Since other thread has two posters that drove an otherwise civil debate into a mess, I just wanted to continue here.
Here's the original link regarding a Christian theme park that wanted to hire only Christians:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3540683/Noahs-Ark-job-float-boat-Then-Christian.html
The issue seems to be not whether or not they must employ only Christians, but whether or not they should have the option to.
There is one question I'd like to address: Imagine a women's rights organization wanted only those who believe in women's rights to work for their organization should they have the right to? One response to this was that an employee doesn't need to believe in women's rights to clean a toilette there.
Fine.
But is there ANY position that a woman's rights group can specifically want those with feminist views to have? Or must this group be forced to hire those who don't believe in women's rights because it would be discriminatory not to? Likewise, are there any positions an evangelical Christian business can request to be filled by Christians? Or should both groups be denied the right to request those who share their beliefs?
I will acknowledge, that from a legal standpoint, the examples are different because religious views are a specific criteria that is legally protected from discriminating against. Does this mean it's morally wrong for a Christian business to want Christians for at least some of its positions?
-Removed-It's a religious organization. The Noah's Ark theme park is most likely an attempt to promote creationism, given that AIG (Answers in Genesis) frequently defends creationist views. That they need to make money to keep this theme park going, and may even profit from it, doesn't change that they are a religious organization running the theme park for religious reasons.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
-Removed-Have you seen how much money the mega churches make?
They average ~$6million per year, and the biggest breaks ~$70 million per year.
With paster's making multi-million per year in fees.
Given that's allowed I can't see how you can genuinely argue that religion can't also be for profit.
And I haven't even mentioned Scientology yet.
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by vivifyThere is another difference, or at least I expect there would be. Christianity, especially of the kind that has a theme park, is promoting itself. All its employees who deal with the public can be selected to have an honest "yes" answer to a patron's asking "Do you believe in Christianity? Promoting and presenting Christian views might even be a job requirement But even here I would say that only holds for those who deal with the public.
I will acknowledge, that from a legal standpoint, the examples are different because religious views are a specific criteria that is legally protected from discriminating against. Does this mean it's morally wrong for a Christian business to want Christians for at least some of its positions?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
-Removed-Asking a rhetorical question does not imply I think you are stupid. Why do people keep making that mistake?
Anyway...
As I understand it Scientology does charge for progression through the church [although I don't believe that
they have on the door admission charges] but I am not sure that the distinction really matters.
Why does it matter which profit model is used if it's clearly allowable to have a profit model of some sort?
-Removed-The theme park should have a right to employ only Christians, given that it's run by a religious organization for religious reasons. At the very least, they should be allowed to at least require those employees who engage patrons, since an evangelistic organization may want it's employees to share their faith or pray with them, if the patrons request it.
Tax breaks? No, I don't think any church should have tax breaks. Charge admission? Yes. Obviously, they'd need to make money in order to keep the park running. Am I a Christian? No.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
-Removed-
To charge people to hear the Christian gospel is reprehensible, in my opinion.
Ahh, but it's not your Christian gospel, these people clearly believe in a radically different 'Christianity'
than the one you believe in. Which is why it's best to think of it [legally] as a separate religion, like
Scientology.
And if it is indeed a different religion, who are you to say what is reprehensible or not for that religion?
😉
Now of course I wouldn't give any religion tax breaks, and I don't believe in allowing discrimination.
But if [as we clearly do] we allow religious discrimination from employers in certain circumstances,
why are they not allowable here?
What is it legally that makes this clearly different from a church where discrimination is allowed?