« Synthetic Life Points to a Designer | Main | Pilgrim Governor »

November 06, 2013

Comments

The WP article author demonstrates a shocking lack of understanding about God; God is a discriminating God. So what's the answer to the question? God discriminates against sinners. In this case, it turns out that this kind of discrimination is necessary and proper, because it means accountability for our rebellion against a holy God.

But the good news is that we don't have to remain in rebellion, dead in our sins. We have a way; and that is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and produce fruit in keeping with with repentance.

It's shameful for Christians that this WP article shows many churches that are making support for this bill their rallying cry when they turn a blind eye to the real issue, and that is the Gospel.

I am curious. Where does one find the list of sins God finds acceptable for employers to refuse to hire someone, or give them lesser pay, or immediately terminate the employee if the employee commits said sins?

Dagoods, your condescending and supercilious remark is noted, but your underlining argument is inane. I will grant that there is no "list", but I will not grant the idea that the absence of a list is cause for Christians to violate their principles. If your argument is to hold up all sins are fair game for anti-discrimination laws no matter the job position such as pedophiles in daycare centers, drug users or alcoholics as pilots, kleptomaniacs as bank tellers, etc.

DagoodS,

By that little bit of frost on my mustache, there is a degree of discrimination in the workplace. I have felt a seven-month job search, knowing that the young man (even the young man with the pregnant wife) sitting with you in the lobby of the work prospect has the great advantage.

If getting old is a sin, then we've one for the list. As it is, it is the results of sin, with the sinful nature that makes its own levels of discrimination. The postmodern world seems to have a built-in disregard for the older set clinging to their views, outmoded as they make it seem.

Sorry for the digression. A good day to you.

I am relieved, spaughza, my question did not appear to provide this claim any legitimacy. If there is no list…or “list”…then what does it matter if sexual orientation becomes a protected class under the Civil Rights Act when it comes to employment? Even if one presumes homosexual acts are a sin. Apparently the answer to the question, “Who Would God Discriminate Against?”…as we agree there is no such list…is “we don’t know if He would discriminate at all.”

A second curious question…what principle would a Christian violate by hiring a gay person in their bookstore? Or restaurant? Or law practice? Or press shop?

DGFischer, I feel your pain. I have a lot of frost (as you kindly described it.) Age is a protected class--if age was on God’s list, then Christians should already be outraged.

As a bible believing Christian often labelled with "fundamentalist", aside from clergy or Christian education, I can't even think of a job that it would be relavent to consider sexual choices. Indeed aside from the specific offices and related standards mentioned in the bible it seems our call is to treat everyone with gentleness and compassion.

So do y'all think that I should be able to refuse to hire Christians?

Suppose it would violate my conscience?

Won't someone think of the poor Walgreens owners forced to violate their conscience and serve colored folk?

Can't anyone see how oppressive it is for the Muslim shop-owning job creators of Dearborn to have their constitutional rights stripped from them when the government says they cannot put an ad in the classifieds reading "Jews need not apply"? Shouldn't emergency rooms be staffed with people who may or may not refuse to treat your un-burkha-wearing daughter depending on what their conscience dictates?

Suppose it would make some of my clients uncomfortable to have Christians present at my place of business?

The GoatHead says:

RonH, staircaseghost, DagoodS, et al,

As a Christian Libertarian I would give business owners the freedom to hire and fire anyone, for any reason. Also, they should have the freedom to do business or refuse to do business with whomever they please.

Governments.... well, that is another story. Although profiling for criminal activity is only logical and practical.

Goat Head 5

The key question is whether we should punish people for their sins or else leave it to God.

Whoever is without sin may fire the first lesbian, as the Lord might have said.

Goat Head 5,

In Region R, Group A decides to refuse to serve Group B. And B retaliates, refusing to serve A.

You are an A from Region S and drive 200 miles to R not knowing about this situation.

In R, all the gas stations are owned by B's. (That's a long story but you can guess why it happened.)

So you are stuck.

Great system! Just the kind of what you expect from systems built upon a single overriding concern.

I love freedom too. But what about other things?

RonH

Hi Melinda and All,

Though I myself am a theologically conservative Christian, and also a political libertarian-- meaning that I believe acting on same-sex desires to be immoral and that the government should not be allowed to tell businesses who they can and cannot hire-- I am confused as to how Ephesians 6 and the Belt of Truth have anything to do with the issue.

It seems like one, the freedom of a business to decide who it hires, is completely independent of the other, the religious conviction that acting on same-sex attraction is immoral. Were Christian employers to discriminate based on sins, they would not find a single employee anywhere. How exactly are Christian employers to "not sacrifice the truth of what God has revealed" in this context then?

I don't mean disrespect, and I absolutely agree with the OP and disagree with the article cited on both accounts, but I feel like it is misleading to quote Ephesians and say that we need to "not sacrifice the truth of what God has revealed" in support of the argument(s). It seems on par with Glen Beck quoting scripture in support of Republicans in office by saying "if God is for us, who could be against us?" But he is ripping scripture out of context to support some general political agenda that it was never meant to support!

RonH

If our country goes down the road of Balkanization, your scenario could play out. Right now, not so much. Where can't you find a WalMart? We need to step back, as a country, from regulating everything to the fashion of the moment.

Although, right now there are places where, if you are group W, and go to a place of group B, at night, and leave your car, you are likely to be killed.

Goat Head 5

Up next, the ‘Whom Would God Abort?’ edition. Would Rachel Laser dare write that?

That would be different, right? Would these “faith denominations’ stand with that? Or would that, all of a sudden, be a “separation of church and state” issue? You know, keep God private, difficult choices, etc. Yes, we know.

Don’t want to derail the thread. Just an observation. I’m not offering an opinion on the OP, but the ‘God when we think He is convenient’ here is flagrant.

Goat Head 5,

If our country goes down...

Our country used to have lots of segregated lunch counters and drinking fountains.

Our country used to have lots of restrictive deeds.

And our country used to have lots of slavery.

Ahhhh freedom.

Businesses and individuals would still doing all these things - but for 'the fashion of the moment' - laws against them.

RonH

Although, right now there are places where, if you are group W, and go to a place of group B, at night, and leave your car, you are likely to be killed.

And, if you are killed in one of those places it is ILLEGAL.

Up next, the ‘Whom Would God Abort?’ edition. Would Rachel Laser dare write that?

That would be different, right? Would these “faith denominations’ stand with that? Or would that, all of a sudden, be a “separation of church and state” issue? You know, keep God private, difficult choices, etc. Yes, we know.

Don’t want to derail the thread. Just an observation. I’m not offering an opinion on the OP, but the ‘God when we think He is convenient’ here is flagrant.

Spot on, as well as the 'putting words in God's mouth when He didn't say them' is very apparent as well...

RonH,

Do you think someone should be able (or could it be right) to refuse to hire another because that person has compromising pictures on Facebook?


Too often this question is asked with regard to hiring but what about with regard to churches that kick people out for being autistic and having meltdowns (not physical ones, just relational ones)? Would it not be more gracious for the church or individuals on staff to actually communicate and work on biblical restoration rather than kick them out? Why are churches above law and scripture on this one?

No response from RonH on my question?

Do you think someone should be able (or could it be right) to refuse to hire another because that person has compromising pictures on Facebook?

The comments to this entry are closed.