Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

@matt: Being a Royalist, such as myself, you should support the CoE, as the Sovereign is the Supreme Governor and it is an establishment of the State. Just a thought...

mattyrm wrote:Yeah but im pretty Royalist being a former Royal Marine mate so im not that bothered. At least Wills and Harry try to do a bit, Harry was over in the sandbox, and if i was in his position id just go on the piss, so i think they arent total leeches. Not the immediate family anyway...

You lost me after Yea. Can you translate for those who Texan? Type slowly, we're kind of slow.

Yes Jeb i am well aware that her Maj is the head of the church, rather silly but.. you know i have a soft spot for the COE, you know.. if i really had to pick one.

Frazz, im a Royalist, which means i like the royal family (as does the majority of the public here)

Wills and Harry try to do a bit - they do some good work for their money and their country, they both joined the military, and Harry went to "the sandbox" which is Afghanistan. I actually met the lad out there, and he seemed a good bloke, all his lads said he was a nice fella to work for as well.

And what i meant was, if i was in his position, id just be an international playboy and drink all mummies money, not go to Afghanistan to serve and constantly carry our state visits and charity work, so hats off to him.

Thats what i meant.

JEB_Stuart wrote:I don't really understand the problem here. You don't want to conform to their beliefs, but you want them to hire you and pay you their money that is made through donations alone.

I assume then, that all coffee is served free of charge, with the opportunity for donations.

This isn't a business, this is a church. They have every right to hire and fire anyone they want because it is first and foremost a RELIGIOUS institution. If you have a problem with what they require, then don't apply for a job. If you want to apply for the job so you can sue them when they fire you for lying about your ability and willingness to be an active member of the church then you are indeed a dill weed as stated by Frazzled.

If they hire someone legitimately, I really can't see how you would consider the two concepts entirely connected. From what you are saying, they should really be looking for volunteers. Get volunteers, and there would be absolutely no issue. Saying they can do whatever the hell they please, because they are a church, sounds offensive to the people that attend that church, and mildly offensive to the religion as a whole.

I am afraid that I cannot go into any detail, for fear of offending your sensibilities. I have no interest in a flame war.

mattyrm wrote:im a Royalist, which means i like the royal family (as does the majority of the public here)

wtf is that? You actually believe that?

Silence whatwhat, you anti royalist heathen.

Numerous surveys have been done and the British public DO support the Royal Family, pretty overwhelmingly iirc the last time i read a survey.

Also, when Di died, what did you see? fething parties in the streets?

The only people who dont are "class warriors" Like you no doubt.

I never met anyone in the military with a disdain for them. I meet plenty of foul smelling anti almost everything commune living degenerates with a loathing for them however.

mattyrm wrote:Yes Jeb i am well aware that her Maj is the head of the church, rather silly but.. you know i have a soft spot for the COE, you know.. if i really had to pick one.

Frazz, im a Royalist, which means i like the royal family (as does the majority of the public here)

Wills and Harry try to do a bit - they do some good work for their money and their country, they both joined the military, and Harry went to "the sandbox" which is Afghanistan. I actually met the lad out there, and he seemed a good bloke, all his lads said he was a nice fella to work for as well.

And what i meant was, if i was in his position, id just be an international playboy and drink all mummies money, not go to Afghanistan to serve and constantly carry our state visits and charity work, so hats off to him.

Thats what i meant.

I'll stop annoying you becuase this it OT on the oT but Will and Harry ?who dat?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

mattyrm wrote:
I meet plenty of foul smelling anti almost everything commune living degenerates with a loathing for them however.

Son, thats a work of art right there.

Princes William and Harry and the sons of Prince Charles and Lady Di. ie, the next ones in line to the throne after the Jug Eared fella!

THe polls say most britons are 'indifferent' and a minority acutally support them. Either way, it's clear that those polls are actually voted on based on the fact people want to read about who Prince Billy's bird is this week, or who Harry's upset today. Princess Diana is a good example of that.

Were you to actually to ask the British people if they support spending a ton of taxpayers money on a ceremonial head of state who does little more than wave like a nodding dog nods and spend most of her time watching horse racing. The opinion would be rather different.

And by the by, class has nothing to do with my opinion on the monarchy.

Whatwhat, the Queen is one of the most unversally well liked Monarchs we have ever had. I defy you to find me someone with brains who loathes the women. Even well known anti royalists like Christopher Hitchens have written about how she has a certain charm.

Also, she has no power, she makes no laws, if you want to ignore her, you can do. You wont be dragged off to any dungeon.

And regardless of all the good that they do, for charity and such, and serving in the forces, they actually make some money with tourism. Its a big important part of our history.

The final reason, and most important reason. Is quite simply this. Im a working class lad, a soldier from Middlesbrough. I dont give a gak about Lady Di, or posh people in palaces, but lets get down to brass tacks.

Politicians are absolute slime.

I might not LOVE the Royal family, im not a sentimental man, im just not that bothered about them. But we can afford the Royals.

Politicians are vermin. Lying, self serving slime.

You would rather have a president? The less MPs we have the fething better as far as im concerned. If it wasnt for the Queens son being a charmless jug eared idiot id be all for scrapping parliament and having Lizzie make all the rules!

Wrexasaur wrote:I assume then, that all coffee is served free of charge, with the opportunity for donations.

At most churches it is free of charge. At my old church, they did charge for donuts and coffee, but that money was used to support overseas missionaries. Churches cannot charge for refreshments like this to make a profit, because they are non-profit orgs, but can charge to use the money to pay for something of importance to the church.

Wrexasaur wrote:If they hire someone legitimately, I really can't see how you would consider the two concepts entirely connected. From what you are saying, they should really be looking for volunteers. Get volunteers, and there would be absolutely no issue.

If they hire someone legitimately they are then a representative of the church. Thus, they should be in accord with the standards and beliefs of the church. Should the meat industry hire a vegetarian to sell their product? No, because it doesn't make sense. Just like a church shouldn't hire someone who totally disagrees with their beliefs.

Wrexasaur wrote:Saying they can do whatever the hell they please, because they are a church, sounds offensive to the people that attend that church, and mildly offensive to the religion as a whole.

Then you are misunderstanding what is being said.

mattyrm wrote:And regardless of all the good that they do, for charity and such, and serving in the forces, they actually make some money with tourism. Its a big important part of our history.

An important part of our history if you're a fan of heartless tyranic c**ts.

You seem to place a lot of your support based on the fact you were a soldier, I can't imagine the armies of Henry V and the armadas of Lizzy I would show the same. Since they were left to die at sea because the monarchy decided not to pay them.

There is no place in my mind for such a mindless waste of taxpayers money.

JEB_Stuart wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:I assume then, that all coffee is served free of charge, with the opportunity for donations.

At most churches it is free of charge. At my old church, they did charge for donuts and coffee, but that money was used to support overseas missionaries. Churches cannot charge for refreshments like this to make a profit, because they are non-profit orgs, but can charge to use the money to pay for something of importance to the church.

Wrexasaur wrote:If they hire someone legitimately, I really can't see how you would consider the two concepts entirely connected. From what you are saying, they should really be looking for volunteers. Get volunteers, and there would be absolutely no issue.

If they hire someone legitimately they are then a representative of the church. Thus, they should be in accord with the standards and beliefs of the church. Should the meat industry hire a vegetarian to sell their product? No, because it doesn't make sense. Just like a church shouldn't hire someone who totally disagrees with their beliefs.

Wrexasaur wrote:Saying they can do whatever the hell they please, because they are a church, sounds offensive to the people that attend that church, and mildly offensive to the religion as a whole.

Then you are misunderstanding what is being said.

Exactly.

Politicians are vermin. Lying, self serving slime.

Hey! Don't insult slime like that!

Frazzled wrote:

Wrexasaur wrote:I have no intention of doing so, regardless of my personal feelings about the subject. I avoid the religious threads in general, for that very reason.

I have no problem with either view here, aside the fact that I feel Lordhat has good reason to be concerned about being fired for his personal beliefs.

He would not be hired as a Minister/Preacher/All of the above, he would be hired to make coffee. There is a catch 22, free pass kind of situation going on here, where a church can openly discriminate in ways that average businesses cannot. If you want to equate religious belief, to that of "flair", at Applebees, go ahead mate.

This does not mean anyone within this context sucks.

Though... suckalicious... is an awesome word.

Suckilicious is indeed awesome.

I don't care if a person wants to work there. Fine. whatever good for them. I care that he's immediately jumped to "can I sue them?" Translation, can I scam some money off a church.

That’s not what I got from his posts at all.

He wants a job. He’s willing to work at the church, but wants to know if they can legally compel him to join the congregation. You asked him if he was “going to sue a church to sell coffee”, and he said yes.

So he’s willing to go to court to keep his job. Nothing in there about scamming them. Nothing in there about trying to make a quick buck. You made that part up.

Based on the sections of Title VII he quoted, it sounds like it might actually be against the law for the church to make church membership a prerequisite for being a barista. He’s not being hired as a minister or other job where dispensing the faith is core function of the job.

He doesn't have the job yet Ragnar. If he did I'd be more on his side.

Jeb said it better and more politely than myself.

.

I don't really understand the problem here. You don't want to conform to their beliefs, but you want them to hire you and pay you their money that is made through donations alone. This isn't a business, this is a church. They have every right to hire and fire anyone they want because it is first and foremost a RELIGIOUS institution. If you have a problem with what they require, then don't apply for a job. If you want to apply for the job so you can sue them when they fire you for lying about your ability and willingness to be an active member of the church then you are indeed a dill weed as stated by Frazzled.
.

And this

At most churches it is free of charge. At my old church, they did charge for donuts and coffee, but that money was used to support overseas missionaries. Churches cannot charge for refreshments like this to make a profit, because they are non-profit orgs, but can charge to use the money to pay for something of importance to the church.

If they hire someone legitimately they are then a representative of the church. Thus, they should be in accord with the standards and beliefs of the church. Should the meat industry hire a vegetarian to sell their product? No, because it doesn't make sense. Just like a church shouldn't hire someone who totally disagrees with their beliefs.

Lordhat wrote:

Bona Fide Occupational Requirement
Title VII does allow your employer to discriminate on the basis of religion only when religion is a bona fide occupational requirement. This occurs most often where the employer is a religious organization. For example, a church may require that all of its ministers belong to the same denomination of the church.

Is religion a bona fide requirement to make and serve coffee?

For what its worth here's what a quick Google search came up with:

Title VII allows churches and religious organizations to discriminate on the basis of religion. Title VII states that it does not apply to ". . . a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, or society of its activities."

Under Title VII, religion is defined as all aspects of religious observance, practice, and belief. Churches and religious organizations can discriminate on the basis of religion for all jobs. This includes and is not limited to secretaries, accountants, and janitors. The basis for permissible religious discrimination is the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of this in Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Amos,483 U.S. 327 (1987).

While Title VII allows religious organizations to discriminate based on religion, it is important that consistent hiring practices be established. All religious organizations should have a written policy about whether or not they will discriminate on the basis of religion. The organization should make this clear to all applicants and not accept applications from those who do not fit the religious requirements. The intention to hire only Christians and any specific hiring policies should be stated on employment applications and employee handbooks. Along these same lines, ministries that expect employees to adhere to certain codes of ethics should detail these expectations clearly.

More @ http://www.ecfa.org/TopicDisplay.aspx?PageName=TopicReligiousDiscrim

And an excerpt from a February article touching on the Bush program somewhat related to this topic:

WASHINGTON AND LOS ANGELES — It seemed like a firm campaign promise. Barack Obama pledged to continue President Bush's faith-based office in the White House, but with a key change: Groups receiving federal money would no longer be allowed to discriminate in hiring on the basis of religion.

On Thursday, however, as President Obama disclosed the details of his faith-based program, he left the controversial Bush policy in place.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/06/nation/na-obama-faith6

As you stated recently in another thread, this is a good time to have a job. People don’t have as much luxury to be picky right now.

It looks to me like he’s being reasonable; he sees one of the listed requirements of the job, sees that he doesn’t match the requirement exactly (though it would be easy enough to lie about or go along with if he genuinely didn’t care), but was curious about whether this is a legal job requirement. If it’s actually not legal for the church to require this, then he’s not the jerk in this equation. The church is, for putting an illegal restriction on it.

I don’t know exactly how this church operates, but if they’re advertising for a paying barista position, instead of using a volunteer, then it sounds a bit different than most. Maybe the church has a coffeeshop side business? Or a fellowship hall/youth center? Something like that? Again, if they’re hiring a paid barista, they’re subject to most provisions of employment law, no?

I absolutely support any church’s right to require religious qualifications for any religious position. And if the job description is for a barista/preacher, or barista/Sunday school teacher, or something like that, then they could legitimately claim that membership and religious expertise would be requirements of the job. But if the actual description of the job is “slinging coffee and good customer service”, then religious credentials shouldn’t come into it.

Cane wrote:

Lordhat wrote:

Bona Fide Occupational Requirement
Title VII does allow your employer to discriminate on the basis of religion only when religion is a bona fide occupational requirement. This occurs most often where the employer is a religious organization. For example, a church may require that all of its ministers belong to the same denomination of the church.

Is religion a bona fide requirement to make and serve coffee?

For what its worth here's what a quick Google search came up with:

Title VII allows churches and religious organizations to discriminate on the basis of religion. Title VII states that it does not apply to ". . . a religious corporation, association, educational institution, or society with respect to the employment of individuals of a particular religion to perform work connected with the carrying on by such corporation, association, educational institution, or society of its activities."

Under Title VII, religion is defined as all aspects of religious observance, practice, and belief. Churches and religious organizations can discriminate on the basis of religion for all jobs. This includes and is not limited to secretaries, accountants, and janitors. The basis for permissible religious discrimination is the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of this in Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Amos,483 U.S. 327 (1987).

While Title VII allows religious organizations to discriminate based on religion, it is important that consistent hiring practices be established. All religious organizations should have a written policy about whether or not they will discriminate on the basis of religion. The organization should make this clear to all applicants and not accept applications from those who do not fit the religious requirements. The intention to hire only Christians and any specific hiring policies should be stated on employment applications and employee handbooks. Along these same lines, ministries that expect employees to adhere to certain codes of ethics should detail these expectations clearly.

More @ http://www.ecfa.org/TopicDisplay.aspx?PageName=TopicReligiousDiscrim

And an excerpt from a February article touching on the Bush program somewhat related to this topic:

WASHINGTON AND LOS ANGELES — It seemed like a firm campaign promise. Barack Obama pledged to continue President Bush's faith-based office in the White House, but with a key change: Groups receiving federal money would no longer be allowed to discriminate in hiring on the basis of religion.

On Thursday, however, as President Obama disclosed the details of his faith-based program, he left the controversial Bush policy in place.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/06/nation/na-obama-faith6

Thanks for actually answering my question, instead of just giving an opinion and then bashing what you think my motives might be. :-)

Yes, Google substitutes well for an attorney. Good luck or not.

Cane Ninja'd me!

mattyrm wrote:Whatwhat, the Queen is one of the most unversally well liked Monarchs we have ever had. I defy you to find me someone with brains who loathes the women.

Huge jump between loathing someone and not liking the Instituition I think you'll find.

Also, she has no power,

Hmm..not quite, but this isn't constituitional debate time I guess.

And regardless of all the good that they do, for charity and such, and serving in the forces, they actually make some money with tourism. Its a big important part of our history.

So's Stonehenge, the site of the battle of Naseby, Robin Hood and Raven's living in a tower.

The final reason, and most important reason. Is quite simply this. Im a working class lad, a soldier from Middlesbrough. I dont give a gak about Lady Di, or posh people in palaces, but lets get down to brass tacks.

Politicians are absolute slime.

I might not LOVE the Royal family, im not a sentimental man, im just not that bothered about them. But we can afford the Royals.

Politicians are vermin. Lying, self serving slime.

You would rather have a president? The less MPs we have the fething better as far as im concerned. If it wasnt for the Queens son being a charmless jug eared idiot id be all for scrapping parliament and having Lizzie make all the rules!

Gosh it sure is lucky no members of the royal family have ever been caught lying or using their position for self gain then. After all it's not like several members of them have made, for example, public declarations of love and devotion to another person and then promptly pissed all over those vows -- sworn before the God they're supposed to be the head his representatives in this country no less -- at the first oppurtunity. Oh.. wait... next thing you know they'll be changing their names as we're at war or something else totally mad !

In all likelihood if we did have a president then we would have less MPs as that form of Govt. wouldn't require as many members as we have now.

Vaguely back at the OT : I fail to see how a position that is entirely religious duty free could possibly qualify as coming under sensible religious legal protections. If this is a business, as the OP seems to imply then all the BS about donations and so forth is irrelevant.

Still considering the massive losses the CoE managed.. again.. to make of late in their finacial dealings I guess they might need every penny.

whatwhat wrote:

Were you to actually to ask the British people if they support spending a ton of taxpayers money on a ceremonial head of state who does little more than wave like a nodding dog nods and spend most of her time watching horse racing. The opinion would be rather different.
.

You might disdain her Madge for only waving, but have you ever seen the poor woman's schedule? She works harder for her money that most people! Everytime a half-bit politician from a third world country comes over she has to meet them, she has half a million obligatory annual appearances every year, she has to rubber stamp all the legislation passed in this country(which in New Labour, is a LOT!), she has to make state visits all over the bleeding place, etc. I don't know where this image of her sitting at home throwing scraps of finest pheasant to her corgis whilst scoffing at the poor, and then idly getting in her carriage to go bet half a million on the races came from, but its a complete fallacy. To be perfectly frank, there are at least half a dozen civil servants who get at least as much as her out of the country financially. And I'm damn sure I didn't vote for any of them either.

You could pull up a big list now about how much the Queen receives from the state now, but to be frank, when you realise how much she is expected to do out of that, you realise she's not exactly rolling in vast piles of cash. She has to provide the upkeep of several crumbling old state buildings and castles across england, pay her security staff, pay a helluva a lot of transport fees, host several large state functions, and so on. She's actually in a fair bit of trouble at the moment, because the government has cut her budget, along with the rest of the country, and she no longer has the finances to pay for the upkeep of a few of these buildings. So yeah, the image that we pay her humongous sums of cash for her to blow on caviar, speedboats and new cars is another myth.

Once you've eliminated the idea that she just sits around all day quaffing champagne from a diamond goblet after her bath in liquidised gold, the only real argument left is that we're a modern state and have no need of a monarchy. But I disagree on the following premises:-

-She is a physical symbol of state that embodies our country's nationalism. Would you wave a flag for Gordon Brown? I sure as hell wouldn't. Or any Prime Minister. With nationalism having crap poured all over it by the extreme left pretending to be the centre left, there aren't many focal points left for the British people to take pride in.
-She helps bind the Commonwealth together.
-She is a symbol of where we came from, and the history that embodies our great nation.
-She is a key figure in the separation of powers. Do you think it chance that our country's armed forced swear allegiance to the Monarch, and not the Government?
-She is the last check on a facist right or stalinistic left. Whilst she might only rubberstamp as things stand, should there ever be a situation whereby an oppressive government comes in and corrupts the rest of government(a thing that has already happened to a certain extent under Blair with the elimination of cabinet responsibility, the dissolving of the Lord Chancellor, the shifting of Labour MPs into the House of Lords, and the politicization of the police), she is the last safeguard. How precarious it might be, I couldn't say, but the fact it is there gives me some faith.
-Focal point for tourism, and earns a fair bit of revenue that way.
-Last but not least, wouldn't getting rid of her be more trouble than keeping her? We spend more money these days on middle management in the NHS. In terms of value for money, we have far stupider things we are currently wasting vast sums on. As I've already outlined, she not only works for her money, but she has a symbolic value far beyond that.

So yes. I reckon the English public would rather keep her. As a general rule of thumb, people like the old bird.The only ones I've ever met that said otherwise were class facists, and proclaimed communists. Maybe your neighbourhood breaks the norm, but then I'd question what kind of neighbourhood you live in.

In Britain at least, I believe it is a legal requirement to advertise vacant positions outside of the workplace, even if said job already has someone lined up to fill it. Perhaps this is much the same, where they already have a 'Barista' lined up for the job, but are just jumping through the required hoops?

You could pull up a big list now about how much the Queen receives from the state now, but to be frank, when you realise how much she is expected to do out of that, you realise she's not exactly rolling in vast piles of cash. She has to provide the upkeep of several crumbling old state buildings and castles across england, pay her security staff, pay a helluva a lot of transport fees, host several large state functions, and so on. She's actually in a fair bit of trouble at the moment, because the government has cut her budget, along with the rest of the country, and she no longer has the finances to pay for the upkeep of a few of these buildings. So yeah, the image that we pay her humongous sums of cash for her to blow on caviar, speedboats and new cars is another myth.

err... nope.

She -- as in out of her/her families own/private money doesn't pay for the above : the taxpayer does through the civil list. "The Crown" -- as the institution not the specific family -- receives vast sums which go towards the above, this money is entirely separate from the personal/private money which she/her family owns and has from investments and their personal holdings.

-She is a physical symbol of state that embodies our country's nationalism. Would you wave a flag for Gordon Brown? I sure as hell wouldn't. Or any Prime Minister. With nationalism having crap poured all over it by the extreme left pretending to be the centre left, there aren't many focal points left for the British people to take pride in.

I wouldn't wave a flag for the monarch either. I fail to see what is, apparently, laudable about the families conduct. Sportsman seem to do well, it's as well they're sexually pure and innocent...err..well you get the idea.

-She helps bind the Commonwealth together.

debatable, I know very few commonwealth people who give a rats arse about the monarch either way, it seems quite likely Australia will severe their ties completely in the next few years and good luck to them

-She is a symbol of where we came from, and the history that embodies our great nation.

I'm not from Germany or Greece.

-She is a key figure in the separation of powers. Do you think it chance that our country's armed forced swear allegiance to the Monarch, and not the Government?

Well it is partly that but largely agreed.

-She is the last check on a facist right or stalinistic left. Whilst she might only rubberstamp as things stand, should there ever be a situation whereby an oppressive government comes in and corrupts the rest of government(a thing that has already happened to a certain extent under Blair with the elimination of cabinet responsibility, the dissolving of the Lord Chancellor, the shifting of Labour MPs into the House of Lords, and the politicization of the police), she is the last safeguard. How precarious it might be, I couldn't say, but the fact it is there gives me some faith.

Teenage hyperbole from someone who wasn't around when every other Govt. did exactly the same thing, more or less agreed.

-Focal point for tourism, and earns a fair bit of revenue that way.

So is Madame Tussuad's, Stonehenge and the streets were the Beatles grew up. But.. yeah.. fun to look at.

-Last but not least, wouldn't getting rid of her be more trouble than keeping her? We spend more money these days on middle management in the NHS. In terms of value for money, we have far stupider things we are currently wasting vast sums on. As I've already outlined, she not only works for her money, but she has a symbolic value far beyond that.

So yes. I reckon the English public would rather keep her. As a general rule of thumb, people like the old bird.The only ones I've ever met that said otherwise were class facists, and proclaimed communists. Maybe your neighbourhood breaks the norm, but then I'd question what kind of neighbourhood you live in.

I'd say the same about your neighbourhood too, most people don't give a flying feth about the royals BUT.. would indeed choose to hang onto them for pretty much your last (well only ) point : They do alright, the country works and if it ain't broke then don't bother trying to fix it without anything that seems likely to be significantly better. Better the devil you know kind of scenario.

Erm... I started a thread about the Monarchy. Just so we don't derail this thread too much.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/278142.page

What's the situation in England on the separation of church and state?
I saw a thread, that if I read it and the news article correctly, stated that the Catholic church is resisting putting open homosexuals in positions of authority within it's ranks.
I'm not sure if I understood, but it seemed like the British government was trying to force the church to do this baseing it's position on equal opportunity.
Am I up in the night on this or what?

Employment criteria should only be restricted to the job, but there’s a tendency to narrow a job down to ludicrously narrow criteria. Somebody mentioned Hooters earlier, and suggested their business practices were discriminatory – but that argument is only possible if you think the job begins and ends with carrying beer and chicken wings. The reality is that looking tidy is a big part of that job and very important to the business’s ability to bring customers in the door.

I have a friend who recently completed her teaching degree, and among other schools she applied for work at private Christian schools. I asked her if it was problem that she was gay, she didn’t engage them on that but said they did give a spiel about setting the right example for kids and representing the school properly – the upshot of which is that they didn’t care if she was a church-goer or not, as long as she didn’t draw public attention to it. I think it was a reasonable policy from the school, but there’s a difference between a Catholic school that isn’t attached to any specific church and a church itself.

Being in a church means being part of a social group, and that social group is formed through holding similar beliefs and values. At a starbucks or some other high volume coffee shop it is reasonable to expect a barista should be there to just make coffee and nothing else. But at a place with a slower pace of sales, part of the baristas job is to interact and develop relationships with customers, and that’s going to be awkward if he isn’t part of the community he’s servicing.

Drawing the exact line where a person can work in a church without interacting with parishioners would be extremely subjective, so I think the most practical approach is to give churches permission to use religion as a criteria for employment for all jobs. At the end of the day, it isn’t as though be unable to work in a church would close down all but a small portion of job opportunities in any field. Well, well, other than for priests and bishops and the like, and I think it’s reasonable that a church expects them to be believers.