Do religious discrimination laws make an economy more or less efficient?

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Let's say we have a society, where, unlike America, you can openly say that you are a Christian business, you will only hire Christians, you will run your business according to Biblical law and there are certain mandatory Bible studies classes, etc.

Is that society going to be more or less efficient than ours, in which such religious discrimination in the work place would not be allowed?

On one hand, I think it would be more efficient, because you'd enable people to run their businesses exactly how they want to and hire the exact kind of people they'd want to. On the other hand, I think that religion probably has very little to do with one's ability to do one's job, and so any religious barriers or separation would only serve to stifle businesses, at least on a macro level.

[Pro Street]

Considering the majority of people in this country are Christian, the job openings in such a case would be only available to them, and people such as myself would be in a disadvantage only because of a belief not related to my ability to perform the job.

That's why it's part of the EoE clause.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

Considering the majority of people in this country are Christian, the job openings in such a case would be only available to them, and people such as myself would be in a disadvantage only because of a belief not related to my ability to perform the job.

That's why it's part of the EoE clause.

Do you really think you are better off forcing yourself on a company that doesn't want to but has to take you rather than finding a place where you are more welcome?

I wouldn't think so, but I'm in the minority on this one.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

On the other hand, I think that religion probably has very little to do with one's ability to do one's job, and so any religious barriers or separation would only serve to stifle businesses, at least on a macro level.

Assuming there are enough entreprenurial folks out there who will jump at an opening to make money, I don't think any businesses will be stifled. Those potential employees who are valuable but not taken by certain companies should be able to find themselves a job in a company that will take advantage of the opportunity. I don't think anything would be lost.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by Phantom

Do you really think you are better off forcing yourself on a company that doesn't want to but has to take you rather than finding a place where you are more welcome?

I wouldn't think so, but I'm in the minority on this one.

who would say they wouldn't want me?

They don't ask my religion, and I don't tell them my religion.

[ballz2wallz]

Businesses already hire who they want to hire. I know plenty of people who only hire Christians.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Businesses already hire who they want to hire. I know plenty of people who only hire Christians.

Who? And how in hell would they know?

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Businesses already hire who they want to hire. I know plenty of people who only hire Christians.

So do they blatantly ask interviewees whether they're Christian or what?

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

who would say they wouldn't want me?

They don't ask my religion, and I don't tell them my religion.

you're joking, right?

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Who? And how in hell would they know?

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

So do they blatantly ask interviewees whether they're Christian or what?

I have no clue how they go about doing it, but I know for a fact that my dad (a doctor, and actively going to church) and his friend at church, also doctors, are often looking for other doctors to join their practices, PAs, etc. They specifically say 'I want someone who's a Christian to join our practice' and they go out and find other Christian doctors. How they specifically go about doing it I don't know, but it happens.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

I have no clue how they go about doing it, but I know for a fact that my dad (a doctor, and actively going to church) and his friend at church, also doctors, are often looking for other doctors to join their practices, PAs, etc. They specifically say 'I want someone who's a Christian to join our practice' and they go out and find other Christian doctors. How they specifically go about doing it I don't know, but it happens.

The best practices/hospitals recieve an overwhelming number of inquiries and can't possibly screen if someone is a christian or non-practicing, or jewish etc

That is all I will say on your example

[Diamond Cross]

There are Christian businesses in America. For example, Christian bookstores, not to mention pharmacies seem to be dominated by Christians as well.

[motivez]

Unless the religion impedes or otherwise hinders someones ability to do their job, I don't think it is even a relevant factor for employment in most fields.

[Pro Street]

Originally Posted by Phantom

you're joking, right?

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by Phantom

Assuming there are enough entreprenurial folks out there who will jump at an opening to make money, I don't think any businesses will be stifled. Those potential employees who are valuable but not taken by certain companies should be able to find themselves a job in a company that will take advantage of the opportunity. I don't think anything would be lost.

That solves the market's problem, but it doesn't solve the social problem. liberty isn't the sum of the business owner's bank account. If I had to submit to (and prove my belief towards) a specific religion in order to get a job, that would be imposing on my liberties unless it was somehow directly related to the job (ie applying for church related work where religious qualifications are necessary). Since a majority of the country are christian, this is likely to occur and certainly does occur already, just under the table. Therefore, to protect everyones' liberties, the only things an employer should be asking are questions directly related to the specific job I would be doing. Anything else is 'none of their business.' :badpun:

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

The best practices/hospitals recieve an overwhelming number of inquiries and can't possibly screen if someone is a christian or non-practicing, or jewish etc

That is all I will say on your example

Is that a stab at my dad's practice or his friends' practices by suggesting they're not 'the best'? They're private practices, not hospitals. They can hire anybody they want. When they say they want Christians, they get them. Are you seriously arguing with me about what my dad is currently in the process of doing?

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by R-Type

That solves the market's problem, but it doesn't solve the social problem. liberty isn't the sum of the business owner's bank account. If I had to submit to (and prove my belief towards) a specific religion in order to get a job, that would be imposing on my liberties unless it was somehow directly related to the job (ie applying for church related work where religious qualifications are necessary). Since a majority of the country are christian, this is likely to occur and certainly does occur already, just under the table. Therefore, to protect everyones' liberties, the only things an employer should be asking are questions directly related to the specific job I would be doing. Anything else is 'none of their business.' :badpun:

Fixing social problems and increasing liberties are incongruent goals, and you just fail to recognize liberties stolen from persons in a position other than your own.

Your recommendation favors stealing the liberty of the employer in favor of creating artificial rights for employees. This is not my idea of liberty. My idea of liberty is a level playing field for all, nothing more.

By taking away an employer's rights to discriminate in a way he or she likes, you are stealing liberty (to discriminate) from the employer. By creating a right for potential employees to not be discriminated against, you are not giving them more than liberty, you are positively increasing their rights to the detriment of others.

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by Phantom

Fixing social problems and increasing liberties are incongruent goals, and you just fail to recognize liberties stolen from persons in a position other than your own.

Your recommendation favors stealing the liberty of the employer in favor of creating artificial rights for employees. This is not my idea of liberty. My idea of liberty is a level playing field for all, nothing more.

By taking away an employer's rights to discriminate in a way he or she likes, you are stealing liberty (to discriminate) from the employer. By creating a right for potential employees to not be discriminated against, you are not giving them more than liberty, you are positively increasing their rights to the detriment of others.

all I'm saying is that liberty isn't the sole propriety of employers nor the sum of a bank account. When you hire someone, you are basically buying his time and skillset, and as long as that time is used efficiently, you have no right to dictate unrelated thoughts or activity.. That is the difference between an employee and a slave.

The problem with an unregulated level field is that there are always those who will use their relative power to bias the field itself toward their favor instead of adapting to what others are doing to differentiate themselves, and they must be stopped or else it is no longer level. A 'level field' is a liberal concept actually, and that's what antitrust and left wing social policy towards business (theoretically) tries to maintain. What you are advocating would easily become a textbook example of tyranny of the majority (or a rich/powerful minority), which isn't really freedom at all. If employers are allowed to discriminate on any grounds, they basically have control of society's personal liberties since every citizen must work in order to function. This is the equivalent of saying "you have rights (in this case religious freedom), but you must throw them away and accept my beliefs if you want food and shelter, and hey guess what, everyone else in the business has the same policy, good luck!" Having to choose between basic needs and philosophical beliefs or anything else is functionally not a choice at all...or at least it shouldn't be in a nation that espouses freedom of any kind.

[R-Type]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

Is that a stab at my dad's practice or his friends' practices by suggesting they're not 'the best'? They're private practices, not hospitals. They can hire anybody they want. When they say they want Christians, they get them. Are you seriously arguing with me about what my dad is currently in the process of doing?

How would you like it if major corporations in the country decided that in the best interests of social stability within the workforce that anyone with religious ties of any kind should not be considered for employment? Sure, in THEORY you could go into business for yourself and compete with them, but in reality, they would crush you in months...all because of an unrelated belief that has nothing to do with your abilities and how they would serve business interest. You could be the BEST at what you do, but this action basically ensures you will never be effectively employed doing it, and your would-be employer will never know what he missed out on. It cuts both ways and that's why anti-discriminatory hiring laws are generally good ideas for both business owners and employees. It keeps them focused on matching skillsets with need instead of judgemental stereotyping.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by R-Type

all I'm saying is that liberty isn't the sole propriety of employers nor the sum of a bank account.

great reply. I disagree for the reasons stated above in my earlier post, but your pov is perfectly plausible and well explained.