I think they point he’s trying to articulate is that he assumed it had to do with workforce discrimination and not refusing service.
They’re different kinds of discrimination, and it like like both are legal in religious grounds in certain circumstances.
An example of legal religious employment discrimination is churches. They are allowed to require those in religious leadership and religious education positions to be professing members of the faith. But they CAN’T discriminate based on religion for non-religous positions.
So a Baptist Church can require that a pastor be a Christian, but can’t fire the janitor for being Buddhist.
Ok so hear me out. I get what you’re saying and your example also makes sense however I think one thing is being glossed over.
In drawing the equivalence to religious beliefs we are stating that those part of the LGBTQ2+ABC123 community are also simply pretending who they are.
That’s not an equivalence I’m comfortable with. It’s frankly demeaning to say that a trans person can just “stop thinking they’re trans and be done with it”.
One is discrimination based on what you believe and another is discrimination on who you are.
So to your example, I think it’s better if you’re a Baptist Church you can’t require that a pastor be white just like you can’t fire a janitor for being black.
They’re not the same thing from a human perspective. But religious belief has the same protection under the law as other protected classes.
Many churches also ban gay or female clergy. Do I find that abhorrent? Absolutely. But it’s reasonable for organizations to expect their leadership to represent their beliefs.
Look at it from the other direction. What if the GLAAD CEO were to join the Westboro Baptist Church, claim she’d been converted? Legally, her religion and religious speech is just as protected as race or sex, but GLAAD would certainly have cause to fire her for being a member of the WBC.
I think they point he’s trying to articulate is that he assumed it had to do with workforce discrimination and not refusing service.
They’re different kinds of discrimination, and it like like both are legal in religious grounds in certain circumstances.
An example of legal religious employment discrimination is churches. They are allowed to require those in religious leadership and religious education positions to be professing members of the faith. But they CAN’T discriminate based on religion for non-religous positions.
So a Baptist Church can require that a pastor be a Christian, but can’t fire the janitor for being Buddhist.
Ok so hear me out. I get what you’re saying and your example also makes sense however I think one thing is being glossed over.
In drawing the equivalence to religious beliefs we are stating that those part of the LGBTQ2+ABC123 community are also simply pretending who they are.
That’s not an equivalence I’m comfortable with. It’s frankly demeaning to say that a trans person can just “stop thinking they’re trans and be done with it”.
One is discrimination based on what you believe and another is discrimination on who you are.
So to your example, I think it’s better if you’re a Baptist Church you can’t require that a pastor be white just like you can’t fire a janitor for being black.
They’re not the same thing from a human perspective. But religious belief has the same protection under the law as other protected classes.
Many churches also ban gay or female clergy. Do I find that abhorrent? Absolutely. But it’s reasonable for organizations to expect their leadership to represent their beliefs.
Look at it from the other direction. What if the GLAAD CEO were to join the Westboro Baptist Church, claim she’d been converted? Legally, her religion and religious speech is just as protected as race or sex, but GLAAD would certainly have cause to fire her for being a member of the WBC.