Charity defends Christian-only hiring

[sabra]

Source: THE TENNESSEAN

When Omar Alkalouti was hired to work with refugees at the Nashville office of World Relief in 2007, nobody asked him about Jesus.

Alkalouti knew World Relief was a Christian charity. As a Muslim, he never felt out of place. And he was surprised at how diverse World Relief's office was.

"When I was there it was Muslims and Buddhists and everything," said Alkalouti, now a freelance photographer in Nashville. "It was never 'Join up with Jesus.' I wouldn't have wanted to be a part of that."

Today, that has changed. New employees at World Relief have to prove they are Christians. They sign a statement of Christian faith and must get a letter of recommendation from their minister before being hired. At most workplaces, that would be illegal.

...

The exemptions for religious charities began with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. That law allows such organizations to hire only members of their own faith when their programs are funded by private donations.

Under President George W. Bush, those exemptions were extended to religious groups that receive government grants.

Read more: http://www.tennessean.com/article/20100331/NEWS06/3310374/1970/NEWS04/Charity+defends+Christian-only+hiring

[hawkeye14]

1. Hospitals won't hire

people who smoke. These are both examples of discrimination.

[Warpy]

3. What hospitals are those?

Every hospital I've ever worked in--and I did agency, so it's a lot--had its share of butt fiends ducking out for smokes several times a shift.

Most hospitals provide free smoking cessation programs to staff who want to quit, but that's as far as it goes.

[jobycom]

4. Even if that's true someplace, it's a different discussion.

I know nurses and doctors who smoke, so not all hospitals refuse to hire smokers, if any do.

Even if they do, it's a different argument. Smoking is an action, whereas religion is a part of a person's basic identity, and is specifically protected in the Civil Rights Bill. Plus, the specific examples here matter, too. Smoking is not only unhealthy longterm, but it can create dangers short term for people with some conditions, and it can be dangerous around a lot of hospital equipment. One could argue that smokers would be protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act, which guarantees against discrimination even for perceived disabilities for discrimination purposes, but even so, the Act makes exceptions for when the disability would prevent the performance of the job. They can refuse to hire a blind busdriver, for instance. So a hospital could argue that smoking on the job is too dangerous.

Still, all hospitals have a ban on smoking on the property, but I don't know that many refuse to hire smokers. Not all do. If they did, smokers would have a good argument in court.

[hawkeye14]

8. Sometimes you should do your own research

This isn't hard to find. St. Luke's Hospital and Health Network in Bethlehem, Pa. Memorial Hospital in Chattanooga, Tenn. Summa Health Systems in Akron, Ohio. Cleveland Clinic and Medical Mutual of Ohio. They all make you take a urine test and if nicotine is found you are inelligible to work for them. Let us not forget that smoking is LEGAL!!!! If you allow this, then the next thing will be no fat people. It's getting ridiculous. I'm not talking about smoking around hospital equiptment, if it is found in your urine you won't be hired!! Religion is a personal choice and not against the law. Smoking is a personal choice and not against the law. If you allow this, I'm telling you, fat people are next because they pose similar health risks. Then it will be speeding tickets make you inelligible maybe your skydiving hobby or surfing. Where does it end?

[jobycom]

9. Why?

:shrug:

If I'd said "no hospital," I'd have needed research. Not all do. Which was my point. It's still not even close to the same issue as religious discrimination. I think the rest of your discussion fit pretty nicely with what I said.

As for it being legal, it shouldn't be. But that's a different discussion. If the FDA tried to legalize that as a new product now, everyone on DU would be screaming about bribes and influence peddling and the whole routine.

[hawkeye14]

11. You said, if any do

That sounded sarcastic to me as if you didn't believe what I had said. And as far as not legalizing smoking now, I really doubt that religion would be legal if the debate started today. People are going too far. Religion shouldn't be discriminated against and neither should smoking. That was my point.

[boppers]

13. Not all charities have religious discrimination, not all hospitals have smoking discriminiation...

Is that your point?

[msongs]

6. yes and they are not equivalent or linked nt

[Warpy]

2. How utterly self defeating for a charity that deals with refugees

to refuse to hire people who can relate to those refugees on a different religious and cultural level from white bread US Christianity.

This is one of the stupidest things religious bigots have ever done.

[snake in the grass]

14. When have religious bigots...

...ever done something intelligent?

[tedk_355]

5. bigots.

[Toasterlad]

7. "those exemptions were extended to religious groups that receive government grants."

Sadly, Obama is onboard with this.

We need to repeal shit like this. We MUST get religion out of government.

[Javaman]

10. Obviously, something changed...

some ultra-fringe right wing fundie took over and wanted to clean house of all the non-christians and non-whites. How very tolerant of them.

[Greyhound]

12. And corporate "personhood" began with the 14th amendment.

The road to hell and all that (pun intended).

[Turbineguy]

15. They'll force us

to marry animals!!!

Where will this end?