I, _____________ ,am not gay; I never have been gay.
November 2, 2011 9:21 AM Subscribe

Late last month, the Board of Trustees at Shorter University, a Christian school in northwest Georgia, instituted a "personal lifestyle statement", asking all employees to, among other things, "reject as acceptable" homosexuality. The University president has stated flatly that anyone who "adheres to a lifestyle outside of what the bibical mandate is" will not be allowed to continue at Shorter.

Reaction from a gay employee.

The current head of the Board of Trustees, Dr. Nelson Price, is no stranger to gay controversy. In 1993, while pastor at the Roswell Street Baptist Church -- a megachurch in Cobb County -- he helped County Commissioner Gordon Wysong draft an "anti-gay resolution" which received national coverage and led to the removal of the 1996 Olympic volleyball venue from the county. The Chairman of the commissioners at the time, Bill Byrne, whose daughter came out during the controversy, is running for office again (questions on anti-gay resolution halfway down) after a 10 year hiatus.

posted by pjenks (183 comments total) 8 users marked this as a favorite

Good thing there are employment non-discrimination laws protecting sexual orientation and gender identity. Oh, wait...
posted by OverlappingElvis at 9:26 AM on November 2, 2011 [14 favorites]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

And yet Republicans fear "Sharia Law."
posted by Threeway Handshake at 9:27 AM on November 2, 2011 [109 favorites]

So are they firing all their remarried employees too? After all, that's also adultery.
posted by Hactar at 9:28 AM on November 2, 2011 [29 favorites]

Does that mean that all their professors have to give their tweed jackets to the poor?
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 9:29 AM on November 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

"Reject as acceptable"? Does that mean something different from "reject"?
posted by RogerB at 9:29 AM on November 2, 2011 [8 favorites]

Fuck them and everything they stand for. I am tired of this shit.
posted by elizardbits at 9:30 AM on November 2, 2011 [47 favorites]

None of them better be eating shellfish, or mixing their fabrics, or lusting in their hearts, or not killing their disrespecting kids, or...
posted by Benny Andajetz at 9:32 AM on November 2, 2011 [17 favorites]

So he couldn't continue any longer at Shorter?
posted by octobersurprise at 9:32 AM on November 2, 2011 [4 favorites]

And shouldn't it be "reject as unacceptable"? Do these people even speak the English they presumably believe the Bible was written in?
posted by RogerB at 9:33 AM on November 2, 2011 [6 favorites]

Is this really news or interesting? These kind of policies are standard at conservative Christian schools. You're welcome to disagree, I do, but it's not like this is unusual.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 9:33 AM on November 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

Some might say that you made a decision to work at a Southern Baptist university, and it is no secret that the Southern Baptists are not supportive of gay rights. How do you respond?

I made the decision, I own it, and I'm proud to be a Christian. [...] The bottom line is that I am a gay Christian and I made a decision to be around other Christians.

Well, there's your problem. I hope this person is able to escape from this den of evil bigots and go find some actual Christians to be around.
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:37 AM on November 2, 2011 [25 favorites]

Is this really news or interesting? These kind of policies are standard at conservative Christian schools. You're welcome to disagree, I do, but it's not like this is unusual.
Agreed. I actually appreciate that they didn't single out homosexual behavior, and instead included it in a blanket statement along with premarital sex and adultery.
posted by BurntHombre at 9:37 AM on November 2, 2011

Jesus, save us from your followers.

Oh, and smite those motherfuckers with a plague of fish heads or something would you?
posted by notsnot at 9:38 AM on November 2, 2011 [5 favorites]

Do these people even speak the English they presumably believe ~~the Bible was written in~~ that even nominally college-educated people show know how to use?
posted by Benny Andajetz at 9:39 AM on November 2, 2011

Is this really news or interesting?

It's news and it's relevant because the school receives federal money through government-backed student loans that go directly to pay for tuition. I have an interest in this story as I am personally uncomfortable with my tax dollars going to fund bigotry.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:39 AM on November 2, 2011 [64 favorites]

Reaction from a gay employee.

Why does it always seem that when something like this happens, there's a gay employee that this (reprehensible) policy actually affects? Do they not know who they're working for? Is this a surprise to them? What kind of situation are they in that they want (or need) this job? Do they harbor some kind of heroic, romantic (reasonable?) idea that they'll make changes from within? Are they the only gay employee? Or is this really a witch hunt to kick them out, personally? If there are other gay employees, is this a thing, like Catholic seminaries, that actually attracts a certain kind of gay person?

I'm always terribly interested in people that work at bad jobs...
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:41 AM on November 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

If you are not having premartial sex, and using drugs and alcohol what do these people do for fun?

Serious question, because I tend to be hedonistic.

On an related note, fuck these personal conduct statements. I do my job, you pay me. Thats the equation. What I do on my personal time is my own fucking business, and you can kindly go fuck yourself.
posted by handbanana at 9:41 AM on November 2, 2011 [16 favorites]

Threeway Handshake: And yet Republicans fear "Sharia Law."

Knowing nothing of Sharia law, how does it compare to Biblical Law that so many wish to enact?

And which sort of Biblical law do the fundies want to see enacted? There are a lot of variations. Anyway picking and choosing from the Bible seems like cheating. If you're going to adopt the thing, go all out.
posted by filthy light thief at 9:43 AM on November 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

I started out at the University of Tulsa and went on a date with a guy from Oral Roberts University. He lived in an ORU-owned apartment. When we got to his front door, I noticed his neighbor had a life-sized cross made of 4x4s propped up outside the front door. It had wheels on it so he could pull it around. We went inside and I'd brought a bottle of wine with me. He didn't have a corkscrew and couldn't borrow one from a neighbor and we had to close all the blinds/curtains lest anyone see us drinking. It was creepy and we were 21. ORU also had weight limits, no fat people.

His parents would only pay for him to go to a Christian college. We didn't go out again.
posted by shoesietart at 9:44 AM on November 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

I thought that the biblical mandate was to Love God and Love thy Neighbour. It's a very long time since I went to Sunday School, but I could swear they taught us that those two principles overturned all the earlier nonsense.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 9:45 AM on November 2, 2011 [5 favorites]

And maybe if the fundies actually tried to understand what is included in Sharia law, they might be surprised to find common ground. Funny how religions are more similar than they'd like to believe.
posted by filthy light thief at 9:45 AM on November 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

I hope they're also including the consumption of shellfish.
posted by bleep at 9:46 AM on November 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

Wow, Nelson Price, Gordon Wysong, Bill Byrne... I live in Cobb County, and hearing those names takes me right back to 1995.
posted by deadmessenger at 9:47 AM on November 2, 2011

If you are not having premartial sex, and using drugs and alcohol what do these people do for fun?

Pay undue amounts of attention to the kind of fun everyone else is having, and tell them to stop it! Now!
posted by PeterMcDermott at 9:47 AM on November 2, 2011 [10 favorites]

I wish the people who were still against gay marriage (because the fact that gays can marry will "ruin the sanctity of marriage" - yeah, I think the very heterosexual Kardashians are handling that just fine) would recognise that it's people like this who are on their side.

Look, I don't care if you personally get squicked out by the sight of a gay couple. I think if you do so you're a homophobe, and probably have some issues to work through, but I can't control your feelings. What I have a problem with is justifying taking away people's rights based on your feelings, or on the word of a particular book. You can feel whatever you want to, think whatever you want to... but short of personal physical attack, we should always treat each other with civility. That means that everyone gets the same rights you do, regardless of how you feel about them personally.

Religion is not, and should never be, a justification for hatred or the restriction of anyone's rights. Nor should it ever be used to categorize anyone as "other".
posted by Bora Horza Gobuchul at 9:47 AM on November 2, 2011 [15 favorites]

Ugh. Assholes.

How will the college's discriminatory policies impact their students ability to obtain federal funds to help pay tuition? Is it possible they're shooting themselves in the foot?
posted by zarq at 9:48 AM on November 2, 2011

If you are not having premartial sex, and using drugs and alcohol what do these people do for fun?

They shit on their fellow man in the name of a dude who would want nothing to do with them were he alive today. That is what makes them feel good.
posted by elizardbits at 9:49 AM on November 2, 2011 [19 favorites]

The biggest difference about something like this and Sharia Law is that one is called Sharia Law.
posted by Threeway Handshake at 9:50 AM on November 2, 2011 [8 favorites]

Here is information about state and federal monies that Shorter University receives, despite a written policy of discrimination.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:50 AM on November 2, 2011 [5 favorites]

Is there a mirror for the 'reaction' link? I can't seem to pull it up at all.
posted by jquinby at 9:51 AM on November 2, 2011

not using, selling or possessing illegal drugs; and not using alcoholic beverages in front of students or attending university events within six hours of drinking them.

Could some one remind me of the biblical chapter and verse covering these?
posted by Obscure Reference at 9:52 AM on November 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

I don't really care what a "Christian school" does. Call them a religious institution and let them formalize what they're secretly doing anyway. I care much more that anyone accepts a degree from this shitpile as meaning anything.

Aren't the upper echelons of the FBI, intelligence agencies and military dominated by graduates of Christian Fundamentalist schools? I wonder whether Shorten has adopted Dominionist strategies of spending as much time coaching their graduates in political combat and the inner workings of the US Government as in flood geology and scriptural verses?
posted by acb at 9:53 AM on November 2, 2011

So, a few months ago, a story showed up here on the blue with a similar incident, where an employee was fired by a Christian school for fornication (she was unmarried and became pregnant.)

I asked this question then, and it applies here as well: Does the school's personal conduct policy also extend to students, and has the school disciplined any students for violations of this policy? If so, why the outrage now that the standard explicitly applies to employees as well?
posted by deadmessenger at 9:53 AM on November 2, 2011

state and federal monies that Shorter University receives

Ah, now here is something I care about. This, I think should be the focus of our dismay. Not to force them to pretend to accept gays, but rather to take them for what they are, and cut them off from the benefits of civilized society.

But it's my native state of Georgia, so why am I not surprised?
posted by tyllwin at 9:54 AM on November 2, 2011 [5 favorites]

Threeway Handshake: "The biggest difference about something like this and Sharia Law is that one is called Sharia Law."

Sharia law regarding homosexuality varies widely from country to country. It's illegal in Saudia Arabia and Jordan, for example. But the penalty for it in Saudi Arabia is death, and in Jordan there isn't one. Sodomy / Homosexuality is not illegal under Sharia in Turkey as long as it's done in private, afaik.
posted by zarq at 9:55 AM on November 2, 2011

Agreed. I actually appreciate that they didn't single out homosexual behavior, and instead included it in a blanket statement along with premarital sex and adultery.

You...appreciate that they lumped in an issue of personal, irrevocable identity with chosen behaviors? I'm...not sure what to say to that.

Yesterday, on Facebook, a friend of mine posted a link about another company engaging in discriminatory hiring practices. A mutual friend of ours, who is Australian, posted saying "Doesn't the USA have anti-discrimination legislation to prevent stuff like this?" and I got to explain that no, sexual orientation is not a protected class nationally, and only ~20 states (less than half!) have laws in place.

Someday, we are going to look back at this with the same shame we feel now about Jim Crow laws or compulsory sterilization. Hopefully sooner rather than later.
posted by kagredon at 9:57 AM on November 2, 2011 [4 favorites]

Anyway picking and choosing from the Bible seems like cheating. If you're going to adopt the thing, go all out.

Right, but remember that the latter part of the Bible expressly provides that the law contained in the former part should no longer be followed. So "go all out" presumably means "pay attention to Paul's epistles," which means that counterarguments based on esoteric requirements in Leviticus are basically out.
posted by The World Famous at 9:57 AM on November 2, 2011

Blazecock Pileon: "Here is information about state and federal monies that Shorter University receives, despite a written policy of discrimination."

Thanks.

Yeah, hell no. They should not be getting federal funds, period. Certainly not if they're promoting discrimination.
posted by zarq at 9:58 AM on November 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

The World Famous: " Right, but remember that the latter part of the Bible expressly provides that the law contained in the former part should no longer be followed. So "go all out" presumably means "pay attention to Paul's epistles," which means that counterarguments based on esoteric requirements in Leviticus are basically out."

"Esoteric?"
posted by zarq at 9:58 AM on November 2, 2011

Please let them lose their federal funding over this. PLEASE.
posted by 8dot3 at 9:59 AM on November 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

Agreed. I actually appreciate that they didn't single out homosexual behavior, and instead included it in a blanket statement along with premarital sex and adultery.

You...appreciate that they lumped in an issue of personal, irrevocable identity with chosen behaviors? I'm...not sure what to say to that.

I'm struggling to understand your comment, kagredon. How is heterosexual sexual behavior "chosen behavior" while homosexual sexual behavior is "an issue of personal, irrevocable identity?"
posted by The World Famous at 9:59 AM on November 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

>How will the college's discriminatory policies impact their students ability to obtain federal funds to help pay tuition? Is it possible they're shooting themselves in the foot?

There's a supreme court case that sets precedence. In the case of that school, it was determined that they could do whatever the hell they wanted if they didn't take federal money. I can't find the statistics right now, but I know first hand that it's a very heavily alumni endowed school, so they keep tuition very reasonable to counteract the lack of federal funding.
posted by librarianamy at 9:59 AM on November 2, 2011

I like Dan Savage's response to crap like this: Gay is a choice? Suck my d*ck then.
posted by Old'n'Busted at 10:01 AM on November 2, 2011

And lose their state funds too! As a Georgia resident/taxpayer I object to my tax dollars being used to support this hateful group. Now if only I had a state politician representing me who would pay attention to my concerns...
posted by mareli at 10:01 AM on November 2, 2011

The World Famous: " I'm struggling to understand your comment, kagredon. How is heterosexual sexual behavior "chosen behavior" while homosexual sexual behavior is "an issue of personal, irrevocable identity?""

Being gay is biology. It is not choice. One chooses to commit adultery.
posted by zarq at 10:02 AM on November 2, 2011 [5 favorites]

deadmessenger: "I asked this question then, and it applies here as well: Does the school's personal conduct policy also extend to students, and has the school disciplined any students for violations of this policy? If so, why the outrage now that the standard explicitly applies to employees as well?"

BYU suspended Brandon Davies from the basketball team for having sex with his girlfriend. In March. When they had a chance to lock up a #1 seed for the NCAA tournament.
posted by theichibun at 10:02 AM on November 2, 2011

I'm struggling to understand your comment, kagredon. How is heterosexual sexual behavior "chosen behavior" while homosexual sexual behavior is "an issue of personal, irrevocable identity?"

The World Famous, they're targeting all kinds of "homosexual sexual behavior", and only some kinds of "heterosexual sexual behavior." Would you think it was fine that if they said "no heterosexual behavior, and no homosexual adultery or premarital sex"?
posted by kagredon at 10:02 AM on November 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

And note please that the ban is not on sodomy or (as you both put it,) 'homosexual behavior.' It asks gay people to declare that they are not, and never have been gay.
posted by zarq at 10:03 AM on November 2, 2011

heterosexual sexual behavior "chosen behavior" while homosexual sexual behavior is "an issue of personal, irrevocable identity?"

Gay or straight isn't a choice, but committing adultery is.
posted by arcticwoman at 10:03 AM on November 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

"Esoteric?"

a : designed for or understood by the specially initiated alone
b : requiring or exhibiting knowledge that is restricted to a small group; broadly : difficult to understand
2
a : limited to a small circle
b : private, confidential
3
: of special, rare, or unusual interest

But if we're already jumping to the part of the thread where we argue about the definitions of the terms we're using, I think I'll bow out.

Being gay is biology. It is not choice. One chooses to commit adultery.

Did you read what I wrote? Because you don't seem to be responding to it.
posted by The World Famous at 10:03 AM on November 2, 2011

The World Famous, they're targeting all kinds of "homosexual sexual behavior", and only some kinds of "heterosexual sexual behavior." Would you think it was fine that if they said "no heterosexual behavior, and no homosexual adultery or premarital sex"?

I'm quite certain I did not say anything was "fine." If you want to discuss what I actually have said and positions that I have actually taken, that would be fine.
posted by The World Famous at 10:05 AM on November 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Legal, yet immoral.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:06 AM on November 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

If you'd like to respond to any of the points that people actually made in response to your post, that would be generous of you.
posted by kagredon at 10:06 AM on November 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

It's things like this that make me think it would have been a much better strategy for queer rights movements to focus on non-discrimination in employment laws before tackling marriage.
posted by overglow at 10:07 AM on November 2, 2011

The Baptist university I went to had a strict policy on alcohol and dancing that never seemed to be enforced, if you were a member of a sports team. I wonder if this university would make the same exception if a star athlete came out.
posted by nomisxid at 10:07 AM on November 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Cool Papa Bell

Academic jobs are not so thin on the ground as to enable picking and choosing.

Maybe the employee here is a devout Christian, but also gay? Maybe they came out after they'd been working there for years?
posted by jrochest at 10:07 AM on November 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Good thing there are employment non-discrimination laws protecting sexual orientation and gender identity. Oh, wait...

Some of those laws do exist. However, freedom of religion trumps those.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:08 AM on November 2, 2011

So *thick* on the ground, that is! I was so concerned with getting the timestamp link right that I bolloxed my comment...fnrargshg.
posted by jrochest at 10:08 AM on November 2, 2011

Sodomy / Homosexuality is not illegal under Sharia in Turkey as long as it's done in private, afaik.

Turkish law isn't based on Sharia, unless the moderate Islamists have managed to change the legal system over the past decade. Post-Ataturk Turkey was certainly fiercely secular, with anything redolent of the old Ottoman caliphate being out; Ataturk banned traditional dress in public and even replaced the Arabic writing system with the Roman alphabet to draw a line under the old order.
posted by acb at 10:08 AM on November 2, 2011

and not using alcoholic beverages in front of students or attending university events within six hours of drinking them.

I don't really understand this, I thought it was only the Mormons that didn't drink?
posted by atrazine at 10:10 AM on November 2, 2011

The Bible actually has a lot to say about men like this,

Matthew 23
1 Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4 They tie up heavy, cumbersome loads and put them on other people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

5 “Everything they do is done for people to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and to be called ‘Rabbi’ by others.

8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.

13 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to. [14]

15 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.

16 “Woe to you, blind guides! You say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gold of the temple is bound by that oath.’ 17 You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? 18 You also say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gift on the altar is bound by that oath.’ 19 You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? 20 Therefore, anyone who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. 21 And anyone who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. 22 And anyone who swears by heaven swears by God’s throne and by the one who sits on it.

23 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. 24 You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

25 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. 26 Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.

27 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. 28 In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

Now "Woe to you", or ouai in the greek dialect that Matthew was written in, does not mean a pleasant warning of future misfortune. Really, according to the gospel, Jesus is saying FUCK YOU to these preachers in no uncertain terms. He is saying that these men who dig through the law (The stuff in the Pentateuch or first five books of the old testament) looking for details they can use to accuse others of being unholy or make themselves seem more holy are actors. Matthew uses a word ὑπόκρισις (hypokrisis), which up until this point had a neutral meaning without a negative connotation, to describe the actions of priests like this, who ignore the heart of the Pentateuch, taking houses from widows, while they make sure to be careful to tithe a tenth of the fruits of their house plants. The way he uses the word hypokrisis, it definitely now has a negative connotation. Jesus calls men like this painted tombs, a dead rotting corpse whitewashed and dressed up.

Jesus had just clarified what he felt to be the heart of the law in the previous chapter,

Matthew 22
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

If the Board of Trustees of Shorter University were truly Christian they would know that this action is not.
posted by Blasdelb at 10:10 AM on November 2, 2011 [55 favorites]

acb: "I don't really care what a "Christian school" does. Call them a religious institution and let them formalize what they're secretly doing anyway. I care much more that anyone accepts a degree from this shitpile as meaning anything."

The problem is that they're regionally (not religiously) accredited, and are receiving federal money.

In fact, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools' accreditation guidelines clearly state:

3.2.4 - The governing board is free from undue influence from political,
religious, or other external bodies and protects the institution
from such influence. (External influence)

3.7.4 The institution ensures adequate procedures for safeguarding and
protecting academic freedom. (Academic freedom)

This is really all that the guidelines have to say about religiously-based discrimination, although I think that you could read between the lines, and make an argument that they're violating their accreditation agreement through such a blanket policy.

If Shorter wants to continue this policy, they should be re-accredited under a biblical/religious accreditor.
posted by schmod at 10:10 AM on November 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

They have a real hard on for inventing rules so they can "break" them. Authoritarians are all the same.
posted by The Whelk at 10:11 AM on November 2, 2011

The World Famous: "a : designed for or understood by the specially initiated alone
b : requiring or exhibiting knowledge that is restricted to a small group; broadly : difficult to understand
2
a : limited to a small circle
b : private, confidential
3
: of special, rare, or unusual interest"

You're sort of tarring Jews with a brush here. It bothers me, so I am raising the point for discussion. Whether you choose to discuss it or not is your prerogative.

Christians choose to coopt Jewish teachings and laws, which should theoretically and by your standards also make you part of our "restricted, limited group." Additional laws then cherry-pick which Jewish laws and teachings you follow. You follow some teachings of the Old Testament, yes? You haven't abandoned it completely? But anyone who doesn't follow the restricted Christian view of which laws have value are classified by you as esoteric?

The way I'm reading this, you are choosing to refer to set Jews, who follow more of the laws laid out in our holy texts than you do, as a fringe group. Am I wrong? Because that's how what you said comes across to me.
posted by zarq at 10:12 AM on November 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

c. I will not engage in activities involving illegal drugs

This is a no-brainer. Obviously, no employer wants employees who pose this risk.

Wow. I was surprised and disappointed at that, especially given that most people would have said precisely the same thing about activities involving "illegal" homosexuality fifty years ago.

Funny how alcohol and sex rules mean that "we now will live in fear that someone who doesn't like us personally or someone who has had a bad day will report [us]", yet this kind of witch-hunting is not only acceptable, but "a no-brainer". Seems crazy to me, especially since it's no more difficult for "someone who doesn't like us personally" to claim that a gay person is involved with drugs than it is to turn them in for being gay or having wine with dinner.

I'm with handbanana -- what I do on my own time is my business, period. These stupid loyalty oaths have got to go.
posted by vorfeed at 10:14 AM on November 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

I don't really understand this, I thought it was only the Mormons that didn't drink?

Southern Baptists don't drink either. Some Methodists and Methodist off-shots are also against drinking. Sometimes the South feels like there's no one who isn't a teetotaler or an alcoholic; it's a weird place.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 10:14 AM on November 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Does that college, like just about everyone I know of, get federal money? And if so, should not that be stopped?
posted by Postroad at 10:17 AM on November 2, 2011

"Southern Baptists don't drink either. Some Methodists and Methodist off-shots are also against drinking. Sometimes the South feels like there's no one who isn't a teetotaler or an alcoholic; it's a weird place."

Reminds me of a joke a preacher once told me,

Q) Why should you never bring just one Southern Baptist on your fishing trip?

A) So he doesn't drink all of your beer!
posted by Blasdelb at 10:17 AM on November 2, 2011 [8 favorites]

...especially given that most people would have said precisely the same thing about activities involving "illegal" homosexuality fifty years ago.

Wait what? Free time is free time, sure, but I'm not sure that employers were not worried about their employees showing up to work wasted on gay or developing a chronic gay habit that would interfere with their productivity. Also employers probably weren't concerned that employees may be coming in to work carrying or distributing gay, which the employer would be responsible for having on the worksite. Yes, both drug use and homosexuality have a social stigma, but the drug use one actually has practical problems associated with it.
posted by griphus at 10:18 AM on November 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

Sometimes the South feels like there's no one who isn't a teetotaler or an alcoholic; it's a weird place.

True enough. I don't think I've seen a single liquor store go out of business down here.
posted by jquinby at 10:20 AM on November 2, 2011

Can I just pop in here to say that the comments about eating shellfish and following OT law are showing ignorance of the most significant parts of the New Testament. Just because you heard one verse from the Old Testament does not mean you understand the bible better than people who believe it. Let me just reassure you that you aren't the first person to wonder where to draw the line in following OT laws vs. not following OT laws. More than half the New Testament is centered on exactly that issue.
posted by brenton at 10:20 AM on November 2, 2011 [4 favorites]

Being gay is biology.

Maybe.

It is not choice.

Not for most people, no.

One chooses to commit adultery.

Usually.
posted by General Tonic at 10:23 AM on November 2, 2011

The World Famous: " Did you read what I wrote? Because you don't seem to be responding to it."

The original comment was: "Agreed. I actually appreciate that they didn't single out homosexual behavior, and instead included it in a blanket statement along with premarital sex and adultery."

kagredon said: You...appreciate that they lumped in an issue of personal, irrevocable identity with chosen behaviors? I'm...not sure what to say to that.

You said, "I'm struggling to understand your comment, kagredon. How is heterosexual sexual behavior "chosen behavior" while homosexual sexual behavior is "an issue of personal, irrevocable identity?"

In my response, I pointed out (as kagredon did) that the original assumption was wrong: we're not talking about gay sex acts, but rather homosexuality.

We're really talking about three things here:

* Being Gay. (NOT gay sex acts. They're singling out people for being gay and asking them to declare that they are not now and never have been gay. The target isn't a sex act like sodomy (except perhaps tangentially.)
* Adultery
* Premarital sex

The latter two are a choice. One chooses to cheat on one's spouse or have sex before marriage. But one does not choose to be gay.

So yes, I was responding to what you wrote.
posted by zarq at 10:23 AM on November 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

You're sort of tarring Jews with a brush here. It bothers me, so I am raising the point for discussion. Whether you choose to discuss it or not is your prerogative.

Zarq, I apologize. When I offhandedly referred to Leviticus' rules about stoning people outside the city walls and other such provisions of that law as "esoteric," I did not intend to imply or assert anything about Jews. I certainly did not intend to tar Jews with any brush. I do think the term "esoteric" remains accurate when describing the various provisions of the Law that are often cited in arguments about strict Biblical interpretation by Christians.

Christians choose to coopt Jewish teachings and laws, which should theoretically and by your standards also make you part of our "restricted, limited group."

Yes. I strongly agree. Absolutely.

But anyone who doesn't follow the restricted Christian view of which laws have value are classified by you as esoteric?

I did not classify any person or people as esoteric. I offhandedly referred to a certain limited set of laws as esoteric. I again apologize for giving offense. I don't think you're being fair in your interpretation of what I said, though.

The way I'm reading this, you are choosing to refer to set Jews, who follow more of the laws laid out in our holy texts than you do, as a fringe group.

You're reading it in a way that is extraordinarily different from my intent. I am not referring to Jews as a fringe group. I'm referring to certain provisions of the ancient law - provisions that Jews do not follow, either - as esoteric. Apparently that term has some baggage with you. I'm sorry that I caused offense. But I did not intend what you're reading into my statement.
posted by The World Famous at 10:24 AM on November 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

I was a scared, closeted kid in Cobb County during the anti-gay resolution, and some of my family went to Price's church. I'd really hoped he had fallen off the face of the planet by now.

Also, from the interview with a gay employee: "There is a larger question of what this specific provision means. Rejecting as acceptable could easily be interpreted to mean that you should not love (as a family member or friend) a gay person or that you shouldn't even talk to a gay person." Fuck everything about this.

Fuck. These terrible people shouldn't still be able to make me feel this way.
posted by honeydew at 10:24 AM on November 2, 2011 [7 favorites]

General Tonic: "Maybe.

Definitely. Research has pretty much allowed us to figure out that sexual orientation is a complex product of genetics, hormonal and environmental influences.

One chooses to commit adultery.

Usually.

Adultery is by definition a voluntary act.
posted by zarq at 10:27 AM on November 2, 2011

Adultery is by definition a voluntary act.

I dunno about that. I mean, is Natalie Portman involved?

Is she insistent?

Is she ...naughty?
posted by Ryvar at 10:30 AM on November 2, 2011 [9 favorites]

And as an addendum, I just want to commend the gay employee in the article, because he shows an understanding of the bible in his criticisms:

I don't see homosexuality as being any less congruent with Christianity than judging people, sexual deviance, dishonesty, pride, lust, envy, sloth, etc. My response is simple: Why is homosexuality so much worse than anything else in the Bible? Why does a homosexual deserve to be fired any more than an obviously egotistical person, or a lazy person, or a dishonest person?

No sin above any other ... we're all sinners and I don't see that trying to force a person who commits the sin of homosexuality out of the organization as being morally justified if we're not going to force every single sinner out of the organization.

The bottom line is that I am a gay Christian and I made a decision to be around other Christians. I'm not alone and it is sad to see organizations shun people like me. I'd assume that if you're a strong Christian, you wouldn't need to turn those away who sin and instead you'd welcome them with open arms because they love Jesus.

...

Because of this, I don't feel that I am a terrible person who is damned to hell. God has a plan for me. Telling me I'm going to hell, telling me I'm a bad person ... those are judgements and none of us is fit to judge anyone else.

posted by brenton at 10:31 AM on November 2, 2011 [8 favorites]

" Right, but remember that the latter part of the Bible expressly provides that the law contained in the former part should no longer be followed. So "go all out" presumably means "pay attention to Paul's epistles," which means that counterarguments based on esoteric requirements in Leviticus are basically out."

See, that's one of the BIGGEST pick-and-chooses there is. The Bible says JESUS said otherwise:

"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." (Matthew 5:17)

Not that I believe any of this, but if I'm gonna defend my viewpoint using a book, I'm gonna read the book.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 10:38 AM on November 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

Homophobia is so gay
posted by phearlez at 10:39 AM on November 2, 2011

... come not to abolish them..
posted by Benny Andajetz at 10:40 AM on November 2, 2011

The thing about Shorter is that it's getting more conservative. I know former science professors from there, and they said that it used to be that you had to be a Christian to teach there but that they put no dictates on what could be taught in the classroom. It was only quite recently that they started banning the teaching of evolution. Which quickly ran off science professors left and right.

There are plenty of Christians with PhDs who need a job and will teach at a Baptist college if they have to, but very few who will put up with being told what to teach, let alone to ignore the foundation of biology.

The good news is that very few Shorter students are going to be able to get into healthcare with the crappy science education they're now receiving. The bad news is that means more of them will be going into politics.
posted by hydropsyche at 10:40 AM on November 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

I dunno about that. I mean, is Natalie Portman involved?

Is she insistent?

Is she ...naughty?

Is she... covered in hot grits?
posted by kmz at 10:41 AM on November 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

oops,never mind. I can't read,apparently.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 10:41 AM on November 2, 2011

See, that's one of the BIGGEST pick-and-chooses there is. The Bible says JESUS said otherwise:

Sure. But it's a pick and choose that is actually part of the book itself. The book mandates picking and choosing. Refusing to pick and choose is, itself, picking and choosing. There's no such thing as strict biblical interpretation. There's no such thing as biblical literalism. It's all interpretation, and even the Bible's own content constitutes interpretation of its other content. "But the Bible says ____" is, I would contend, never a persuasive argument about anything.
posted by The World Famous at 10:42 AM on November 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

zarq,

It occurred to me that the passages I linked above are an attack by Jesus on practitioners of a proto-Rabbinical form of Judaism that could easily come off as unfriendly in a way I didn't intend. I just wanted to say that I have deep respect for those who live their lives according to the principles of the Torah in a way that is hermeneutically descendent from the Pharisees. What I lack respect for is Christians whose values have so little resemblance to Christ.
posted by Blasdelb at 10:43 AM on November 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

So ... we'll eventually find out that Nelson Price is gay, right?
posted by Clustercuss at 10:46 AM on November 2, 2011

"Can I just pop in here to say that the comments about eating shellfish and following OT law are showing ignorance of the most significant parts of the New Testament. Just because you heard one verse from the Old Testament does not mean you understand the bible better than people who believe it. Let me just reassure you that you aren't the first person to wonder where to draw the line in following OT laws vs. not following OT laws. More than half the New Testament is centered on exactly that issue."

Ye may indeed poppeth in here, but know Ye that the Lord God sees all poppers-in who make condescending pronouncements and obvious points to be poor in Spirit.
posted by longsleeves at 10:47 AM on November 2, 2011 [5 favorites]

And as an addendum, I just want to commend the gay employee in the article, because he shows an understanding of the bible in his criticisms

How is it that this gay employee "shows an understanding of the bible" if he doesn't comprehend that God doesn't "have a plan" for him that involves accepting, loving, or embracing his homosexuality, and that God's plan most certainly includes a permanent vacation in hell in the afterlife?
posted by blucevalo at 10:49 AM on November 2, 2011

How is it that this gay employee "shows an understanding of the bible" if he doesn't comprehend that God doesn't "have a plan" for him that involves accepting, loving, or embracing his homosexuality, and that God's plan most certainly includes a permanent vacation in hell in the afterlife?

Are you being facetious?
posted by The World Famous at 10:52 AM on November 2, 2011

Yyes, both drug use and homosexuality have a social stigma, but the drug use one actually has practical problems associated with it. posted by griphus at 10:18 AM on 11/2

Fuck both of those notions. Homosexuality is perfectly normal and natural, and if people have a problem with it they need t retake a biology course, its very well documented.

And on the notion of drugs, fuck that too. Americans on average arre on three scripted medications, with the highest grossing being pain killers and psychotropic drugs. Besides, if I want to smoke some cannabis, or for that matter enjoy any plethora of chemicals its my perogative. With consideration I am not harming anyone else. How many professionals are drug tested? Not many at all. Yet go to lower skilled jobs and everyone is a suspect and has to be violated by giving up bodily fluids for some shit ass job.
posted by handbanana at 10:52 AM on November 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

Jesus, I forgive you.
posted by Glomar response at 10:57 AM on November 2, 2011

Eh, its a great human tradition: Hold up a document as sacrosanct and perfect and good for all people then proceed to misquote and selectively quote the thing to get what you're animal brain really wants.

Ironically the animal brain typically wants to indulge in one of the seven deadlies... so go figure.
posted by Slackermagee at 11:02 AM on November 2, 2011

Are you being facetious?

I'm not being facetious. That is what those who institute policies like this believe. These are Southern Baptists. They believe that you are going to hell if you're a homosexual. They believe that God does not have a plan that involves being public with a homosexual identity. I was responding to a comment that seemed to imply that the gay employee quoted had an "understanding" of the Bible that was valid because it differed from those beliefs.
posted by blucevalo at 11:08 AM on November 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

I read the headline and though "well it's good to know short people are standing for gay rights too". Then I clicked and saw the capitalization. I think I need a nap.
posted by catwash at 11:08 AM on November 2, 2011

I was probably being obtuse, though. I was trying to make a point, probably didn't do the best job of it.
posted by blucevalo at 11:10 AM on November 2, 2011

I mean, you'd have to be pretty silly to want to demonstrate to everyone with ears to hear that you advocate hating people for being different, right?

This is self-flagellation. Combined with a bunker mentality. It works like this:

1. We shout something.
2. A lot of people react negatively.
3. We use those reactions as proof that we are right, and everyone else is wrong.
4. We pat ourselves on the back, secure in the belief that we are right and our oppression is well-earned.
5. Feedback loop begins anew.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 11:12 AM on November 2, 2011 [4 favorites]

1) People who stridently condemn things tend to be the most interested in those very same things and ashamed.

2) If part of the pledge includes "...I never have been gay" than how can these people claim it is a choice?

3) I'd blackball every graduate of this place if I could. NO JOB FOR YOU, THUMPER!
posted by Renoroc at 11:16 AM on November 2, 2011

I'm not sure that employers were not worried about their employees showing up to work wasted on gay or developing a chronic gay habit that would interfere with their productivity. Also employers probably weren't concerned that employees may be coming in to work carrying or distributing gay, which the employer would be responsible for having on the worksite. Yes, both drug use and homosexuality have a social stigma, but the drug use one actually has practical problems associated with it.

I wasn't claiming an equivalence. I was just pointing out that rules against drugs can be used to get rid of gays and other unpopular groups, just as rules against alcohol and sex can. I find it interesting that this is instantly understood when it comes to drinking and sex ("We now will live in fear that someone who doesn't like us personally or someone who has had a bad day will report that we've been drinking or that we are suspected of being gay. What happens then?"), but zero-tolerance rules regarding drugs are somehow a "no-brainer".

Second, any "practical problems" associated with drug use can be dealt with in precisely the same way employers deal with the "practical problems" caused by alcohol use. If problems like these are in fact present in one's work, that's one thing; firing people for what they do off the job is another.
posted by vorfeed at 11:18 AM on November 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Three things:

a) this level of biological determinism always makes me feel a little uncomfortable, we make choices about sexuality, what we do and what we dont do, all the time, and i am with vidal on this one, that sexuality as identity is about the construction of actions.
b) shorter has the only musical theatre bfa in the state of georgia.
c) if my expereince with inexpert but enthusastic fellatio from byu students is any indicaiton, gay sex will still happen all the time at shorter.
posted by PinkMoose at 11:21 AM on November 2, 2011 [7 favorites]

I mean, you'd have to be pretty silly to want to demonstrate to everyone with ears to hear that you advocate hating people for being different, right?

You know what? Just once I want one of these bigots to be honest about their bigotry. "You know, it doesn't matter what the Bible says or doesn't say. I hate anyone different than me, I look forward to the day when every gay person burns in hell just for being different and WEIRD, and since I'm in the heterosexual majority, I can get away with discrimination because God says so." Then they'd give an evil "Muahahahahah!" and twirl their mustache.

I like what Gene Weingarten said yesterday about this kind of thing:

"And most specifically, do not be fooled by the religion dodge. If your religion compels you to be a bigot, it is time to find another religion, or another priest or pastor or rabbi, or to choose to interpret yours more benignly. (God would want it that way!) It is very easy to cherrypick any religion to find support for your prejudices. The Old Testament not only doesn’t prohibit slavery, it condones it. It has rules for how to treat your slaves. Directly from Exodus 21;20: “When a slave-owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives for a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property.”
So don’t give me no religious justification, or I will imprison you in my basement, in chains."
posted by jenfullmoon at 11:23 AM on November 2, 2011

I swear to god "inexpert but enthusastic fellatio" is the most heartwarming phrase I have heard in a long time.
posted by griphus at 11:32 AM on November 2, 2011 [7 favorites]

People who stridently condemn things tend to be the most interested in those very same things and ashamed.

That's why I'm vociferously pro-equal rights and openly disgusted by bigotry and I secretly hope no one finds out I hate gay people.
posted by FatherDagon at 11:36 AM on November 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

Could some one remind me of the biblical chapter and verse covering these?
posted by Obscure Reference at 9:52 AM

Eponysterical!
posted by Gelatin at 11:37 AM on November 2, 2011

1) People who stridently condemn things tend to be the most interested in those very same things and ashamed.

I'm not really comfortable with that as a rule of thumb. It does seem to play out that way often on this particular issue. But when applied to other areas (e.g. people who stridently condemn the war on drugs, religion, etc.), I don't think it holds up well enough to be presented as a useful axiom.
posted by The World Famous at 11:41 AM on November 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

Obligatory.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:45 AM on November 2, 2011

I actually appreciate that they didn't single out homosexual behavior, and instead included it in a blanket statement along with premarital sex and adultery.

You...appreciate that they lumped in an issue of personal, irrevocable identity with chosen behaviors?

Is the distinction really so simple? "Homosexuality" is a complex concept. The word could refer to someone's identity or to behavior (behavior which could be done by someone who's gay, bisexual, straight, etc.). Conversely, many people would consider a desire to have a sex with someone before marrying them to be fundamental to who they are as a person.

What's odd is that all the outrage seems to be about the reference to homosexuality. Why not also be outraged at the infringement on freedom in requiring students to oppose premarital sex?
posted by John Cohen at 11:47 AM on November 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

john cohen are you joke-asking this question or do you seriously not understand the social and cultural construction of homosexuality in this country, this last century? i am trying to figure out whether to write you a really long response or a witty one-liner and i don't want to try today
posted by beefetish at 11:50 AM on November 2, 2011

Beefetish, I think they were pointing out we can be pissed at more than one thing at once.

The whole document is bullshit.
posted by handbanana at 11:53 AM on November 2, 2011

It's been my experience that most rule additions or changes are as a result of encountering the problem they aim to solve - if you see a sign in the gym that says no pooping in the showers, you can be fairly certain that some intellectual fireball caused that sign to need to be made.

Eh, this isn't really true. Rule changes and additions are a sign that the group making the changes or additions is worried about something, not that those concerns are justified. For a current example, see my home state of NC, which is trying to write a gay marriage ban into the state constitution, despite the fact that gay marriage is already illegal there. It's not like gays marrying is a problem they've encountered. For a less current example, the Theodosian Code made it illegal to give your children to shepherds to raise them. Now, we have basically no documentation that this ever happened, and it would seem pretty weird if it did. What we know is that the powers-that-be mistrusted and disliked shepherd, not that anyone was really giving their children to them.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 11:53 AM on November 2, 2011

Obligatory.

I love that scene and I generally agree with its sentiments. But I have always thought (and continue to think) that when he says "that's how I beat him," he means that he beat him by making a string of arguments and then, instead of allowing him to respond to those arguments, he pulled rank to shut him up.
posted by The World Famous at 11:54 AM on November 2, 2011

The World Famous: "Zarq, I apologize. When I offhandedly referred to Leviticus' rules about stoning people outside the city walls and other such provisions of that law as "esoteric," I did not intend to imply or assert anything about Jews. I certainly did not intend to tar Jews with any brush. I do think the term "esoteric" remains accurate when describing the various provisions of the Law that are often cited in arguments about strict Biblical interpretation by Christians.

Ah. Okay. I'm sorry as well. I didn't quite understand that was what you were referring to.

I did not classify any person or people as esoteric. I offhandedly referred to a certain limited set of laws as esoteric. I again apologize for giving offense.

OK. Thank you, I appreciate that. And again, I misread you and am sorry about that.

I don't think you're being fair in your interpretation of what I said, though.
...
You're reading it in a way that is extraordinarily different from my intent. I am not referring to Jews as a fringe group. I'm referring to certain provisions of the ancient law - provisions that Jews do not follow, either - as esoteric. Apparently that term has some baggage with you. I'm sorry that I caused offense. But I did not intend what you're reading into my statement."

There's a particular argument that I've known Christians (most often Catholics and Southern Baptists) to raise (online and off): that they not only have the right to redefine Jewish religious teachings (an element of which is inherent to Christian teachings regardless,) but also that they know better than us what our own texts say and mean.

You understand (and I know you do because I have witnessed it happen to you here, too,) just how highly frustrating it is to have your religious beliefs judged by another religion's or another sect's standards. It's one thing to do so when we're talking about discriminatory practices such as those highlighted in the FPP. I will speak out against, condemn and fight injustices all day long if I have to.

But I felt you were being dismissive and it bothered me. So I spoke up. And yes, I have some baggage there. And I unloaded it a bit on you. For that, and for misinterpreting you, I apologize.
posted by zarq at 11:54 AM on November 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

For that, and for misinterpreting you, I apologize.

No apology necessary, zarq.
posted by The World Famous at 11:55 AM on November 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

What I can't figure out is what prompted this change.

Every survey I've seen shows that more and more people in the US accept (or at least "tolerate") gays, and support for gay marriage is rising especially in young people. I assume that's the cause.
posted by JoanArkham at 11:56 AM on November 2, 2011

What's odd is that all the outrage seems to be about the reference to homosexuality. Why not also be outraged at the infringement on freedom in requiring students to oppose premarital sex?

Because while requiring students to oppose premarital sex is a hallmark of religious busybodies everywhere, it doesn't convey the sneering contempt for an entire person that requiring condemnation of the expression of that person's love in any context does.
posted by Doublewhiskeycokenoice at 11:56 AM on November 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

Why does it always seem that when something like this happens, there's a gay employee that this (reprehensible) policy actually affects?

Because there are a lot of gay people? (This has been another in a series of silly answers to stupid questions.) Anyway, a statement that seeks to police appearances as well as behavior is bound to be a nightmare. The next step will be maliciously motivated rumors that a employee is "too gay" or "not straight enough." And given that Southern Baptists all tend to seem a little queeny at times, this could be a problem! A little part of me wants to see every one of those (figurative) cocksuckers turn each other in.
posted by octobersurprise at 11:58 AM on November 2, 2011

The next step will be maliciously motivated rumors that a employee is "too gay" or "not straight enough." And given that Southern Baptists all tend to seem a little queeny at times, this could be a problem!

Especially considering that Shorter has the only musical theater program in Georgia (although I'm guessing they won't be reviving Victor Victoria anytime soon).

which is a shame...jazz hot!
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 12:04 PM on November 2, 2011

"Every survey I've seen shows that more and more people in the US accept (or at least "tolerate") gays, and support for gay marriage is rising especially in young people. I assume that's the cause."

This was written by my pastor, and it just occurred to me is also more generally germane to this discussion:

Young Evangelicals Are Shifting on Marriage Equality
posted by Blasdelb at 12:17 PM on November 2, 2011

Jesus Wept.
posted by schmod at 12:41 PM on November 2, 2011

Yyes, both drug use and homosexuality have a social stigma, but the drug use one actually has practical problems associated with it.

Contrary to what American fundamentalists believe, the book doesn't say he turned the wine into water-- it says he turned the water into wine.

Practical problems or not, the acquisition and use of intoxicating substances is a Christ-sanctioned activity.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 12:42 PM on November 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Why does it always seem that when something like this happens, there's a gay employee that this (reprehensible) policy actually affects? Do they not know who they're working for? Is this a surprise to them?

The employee states in the interview that he came to this college specifically because they did not at the time have any rules that punished homosexuality or homosexual behavior.
posted by cereselle at 12:57 PM on November 2, 2011

Why does it always seem that when something like this happens, there's a gay employee that this (reprehensible) policy actually affects? Do they not know who they're working for? Is this a surprise to them? What kind of situation are they in that they want (or need) this job? Do they harbor some kind of heroic, romantic (reasonable?) idea that they'll make changes from within?

Hey CPB. I understand what you're saying. Its easier to say "fuck this shit" and move on. But you know why people work there? Because fuck the employers, thats why.

Also...if I were in this situation, I would consider myself quitting as a sign of giving up and letting this shit be allowed to happen. In a way, I'd feel as if I was supporting that stuff by saying "I can't keep up with the rules...I may as well quit".

Fuck that. I'd much rather show up to work, tell everyone that my boyfriend gave me the sweetest present yesterday and that the reason I voted for Obama is because my local mosque confirmed he's a secret Muslim.

Then I'd post up a sign in an employee break room advertising a "union-organizing party" at my house.

Things would change afterwards. And it would be court-mandated change.
posted by hal_c_on at 1:04 PM on November 2, 2011 [3 favorites]

The employee states in the interview that he came to this college specifically because they did not at the time have any rules that punished homosexuality or homosexual behavior.

Thats fucking sad. THAT should not have been the specific reason...i cannot believe that some employers believe this shit is legal.

The ONLY way to defeat them is in court. So seriously...gay people, start applying for jobs there.
posted by hal_c_on at 1:07 PM on November 2, 2011

THAT should not have been the specific reason...i cannot believe that some employers believe this shit is legal.

I am curious as to what your legal arguments are to the contrary. Are they based on the idea that the institution can discriminate against conduct or belief, but not against status?
posted by The World Famous at 1:23 PM on November 2, 2011

I so love and have loved for the 55 + years I have paid taxes in this country to know the rates would have been lower had these bigots and their bigot attitudes been taxed along with us heathens for the vast array of services they have enjoyed, fire protection [even from gay fire fighters] police protection [ has to be SOME gay cops] the supervison of systems of safe drinking water, proper management of patents and copyright laws, the weather service, libraries, the frickin' military [lotta gays in there too!] highways, power plants, the schools to educate the people they hire to do the work all around them, gee I guess maybe a class action suit against them for everyone who cannot use their subsidized "school" without passing a religious test.

We want our subsidy funds back!!

Jefferson weeps.
posted by Freedomboy at 1:31 PM on November 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

I don't see homosexuality as being any less congruent with Christianity than judging people, sexual deviance, dishonesty, pride, lust, envy, sloth, etc. My response is simple: Why is homosexuality so much worse than anything else in the Bible?

This question isn't that hard to answer if you're familiar with people from communities that hold these views. In general, they sexuality is seen as a particular concern because:

* it's such a compelling drive for many people that it's easy to let it pull you along, to put before God or spiritual things, etc
* it's seen as *for* certain things -- (1) creating kids and (2) strong pair bonding

Then you combine the conception that heterosexual pairings are the divinely intended state of things ("Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve"), and the only state in which one is going to be part of a bless-ed union in which reproductive powers are used for what they're for. Under this reading, homosexual desires and pairings are actually going to be a persistent distraction if not an outright blockade from that. Arguably more persistent and strong than the typical drive to (picking from the not particularly Biblical cardinal sins) envy or sloth.

Whether that's a "Biblical" belief isn't straightforward. The Bible isn't a manual, not even the parts that look like they are, and a lot of beliefs claiming such provenance (despite lots of insistence to the contrary in order to skirt a verse in 2nd Peter and claim an authoritative reading) are filtered through centuries of various community tradition, reading, and re-reading. But they're not a particularly incredible reading.

That doesn't mean you should accept them, or that they should inform rules for the entirety of a free society. But those aren't the issues Shorter presents, which are instead whether or not a private religious society is free to have and profess those views, and attempt to hold its members or agents to a standard implied by such views.
posted by namespan at 1:49 PM on November 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

I've tried to do a bit of googling on this, and I think Southern Baptists celebrate communion - is that right? So does one of their policies prevent their employees from celebrating the Eucharist in public?
posted by calico at 2:32 PM on November 2, 2011

You know, Canada has a very simple solution to this. Ready? Here it is:

Universities are not allowed to be religious.

When Waterloo Lutheran wanted to change from a theological school to a full, degree granting, university it had to change its name (Now Wilfred Laurier), abandon religious affiliation and accept all students. Cuts down on this type of bull.
posted by Canageek at 2:41 PM on November 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

You know, Canada has a very simple solution to this. Ready? Here it is:

Universities are not allowed to be religious.

Yeah. Stupid First Amendment.
posted by The World Famous at 2:44 PM on November 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

@The World Famous: Universities aren't people. The people in them can have any religion they want. They just can't use that to discriminate against people.

Also: *points to top of thread* How well is that particular law working for you?
posted by Canageek at 2:50 PM on November 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

@The World Famous: Universities aren't people. The people in them can have any religion they want.

Can you expand on how that's related to my comment about the First Amendment?

Also: *points to top of thread* How well is that particular law working for you?

Pretty well. What do you mean?
posted by The World Famous at 2:54 PM on November 2, 2011

Canageek: the First Amendment prohibits government from making laws about religion in many forms (establishing a religion, prohibiting exercise of religion, etc). In general it makes it a very protected class of law. It's not about whether universities are people, but about whether the legislature can regulate them in that way.

They can pass religion-neutral laws (like employment non-discrimination). They can't pass a law saying universities can't be religious or have religion affiliations.
posted by wildcrdj at 2:54 PM on November 2, 2011

Opps, sorry: I had it slightly wrong. It is just Ontario, and it isn't that you can't have a university that has a religious affiliation: You just can't get any provincial funding if you do. Ontario gives universities a *lot* of money.
posted by Canageek at 2:56 PM on November 2, 2011

@The World Famous: I'd say any country that allows religion to cause people to be fired does not have sufficient limitation on region. "The right to swing my fist ends at the point it meets your face" applied to religion "The right to practice your religion ends at the point it infringes on the rights of another"

Of course, I'm also annoyed that most of our holidays are religiously based, and that catholic schools get provincial funding in addition to church funding. (Which is not garenteed by the constitution, which simply says catholic schools in Upper Canada (Ontario) and Protestant churches in Lower Canada (Quebec) must be allowed to exist- It doesn't say they have to be gov funded)
posted by Canageek at 3:01 PM on November 2, 2011

I'd say any country that allows religion to cause people to be fired does not have sufficient limitation on region. "The right to swing my fist ends at the point it meets your face" applied to religion "The right to practice your religion ends at the point it infringes on the rights of another"

Where, exactly, would you draw the line? Hypothetically, let's say a church employs someone to work as a custodian in one of its church buildings. Is there any point (i.e. any sort of conduct at all) where, in your opinion, the church should be allowed to terminate that individual's employment because of some conduct on the employee's part that runs contrary to the tenets of the religion?
posted by The World Famous at 3:10 PM on November 2, 2011

@The World Famous: I can't think of such a situation where that would be acceptable off the top of my head, as that would be the same as refusing to hire someone based on their religion, which *is* illegal.

Lets say religion X requires all members to wear a widget. Religious University Y isn't allowed to not hire them based on the fact they are a member of religion X. So they hire them, wait a week, then find wearing a widget is offensive to the students and fires them again.
posted by Canageek at 3:16 PM on November 2, 2011

Where, exactly, would you draw the line? Hypothetically, let's say a church employs someone to work as a custodian in one of its church buildings. Is there any point (i.e. any sort of conduct at all) where, in your opinion, the church should be allowed to terminate that individual's employment because of some conduct on the employee's part that runs contrary to the tenets of the religion?

Standard rules of employment can apply here. If an employee is being disruptive in a workplace environment, then they can be given a warning and/or terminated depending on the severity of the problem.

In such cases, simply being gay would not enough to justify termination. Nor would a person's personal life, which presumably would happen away from the workplace.

Most businesses have behavioral and dress guidelines for their employees. Religious institutions are no different. My wife has worked for a number of them. They can dictate that you wear clothing that is not too revealing. That you comport yourself in your job in a professional manner. They can restrict you from discussing your personal life with congregants, etc. But unless you're a member of the clergy, are teaching children or are in some way a role model, they really should not be placing restrictions on your off-site behavior. And let's be honest, there's no real reason for them to do so.
posted by zarq at 3:21 PM on November 2, 2011

Is she... covered in hot grits?

Is she ...petrified?
posted by Ryvar at 3:36 PM on November 2, 2011

I can't think of such a situation where that would be acceptable off the top of my head, as that would be the same as refusing to hire someone based on their religion, which *is* illegal.

Ah. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I'm not asking about what's legal or illegal. I'm asking where you would draw the line.

Standard rules of employment can apply here. If an employee is being disruptive in a workplace environment, then they can be given a warning and/or terminated depending on the severity of the problem.

I'm not sure that's the case, is it? I can conceive of situations where an employee who would not be "disruptive" in the employment of an entity other than a religion would be very disruptive if they were an employee of various specific religions.

In such cases, simply being gay would not enough to justify termination.

I agree with you that, in an ideal legal system, being gay would never be an acceptable ground for an adverse employment action. But my hypothetical was a question of conduct, not status.

But unless you're a member of the clergy, are teaching children or are in some way a role model, they really should not be placing restrictions on your off-site behavior. And let's be honest, there's no real reason for them to do so.

So is your position that there is no conceivable off-site, off-duty conduct that could possibly justify adverse employment action by any employer, religious or not?

Here are four hypotheticals that I hope will illustrate what I'm trying to ask (note that not all of these are intended to be examples where I think action would be justified):

1. If Sam Harris quit all his other jobs and applied for a job at the church office building of the Mormon church in Salt Lake City, do you think that it would be unjustifiable and ideally illegal for the church to refuse to hire him based on his vocal opposition to religion and his status as a public figure in the skeptic community? How about based on his personal beliefs with regard to the veracity of Mormonism? If he already worked there and then developed those beliefs and status as a public figure, do you think the church should be legally prohibited from taking adverse employment action against him?

2. If Dallin Oaks, an apostle of the Mormon church with a pretty good secular resume, to boot, applied for a job at the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, is it your position that it would be unjustifiable and ideally illegal for the RDF to refuse to hire him based on his religious beliefs? What if it did so based not on his religious beliefs, but based on the fact that he is active in the Mormon church? Based on his status as a public figure representing Mormonism?

3. If a current employee of the RDF converts to, say, Evangelical Christianity and becomes a lay minister, teaching sermons on the weekends, should the RDF be permitted to terminate that employee's employment or take some other adverse employment action against them? What if that employee is the RDF's official spokesperson?

4. This last one is actually not a hypothetical. When I was in high school, I applied for a job as a waiter at a vegetarian restaurant where some of my friends worked. At the end of the interview, the manager told me he was happy to hire me, but had one more question: Was I a vegetarian. I answered that I was not a vegetarian but that I rarely ate meat. He politely told me that he would not hire anyone who was not a vegetarian. Is it your position that his refusal to hire me on that basis should be illegal?
posted by The World Famous at 4:21 PM on November 2, 2011

"Religion is ~~not, and should never be,~~ a justification for hatred or the restriction of anyone's rights. ~~Nor should it ever be~~ AND used to categorize anyone as "other"."

FTFY
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:31 PM on November 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Here are four hypotheticals that I hope will illustrate what I'm trying to ask (note that not all of these are intended to be examples where I think action would be justified):

1. If Sam Harris quit all his other jobs and applied for a job at the church office building of the Mormon church in Salt Lake City, do you think that it would be unjustifiable and ideally illegal for the church to refuse to hire him based on his vocal opposition to religion and his status as a public figure in the skeptic community? How about based on his personal beliefs with regard to the veracity of Mormonism? If he already worked there and then developed those beliefs and status as a public figure, do you think the church should be legally prohibited from taking adverse employment action against him?

2. If Dallin Oaks, an apostle of the Mormon church with a pretty good secular resume, to boot, applied for a job at the Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science, is it your position that it would be unjustifiable and ideally illegal for the RDF to refuse to hire him based on his religious beliefs? What if it did so based not on his religious beliefs, but based on the fact that he is active in the Mormon church? Based on his status as a public figure representing Mormonism?

3. If a current employee of the RDF converts to, say, Evangelical Christianity and becomes a lay minister, teaching sermons on the weekends, should the RDF be permitted to terminate that employee's employment or take some other adverse employment action against them? What if that employee is the RDF's official spokesperson?

4. This last one is actually not a hypothetical. When I was in high school, I applied for a job as a waiter at a vegetarian restaurant where some of my friends worked. At the end of the interview, the manager told me he was happy to hire me, but had one more question: Was I a vegetarian. I answered that I was not a vegetarian but that I rarely ate meat. He politely told me that he would not hire anyone who was not a vegetarian. Is it your position that his refusal to hire me on that basis should be illegal?

I'm an employment lawyer.

The answers are:

1. Legal to not hire--not a member of a protected class. Unless it could be proven that it was for racial reasons, because of a disability, because of his age (assuming 40+), because of his sex or because of prior EEO activity, he can
2. Absolutely legal to not hire. He's not a member of a protected class, first and foremost. You're not required to hire anyone who isn't a member of a protected class.
3. Legal to terminate--not a member of a protected class.
4. Legal to not hire--Not a member of a protected class.

This has been quick and dirty answers to employment law hypos.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:47 PM on November 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Sorry, I got some of those answers wrong in terms of justification:

1. Legal to not hire--Religious institution not covered by Title VII
2. Absolutely legal to not hire. Non-theistic or atheists covered by Title VII orcaso, 367 U.S. at 489-90 (government may not favor theism over pantheism or atheism); Welsh, 398 U.S. 333 (to be religion protected by the First Amendment, a belief system need not have a concept of a god, supreme being, or afterlife; plaintiff’s belief was deemed to be religious because it was held with strength of traditional religious beliefs); Townley, 859 F.2d 610 (Title VII prohibits an employer from compelling its atheist employees to attend religious services); Young, 509 F.2d 140 (same).
3. Legal to terminate, Religious institution not covered by Title VII, see above.
4. Legal to not hire--not a member of a protected class. (could get complicated if one alleges belief is "sincerely held" to the level of a religion. Would be a stretch for the plaintiff.)
posted by Ironmouth at 4:54 PM on November 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

I, too, am an employment lawyer. I was not asking what is legal and what is not legal. I thought I had made that explicit in my comment and in each of the hypotheticals.

This has been quick and dirty answers to employment law hypos.

I appreciate that, Ironmouth. But they are not employment law hypos.
posted by The World Famous at 4:54 PM on November 2, 2011

I, too, am an employment lawyer. I was not asking what is legal and what is not legal. I thought I had made that explicit in my comment and in each of the hypotheticals.

This has been quick and dirty answers to employment law hypos.

I appreciate that, Ironmouth. But they are not employment law hypos.

Sorry.

I believe that the legal and the right are together on this one. I do not attempt to judge other religions. I think we work best when our morals match our law. They are allowed to hold beliefs we don't agree with and to hire and fire on those beliefs. How could I (a member of a non-traditional religion) feel any other way? Morality must be that one is free to practice one's religion, no matter how others find it distasteful.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:57 PM on November 2, 2011

1. Legal to not hire--not a member of a protected class.

Given that sexual orientation isn't a protected class and some large portion of the commenters in this thread probably know this, I suspect most of them aren't discussing current state of the law but engaging in discussion of how they think things should be.

So far, that POV would apparently generalize to the idea that mission-focused organizations should not be allowed to hire/fire based on whether or not employees display behavior/lifestyle that's harmonious with/counter to values the organization exists to serve.
posted by namespan at 5:00 PM on November 2, 2011

The World Famous, at least two of your hypotheticals are based on the notion that other activities of the employee could conflict with the organization's stated mission.

I don't see how an employee being gay interferes with Shorter's mission--which, being a school is presumably to educate.

am I the only one who thinks the name "Shorter" seems ready-made for some sort of Santorum-esque redefinition?
posted by kagredon at 5:01 PM on November 2, 2011

The World Famous, at least two of your hypotheticals are based on the notion that other activities of the employee could conflict with the organization's stated mission.

Yes, that's correct. That's part of the issue that I was addressing in resposne to zarq's comment and those of others above.

I don't see how an employee being gay interferes with Shorter's mission--which, being a school is presumably to educate.

I presume that Shorter's mission includes some religious component, as well. But I'm no more of an expert on Shorter's mission than you are.

But you seem to be under the impression that my hypothetical questions are intended as part of some sort of defense of Shorter's actions. I assure you that they are not.
posted by The World Famous at 5:12 PM on November 2, 2011

@The World Famous

1. I'm not American, and thus don't give a damn about US laws.
2. I was making a point based on comparison: If you can't refuse to hire someone for their religion, you shouldn't be able to fire them because of it either.

Conversely, You shouldn't be able to refuse the best candidate based on lack of religion.

I do agree; the one time I think you could make a case is if the person *deliberately* speaks out against an organization in a public manner. If I go on national TV calling organization X a bunch of incompetent nitwits then I agree- you should probably be able to dismiss me.

If one of the above figures was applying for say, a night janitor position and was unlikely to ever make contact with the rest of the organization, I'd say, yes, they should have to hire them if they are the best suited applicant for the position. If they are applying for a position as PR Spokesperson? I'd say there is a clear conflict there that will inhibit their ability to do the job ---They have a reputation that would inhibit their ability to convey the organizations message to the public.

For 4: Yes, I do think that should have been illegal. I fail to see how that would inhibit your ability to preform your work. Even if he was worried about cross contamination or somesuch, the use of basic washing and such would prevent that. Now if too cooks with equal resumes were applying, I'd say it would be totally fair to hire the vegetarian, as he is almost certainly going to have more experience cooking vegetarian meals.

Frankly I don't think any legal activity, done outside the workplace, that has no effect on your work, and is not directly harmful to the organization should have an effect on ones employment with them- it really is none of of their business. In the words of one of Pierre Eliot Trudeau "There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation", so why should their be a place for the corporation?

Also, I firmly believe that atheism should be treated as a religion in the eyes of the law- Along with pretty much every other belief system not proven by scientific experiment ---And if you have a repeatable experiment that proves or disproves the existence of a higher power or afterlife....I think you have better things to be doing then posting on Metafilter. Like say, changing the very face of society.

Of course, I also think morality clauses should be illegal: Why should a bank be able to fire me for (hypothetically) being a BDSM lifestyler? Or a stamp collector? Neither are illegal, so as far as the bank is concerted they should have the same impact on my employment, provided I don't associate the banks name with them and don't interfere with my work.

And yes, this includes school teachers found to have posed for playboy 25 years before, or judges found to be doing BDSM on weekends (Both examples of people who's careers have been ruined, though in the second case there where other factors involved).
posted by Canageek at 5:46 PM on November 2, 2011 [2 favorites]

"I don't see how an employee being gay interferes with Shorter's mission--which, being a school is presumably to educate."

Mission Statement:
The Mission of Shorter University is to provide quality higher education, enabling and encouraging student commitment to active life-long learning, personal spiritual values, responsible citizenship, and community and societal leadership in a global context.

The University seeks to accomplish this Mission through quality undergraduate liberal arts programs, specialized professional programs, and select graduate programs. Geographically distant locations and online classes provide educational opportunities to individuals who are unable to attend classes in a traditional setting. The University affirms a commitment to the Christian faith and strives to integrate Christian values within a nurturing community within its whole process of education.

Philosophy for Christian Education

Shorter University is a Christ-centered liberal arts university dedicated to academic excellence within the context of a biblical worldview. As a Christian university, Shorter is committed to keeping an emphasis upon a biblically sound, integrated, faith-based education that promotes a zeal for academic, spiritual, and professional growth. The educational process of teaching and learning involves the whole person, and Shorter is committed to the principle that all truth comes from God and finds its fullest expression in the person of Jesus Christ. Shorter University deeply cares about the academic and spiritual development of its students and believes that students should be challenged academically and spiritually to impact culture. By providing an educational process intent on transforming lives through Jesus Christ, Shorter University seeks to glorify God through students equipped for lifelong servant leadership.

Our organizational brand and educational philosophy are reflective of and permeated by the timeless truths of Jesus Christ. Shorter University is committed to a broad based liberal arts education, believing it is not only a task, but a calling to seek truth and apply that truth in the marketplace of life. Christ-centered scholarship has its foundation in the biblical command to love God with all of our heart, soul, strength, and mind (Mark 12:30) and must be pursued in every field of study.

Our quality education is reflective of our founders’ vision for developing young scholars who will impact the global community as valuable servants of the Lord. As a Christ-centered institution, Shorter affirms its affiliation with and commitment to the Georgia Baptist Convention.

Educational Principles for Undergraduate Programs
Shorter University provides a curriculum and educational environment that:

-Effectively immerses students in the historical, scientific, and cultural bases for contemporary civilization by combining intellectual discovery with critical thinking.
-Engages students in a discussion of the values that bind together our society in general and the Christian community in particular.
-Ensures that students reach the levels of skill in written and oral communication, mathematics, technology, and information literacy necessary to take full advantage of college coursework and they continue to exercise and enlarge these skills.
-Persuades students of the value of integrating knowledge and forming relationships among courses and between acquired knowledge and new ideas.
-Promotes in students the habit of acting on their responsibilities as members of our society and of the world community.
-Promotes in students the habit of enriching their lives through art and religion.
-Promotes in students the habit of maintaining physical, spiritual and emotional health and well-being.
-Prepares students for careers or further education.
posted by Blasdelb at 5:49 PM on November 2, 2011

Based on what Blasdelb posted, I fail to see how sexual orientation would conflict with that, provided they did not knowingly, publicly, advocate alternate lifestyles to students of the university.
posted by Canageek at 5:52 PM on November 2, 2011

But you seem to be under the impression that my hypothetical questions are intended as part of some sort of defense of Shorter's actions. I assure you that they are not.

Do you mind saying what they are intended as, then? According to your posts, people keep continually misinterpreting your arguments, and perhaps the solution to that is for you to be a bit more explicit with them.
posted by kagredon at 5:58 PM on November 2, 2011

>You know, Canada has a very simple solution to this. Ready? Here it is:

>Universities are not allowed to be religious.

Yeah. Stupid First Amendment.

Uh... I don't think you really "get" the Bill of Rights.
posted by Sys Rq at 6:08 PM on November 2, 2011

Frankly I don't think any legal activity, done outside the workplace, that has no effect on your work, and is not directly harmful to the organization should have an effect on ones employment with them- it really is none of of their business.

But all religious practice is legal. Imagine a guy counseling for the Ethical Society (an atheist organization). Joe Blow counsels atheism during the day, and preaches Baptist at night. A Baptist kid comes in with doubts and is counseled by Joe Blow. Then he sees Joe Blow doing the opposite in his own church.

What is the answer there?
posted by Ironmouth at 6:12 PM on November 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

Do you mind saying what they are intended as, then?

I'll say it again, I guess. I quote myself: "So is your position that there is no conceivable off-site, off-duty conduct that could possibly justify adverse employment action by any employer, religious or not?

Here are four hypotheticals that I hope will illustrate what I'm trying to ask"

Uh... I don't think you really "get" the Bill of Rights.

Can you expand on that? What part of the Bill of Rights do you think I misunderstood by citing the First Amendment in response to the (apparently inaccurate) assertion that Canada, unlike the United States, makes religious schools illegal?

According to your posts, people keep continually misinterpreting your arguments, and perhaps the solution to that is for you to be a bit more explicit with them.

More explicit than explicitly stating it? Perhaps you can help me. How should I have been more explicit than my question "So is your position that there is no conceivable off-site, off-duty conduct that could possibly justify adverse employment action by any employer, religious or not?"
posted by The World Famous at 6:14 PM on November 2, 2011

So is your position that there is no conceivable off-site, off-duty conduct that could possibly justify adverse employment action by any employer, religious or not?

A police officer engaging in fraud. A police officer engaging in an extramarital affair where they are decieving their spouse. Anyone, who has a job requring testimony can't be engaged in serious lying in their personal life.

Of course, legally (sorry) you can totally fire for off duty activity, even when you can only fire for cause.
posted by Ironmouth at 6:23 PM on November 2, 2011

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, your intention was just to argue Canageek's statement, and not the subject of the FPP? If so, then, no, I didn't entirely pick that up on the first go-round. Sometimes it's not that easy to see where an argument thread starts to take on a life separate from the FPP topic.

I wasn't trying to single you out as a True Defender of Shorter's position, either, I meant it more as a "hey, I don't think the FPP example totally jibes with your hypotheticals, and here's why," but I can definitely see where my post would've been read as confrontational; I don't always modulate that as well as I should in written communications, and I apologize.
posted by kagredon at 6:44 PM on November 2, 2011

I have even more problems with the first part of the personal lifestyle statement than I do with the bigotry, given that this institution solicits and redistributes federal funding:
Shorter University will hire persons who are committed Bible believing Christians, who are dedicated to integrating biblical faith in their classes and who are in agreement with the University Statement of Faith. Moreover, employees are expected to be active members of a local church.
This isn't just about firing for off-duty conduct, it's about preferential hiring on the basis of religion, and redefining the scope of work so it's justified and indeed protected under the First Amendment. That is ... rotten. Ugh.
posted by gingerest at 6:50 PM on November 2, 2011

@The World Famous- You missed my correction; Religious universities are allowed, they just don't qualify for Ontario Government funding, and no one else (that I've heard of) has been willing to foot the bill for a full, degree-granting university. (As a fun side effect, you can look up most of your profs salaries, due to Ontario's sunshine list rules). This funding rule has been around since 1868. Either you are open and accepting to everyone, or you get no provincial money.

@Ironmouth: I'm very much aware you can be fired for off duty things. I think that law is wrong, and should be rewritten. Also, several of your examples are illegal, and thus of course that should effect your employment status. I could see an argument for saying that a history of deception impedes ones ability to perform a job requiring testimony, when I clearly stated 'That does not impede ones ability to performed the position under consideration.'

@gingerest: .....You know, someone should really demand they pay overtime for time spent active in the local church.
posted by Canageek at 6:56 PM on November 2, 2011

Can you expand on that? What part of the Bill of Rights do you think I misunderstood[...]?

You seemed to be using the First Amendment in defense of discrimination of a religious nature, which seemed sort of fucked up.

Was that not the case?
posted by Sys Rq at 7:05 PM on November 2, 2011

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, your intention was just to argue Canageek's statement, and not the subject of the FPP?

No. My intention was to ask for clarification and explanation regarding zarq's statement (which is why I quoted zarq's statement immediately before asking my question). And zarq's statement, I believe, was directly on point re: the FPP.

You missed my correction

I not only saw your correction but referenced it in the parenthetical of my statement to Sys Rq. My response to you regarding the First Amendment came before your correction.

I'm very much aware you can be fired for off duty things. I think that law is wrong, and should be rewritten.

In that case, I would posit my hypotheticals above to you, as well. Or I can make up simpler ones:

5. Do you think it should be illegal for a vegetarian restaurant to fire an employee who becomes a meat-eater?

6. If John Edwards were been the president of an organization advocating marital fidelity, do you think it should be illegal for the organization to fire him when it discovered that he had been having an extramarital affair?

You seemed to be using the First Amendment in defense of discrimination of a religious nature, which seemed sort of fucked up.

I was pointing out that the First Amendment, by way of the Free Exercise Clause, prevents the United States government from making it illegal for religious schools to exist.
posted by The World Famous at 7:10 PM on November 2, 2011

Sorry about the editing-related typos
posted by The World Famous at 7:14 PM on November 2, 2011

5. Of course, as long as he didn't eat meat at work, and didn't arrive at work smelling of meat.

6. No, since he has inhibited his ability to represent the organization, and thus his ability to do his job. (I have no idea who John Edwards is by the way)
posted by Canageek at 7:27 PM on November 2, 2011

Why is homosexuality so much worse than anything else in the Bible?

1.) Ick factor. Most straight men don't want to think about that thing that gay men do, which is why you don't hear lesbianism condemned quite so much or with such vehemence; what lesbians do in the bedroom isn't so threatening and in fact is a bit....exciting.

2.) You want to thump a Bible but don't want to alienate your audience-- condemn some action that they would never consider. That gets them all riled up against The Other and leaves them smug in their own sanctimony: "I may have cheated on my wife and stolen from my business, but I have never committed the sin of being homosexual!"

I've tried to do a bit of googling on this, and I think Southern Baptists celebrate communion - is that right? So does one of their policies prevent their employees from celebrating the Eucharist in public?

Methodists, Baptists, and many other Protestant churches in America use grape juice rather than wine during communion.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:41 PM on November 2, 2011 [1 favorite]

6. No, since he has inhibited his ability to represent the organization, and thus his ability to do his job. (I have no idea who John Edwards is by the way)

By that rationale, do you also think that it should be legal for an anti-gay-rights organization to fire a high-ranking official who is discovered to be having a same-sex affair?
posted by The World Famous at 7:43 PM on November 2, 2011

@The World Famous: Only if they are in a public position- PR spokesmen, CEO, stuff like that. Someone who's name & conduct reflects on the company. Also: I could see lawsuits if similar levels of offences were not punished in the same manner. i.e. if BP was a church, minor PR spokesperson has an affair, gets fired, but CEO isn't for his "I want my life back" comment, that would be illegal, as it can be clearly demonstrated that an action doing more to tarnish the name of the company was not punished. However, if the CEO was sacked, as was everyone else that so much as got a fingerprint on the company name, sure, you are treating everyone equally. Equally badly, but equal.
posted by Canageek at 8:08 PM on November 2, 2011

Someone who's name & conduct reflects on the company.

How far down in a company do you go before you get to someone whose name and conduct do not reflect on the company?
posted by The World Famous at 8:20 PM on November 2, 2011

Let me elaborate. Upthread, someone said "if my expereince with inexpert but enthusastic fellatio from byu students is any indicaiton, gay sex will still happen all the time at shorter." Does the conduct of those students not reflect in any way on BYU?

Only in the sense that saying "Don't be gay," never made anyone straight. If BYU were telling all of its students "Don't be gay," (N.B. I'm not implying that BYU does, I don't know what policy they take) then I would think BYU was being a bit foolish, but that's because the message is flawed, not the students.
posted by kagredon at 8:28 PM on November 2, 2011

Oh, and I should add, because I think that's what you were asking: The mistake that hypothetical-BYU (so named because, again, I'm not basing my statements on any of BYU's actual policy, but on the parameters of this hypothetical) is making isn't allowing the students to attend, it's deciding that their mission includes enforcing a prohibition something that is an inherent part of a significant minority of the human population.
posted by kagredon at 8:33 PM on November 2, 2011

What I was asking was how far down the chain of command in an organization Canageek's "Someone who's name & conduct reflects on the company" test goes. The BYU example was an illustration of the fact that even students at a university - who are in many respects less connected to an institution than even its employees - can engage in conduct that reflects on the university.

The mistake that hypothetical-BYU (so named because, again, I'm not basing my statements on any of BYU's actual policy, but on the parameters of this hypothetical) is making isn't allowing the students to attend, it's deciding that their mission includes enforcing a prohibition something that is an inherent part of a significant minority of the human population.

As far as I am aware, BYU does not have a policy against being gay. It does have a policy regarding conduct that would prohibit its students from engaging in the conduct described by PinkMoose.
posted by The World Famous at 8:49 PM on November 2, 2011

The BYU example was an illustration of the fact that even students at a university - who are in many respects less connected to an institution than even its employees - can engage in conduct that reflects on the university.

The point I was trying to make is that I don't agree with you that your example illustrates what you said it does--because I see this as a reflection of faulty policy, not of bad conduct by students tarnishing the university.
posted by kagredon at 9:05 PM on November 2, 2011

The policy is based on the core religious principles upon which the university is founded. If the conduct of the students or employees reflects badly on the policy, it reflects badly on the institution, however accurate that bad reflection may be. And that goes to my question regarding the notion that termination of employment is OK if it is based on an employee engaging in conduct that reflects negatively on the employer.

But it doesn't really matter whether or not you agree with the example I gave in order to help canageek to understand my question.
posted by The World Famous at 9:12 PM on November 2, 2011

Outside of all of this, I cannot fathom what it would be like to work for an organization that wants to control or ferret out details of your life as much as this one does.
posted by lesbiassparrow at 9:40 PM on November 2, 2011

@The World Famous: As soon as it is not your job to deal with the public. So a spokesperson who trades on their name to meet with clients does represent the company, a manager does not.
posted by Canageek at 6:24 AM on November 3, 2011

Doesn't a manager trade on their name and reputation as part of managing other employees? For example, wouldn't the fact that someone rides a motorcycle regularly without a helmet (not at work) adversely affect their ability to be an effective manager at an organization whose mission is to advocate for helmet laws and helmet use among motorcyclists, if the manager's subordinates knew that the manager's personal off-duty conduct was directly contrary to the mission of their employer?

Why draw the line at client, customer, or public relations?
posted by The World Famous at 9:16 AM on November 3, 2011

I'm very much aware you can be fired for off duty things. I think that law is wrong, and should be rewritten.

A number of US states do have statutes prohibiting discrimination based on legal activities an individual participates in outside of work, though some are specific to smoking and many appear to be a reaction to companies' goal of reducing health care costs.

I assume, though, that those laws would be preempted by religious institutions' ability to prefer members of their own faith (actively observing its rules?).
posted by Pax at 10:16 AM on November 3, 2011

All government funding for these jerks needs to stop NOW.

Since they've made their stance on this later, rather than sooner at hiring, they should be forced to compensate for any one being forced out of their jobs. Let them pay a stiff severance fee--like ten years worth of pay, then we'll see what wins out, money or their moral sensibilities. I'm betting for the money.

Giant bigoted assholes.
posted by BlueHorse at 10:41 AM on November 3, 2011

@The World Famous: To be honest, I've never really understood managers. Got to be honest there. Don't they just organize things? You work on X, you work on Y, cut finding to Z since it isn't going anywhere? There is a reason I prefer science to dealing with people.

It would be possible for managers; I think that it would be better to leave it at 'impairs ability to preform job' and then let an independent jury or tribunal decide what counts. Something along the lines of the Ontario Human Rights commission. You are never going to be able to define each and every possible job. I don't see why a manager wouldn't be able to organize things --You see CEOs jump industries all the time, since they are more about dealing with numbers and processes then the actual product. I could be wrong on that, but given how obviously broken the system is now, as defined by the fact that you can currently be fired for being gay.
posted by Canageek at 2:48 PM on November 3, 2011

I have a family member that works for them that is already planning for what to do in Jan when she refuses to sign and loses her job. She is in her early 60's and the prospect of having to find a new job at her age is really frighting after having worked at the same place for the last 10 years. The really sad thing about this is that she ISN'T gay, doesn't drink or do drugs, is 25 years married, and goes to church pretty regular like, basically she lives a life that would actually conform to the statement, (except maybe the drinking part, but never at or around school functions) but she will not sign it since she disagrees so strongly with forcing good people to give up their jobs because of bigotry and hate.
posted by jutepanama at 2:52 PM on November 3, 2011 [2 favorites]

this level of biological determinism always makes me feel a little uncomfortable, we make choices about sexuality, what we do and what we dont do, all the time, and i am with vidal on this one, that sexuality as identity is about the construction of actions.

This argument (which is 100% bullshit based on my history, as a gay man I mean) would be so much more palatable if I ever once heard a self-identified heterosexual male make it.
posted by ethnomethodologist at 3:42 PM on November 3, 2011

jutepanama, your family member sounds like a courageous and principled person, and I hope she finds something good (or the college reverses course when they realize they're going to be losing people like her.)
posted by kagredon at 7:18 PM on November 3, 2011

« Older The Grand Theft Auto V trailer is out.... | Brown Owls Display Remarkable ... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

I, _____________ ,am not gay; I never have been gay. November 2, 2011 9:21 AM Subscribe

I, _____________ ,am not gay; I never have been gay.
November 2, 2011 9:21 AM Subscribe