legislation-require...
This does not condone state-sponsored or state-enforced discrimination. It supports voluntary freedom of association between consenting parties, without coercive force ever being used to try to alter one party's choice.
> This does not condone state-sponsored or state-enforced discrimination
At a certain point, an organization grows past the point of being a "private entity", and functions more like an extension of the state. It's not hard to imagine a few large employers making up the sheer majority of labor buyers in a given area.
I think we're mostly in agreement, as you can see by my other comment. But this fallacy that a large corporation governed by process is akin to a small company controlled by individuals has really got to go.
What if I wanted to work somewhere that excluded people who I did not wish to involve myself with? Why should I be prevented from doing so, or the company prevented from doing the same because you want to work there?
I'm not going to make a comment on the legal ramifications only to say that if they qualify as being able to discriminate on the basis of a religious institute then, as they say, "that's the way the cookie crumbles".
My personal answer to your question by the way is that if a company was only looking for an African-American, homosexual, US-born, male without disabilities then that's what they want and what they want isn't me. Not the end of the world, I'm going to move on with my day and not stress over stuff like this. They live their life and I live mine, I don't see any reason to impose on any part of their life if it isn't directly infringing on mine.
"I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos." - Walter Sobchak
http://careers.stackoverflow.com/jobs/49797/web-application-...
I don't expect that it is illegal, since it is a religious organization. As others have said, it is legal for churches to refuse employment and services to non-members. It's offensive I suppose, and perhaps closed-minded, but not illegal.
Honestly, if your personal values are directly at odds with your employer's entire purpose for existing, how would that ever work out positively?
Of course there are countless examples from recent history about certain jobs being only for men. Combat roles in the military are the first example that come to my mind. That is wrong and luckily it's changing.
<In the US> If it's a religious organization, no. For example the Southern Baptist Convention can freely and openly refuse to hire atheists, Hindus, Catholics, etc. Incidentally, your local United Methodist Church may run a charitable food pantry and still refuse to provide services to Muslims and Jews...and yes, donations to the program are tax deductible.
BTW, It's just as well you are offended. You would struggle to fit into workplace culture.
Also, please write "woman". Using "girl" is a clear manifestation of the Patriarchy.