SilverBear wrote
The law is clear that everyone, even people you don't happen to like, have the same rights and legal protections that you enjoy.
If Israel obeyed God, then it's laws would have been fairly applied. The man who lay with a man as one does with a woman would be put to death, whether he was rich or poor, light-skinned or dark skinned.
Places like Georgia and Utah had equal marriage rights before the SCOTUS made a mockery of the constitution and decided that 'due process' redefined what 'marriage' had meant for ages. If a man who had same sex attraction, he had just as much right to marry a legally available woman, legally, as a man who did not. Women who had same sex attraction had the same legal rights to marry a man as a woman who did not. The issue was never equal protection under the law. It was one of pushing a social agenda, trying to redefine what God has defined, and seeking social acceptance of sexual perversion in rebellion against God.
But on the day of judgment, those who rebel against God will be judged according to God's standards, and not given a free pass based on a left-wing dystopic idea of equality.
Anti-dscrimination laws are way too intrustive. Why can't someone own a busineswith 20 employess and hire only Christians?
Because if that business owner is hiring based on an applicant's religion then s/he is engaging in discrimination.
The issue I am addressing is what is right, not what is US law. That's illegal in the US unless the organization is a religious organization. But why is that the case?
Religions discrimination is not, in every case, immoral. Illegal does not equal immoral, not when we are talking about man's laws.
Churches do not have to consider Hindus for pastors, fortunately, because of the bill of rights. But what about some of the new models for business, like social investing? Some of these organize as corporations. It makes sense to allow businesses that have a religious focus that are organized as something other than non-profits or churches. Anti-discrimination laws are too overreaching.
I heard about a young person, probably a college students, who put up an ad looking for a Christian roommate. The local housing authority went after her for violating some discrimination code. Apparently, they say you aren't allowed to discriminate in regard to who shares your actual living space.
No, you aren't allowed.
I am sure you think yourself terribly clever relying on a homonym to conflate the prejudicial or disadvantageous treatment of an individual based on his or her status as a minority with the ability to judge well and fairly. But you are not.
So how about addressing the issue rather than playing word games?
It took me a while to try to figure out what in the world you are talking about. I suspect you mean 'discriminate.' No, I meant that in the same way. In that area, you aren't allowed to discriminate on who lives in your own house based on their beliefs or practices. That's insane, and it is not a free society. This is also an example of how anti-discrimination laws can infringe on rights protected in the constitution. Some of the more conservative orthodox Jews try to stay ritually clean, and living with pork-eating Gentiles is going to lead to some religious issues for them. I wouldn't want someone sacrificing chickens to Satan or something like that in the living room or the bathroom where I live.
When an employer doesn't hire anyone with less than a B average, that's discrimination based on grades. It's the same word used to apply to discrimination based on race. Discrimination is discrimination. Some types of discrimination are legally protected and others are not. I heard an undergraduate law lecture recently that made the same point.
If someone did not like me because of my race, I'd want them to discriminate against me so I couldn't room with them, at least in a situation where there is an open market with other housing options with people who are not racists I'd want that.