Only Christians can Work at Theme Park

Originally posted by vivify
[b]While there may be jobs there which are primarily to "promote Christianity", clearly there would be jobs which are not
Since the theme park is evangelistic in nature, the job of everyone there would be to contribute to evangelizing, even if it's indirectly, like with having what Christians consider a "Christ-like" attitude.[/b]

I know a lot of non-Christians who have more of a "Christ-like" attitude, than many Christians I know. If you can be honest with yourself, you do too.

The question should be whether or not the individual can do the job in question. The theme park would be guilty of religious discrimination plain and simple.

Religious discrimination involves treating a person (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of his or her religious beliefs. The law protects not only people who belong to traditional, organized religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism, but also others who have sincerely held religious, ethical or moral beliefs.

https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm

The fact remains that you don't need to be a Christian to run a ticket booth, serve / prepare food, run a ride, etc.

What's more, from what I gather it's a for-profit venture. So the theme park is in fact profit-making "in nature".

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I know a lot of non-Christians who have more of a "Christ-like" attitude, than many Christians I know. If you can be honest with yourself, you do too.

The question should be whether or not the individual can do the job in question. The theme park would be guilty of religious discrimination plain and simple.

[quote]Religious discrimination involves ...[text shortened]... what I gather it's a for-profit venture. So the theme park is in fact profit-making "in nature".

At some point, common sense needs to be applied. This is like suing a civil rights group because they wouldn't hire a KKK member.

Originally posted by vivify
At some point, common sense needs to be applied. This is like suing a civil rights group because they wouldn't hire a KKK member.

No surprise that you once again avoided addressing the salient points of my post.

Yes, common sense does need to be applied.

The fact remains that you don't need to be a Christian to run a ticket booth, serve / prepare food, run a ride, etc.

The fact remains that the question should be whether or not the individual can do the job in question.

The fact remains that many non-Christians have more of a "Christ-like" attitude, than many Christians. If you can be honest with yourself, you know this to be true.

The fact remains that, from what I gather, the theme park is a for-profit venture making the theme park profit-making "in nature".

The fact remains that the theme park is guilty of religious discrimination plain and simple.

The reason that there are laws that protect people from discrimination (religious or otherwise) is to protect them from people with attitudes like yours.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
No surprise that you once again avoided addressing the salient points of my post.

Yes, common sense does need to be applied.

The fact remains that you don't need to be a Christian to run a ticket booth, serve / prepare food, run a ride, etc.

The fact remains that many non-Christians have more of a "Christ-like" attitude, than many Christians. I ...[text shortened]... iscrimination (religious or otherwise) is to protect them from people with attitudes like yours.

Should a women's rights group be allowed to not hire someone who doesn't believe in women's rights? Yes or no?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." -- Matthew 6:24, KJV

If a Christian organization hires those whose only care is money, they get what they deserve. I think they should be able to hire those who seek to serve God instead of those who only seek to serve themselves.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Those who profess Christ as their saviour are the biggest crooks and hypocrites on the earth.

Those who believe in their heart that Christ is their saviour and transform this belief into good works .. now thats a different story.

Originally posted by vivify
Should a civil rights group be allowed to not hire KKK members? Yes or no?

Let's see, in an effort to keep avoiding the salient points of my posts, you've decided to stoop so low as to pretend that I'm the one who evading? Is that "Christ-like" or unChrist-like in your view? You're really something.

Do you really not understand the reasons behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rights legislation in the United States[5] that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.[

Any ideas why members of the KKK weren't protected?

Not that I expect you to address any of the following soon, but here they are again:

The fact remains that you don't need to be a Christian to run a ticket booth, serve / prepare food, run a ride, etc.

The fact remains that the question should be whether or not the individual can do the job in question.

The fact remains that many non-Christians have more of a "Christ-like" attitude, than many Christians. If you can be honest with yourself, you know this to be true.

The fact remains that, from what I gather, the theme park is a for-profit venture making the theme park profit-making "in nature".

The fact remains that the theme park is guilty of religious discrimination plain and simple.

The fact remains that the reason that there are laws that protect people from discrimination (religious or otherwise) is to protect them from people with attitudes like yours.

Originally posted by Suzianne
"No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon." -- Matthew 6:24, KJV

If a Christian organization hires those whose only care is money, they get what they deserve. I think they should be able to hire those who seek to serve God instead of those who only seek to serve themselves.

Which master do you think is being served by an organization that seeks to make money by building a theme park based on a biblical theme?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Let's see, in an effort to keep avoiding the salient points of my posts, you've decided to stoop so low as to pretend that I'm the one who evading? Is that "Christ-like" or unChrist-like in your view? You're really something.

Do you really not understand the reasons behind the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–35 ...[text shortened]... ation (religious or otherwise) is to protect them from people with attitudes like yours.

Your "salient points" are irrelevant. For example, the fact that they're for profit: it has no bearing on the question of whether or not they should have only Christians. Same with some non-Christians being more Christ-like: irrelevant. A group with a mission shouldn't be forced to hire those who don't share their beliefs.

Believe me, there's no "dodging" here. It's just that going over your points one by one ultimately fruitless, since they're irrelevant.

To me, it's just common sense. Women's rights groups shouldn't be forced to hire those who don't believe in women's rights. Likewise with Christians and their beliefs.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
I know a lot of non-Christians who have more of a "Christ-like" attitude, than many Christians I know. If you can be honest with yourself, you do too.

The question should be whether or not the individual can do the job in question. The theme park would be guilty of religious discrimination plain and simple.

[quote]Religious discrimination involves ...[text shortened]... what I gather it's a for-profit venture. So the theme park is in fact profit-making "in nature".

And the US mega churches that average ~$6million and top out at ~$70 million per annum are NOT for profit?

My bigger problem is the fact that religions get tax breaks [for being religions] at all.
Promoting a religion is not a charitable activity and shouldn't be treated as such.

As for hiring only Christians...

Basically it's an argument over whether or not this exercise is a regular business, or essentially some form of church.
Which is a harder and more nuanced argument than I think either side in this thread is admitting thus far.


Try writing a definition of precisely what a place of worship [or place of and for religious promotion] is that allows all
'legitimate' churches [without being recursive] for any and all religions and does not allow this venture.

I strongly suspect you will not find that task easy.

Saying "it's common sense that..." is not legally useful, both because law should be clear and well defined, and because
'common sense' is frequently neither common nor sensible.

Originally posted by googlefudge
And the US mega churches that average ~$6million and top out at ~$70 million per annum are NOT for profit?

My bigger problem is the fact that religions get tax breaks [for being religions] at all.
Promoting a religion is not a charitable activity and shouldn't be treated as such.

As for hiring only Christians...

Basically it's an argument over ...[text shortened]... clear and well defined, and because
'common sense' is frequently neither common nor sensible.

Did you respond to my post by mistake?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Did you respond to my post by mistake?

Nope.

My post was addressing the argument as a whole more than it was your specific post,
but your post was my jumping off point.

Originally posted by googlefudge
And the US mega churches that average ~$6million and top out at ~$70 million per annum are NOT for profit?

My bigger problem is the fact that religions get tax breaks [for being religions] at all.
Promoting a religion is not a charitable activity and shouldn't be treated as such.

As for hiring only Christians...

Basically it's an argument over ...[text shortened]... clear and well defined, and because
'common sense' is frequently neither common nor sensible.

You have a good point. Since AIG's theme park seems to be for the purpose of promoting religion, any legal provisions that protect their right to run their organization as religious establishment should be applied. Churches are allowed to have only Christians as part of their clergy; since this theme park's function and goal is essentially the same as a church (promote Christianity, evangelize), then legally, this park should also be allowed to have only Christian members.

Originally posted by vivify
You have a good point. Since AIG's theme park seems to be for the purpose of promoting religion, any legal provisions that protect their right to run their organization as religious establishment should be applied. Churches are allowed to have only Christians as part of their clergy; since this theme park's function and goal is essentially the same as a chu ...[text shortened]... ity, evangelize), then legally, this park should also be allowed to have only Christian members.

Well, my point is less that I agree with you on this.

More that it's really hard to make clear and sensible laws governing this that both allow
'normal' churches to discriminate and do not also allow 'whatever this is' to also call itself
a church and discriminate.

But then I think that the argument gets even trickier than that, because I agree with you that
many organisations can and do hold their employees to idealogical standards both directly
and tangentially related to their business. For example a company could require it's employees
to adhere to a pro-feminist platform well above and beyond any workplace regulations on the
subject, and hire and fire on the basis of that [along with all the other normal considerations].

There are many different factors that [in different circumstances] companies could use to discriminate
between potential employees above and beyond pure mechanical ability to do the job in question.
As in my above example a company might want to create a certain atmosphere for it's workers
and not want to employ people who may/would disrupt that. For example a games company that
wanted to tap into the much overlooked potential of female gamers and games designers might, in the
light of 'gamer gate', want to enact a very pro-feminist company ethic to help attract and retain that
talent. And as such they would want all in the company to sign up to this ethic and belief.

Part of the problem with the issue of the OP is that religions have been given a protected class status
because of so much religious discrimination and persecution throughout history... But we then have
exemptions that allow religions themselves to discriminate while hiring. Which creates the contradiction
and the conflict.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well, my point is less that I agree with you on this.

More that it's really hard to make clear and sensible laws governing this that both allow
'normal' churches to discriminate and do not also allow 'whatever this is' to also call itself
a church and discriminate.

But then I think that the argument gets even trickier than that, because I agree ...[text shortened]... ons themselves to discriminate while hiring. Which creates the contradiction
and the conflict.

I think exemptions should be made if the goal of the business is directly tied to a need for that exemption. For example, Chippendales, which features exotic male dancers, should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sex for its dancers, since their business caters to women interested in men.

But this still doesn't neatly clear up the OP, because a Christian business doesn't "need" to hire only Christians; it's more of an ideological issue like you pointed in your "gamergate" analogy. However, the difference is, the hypothetical company isn't discriminating based on religion like AIG is, which is illegal. This is a case where the letter of the law doesn't uphold the spirit of the law.