|
Ed wrote:
>But I don't think that gay liberation requires forcing churches and
religious organizations to >change either their personal beliefs or their
actions *within the confines of those >organizations*.... We certainly
want to prevent such people from imposing their
>beliefs on the private behavior of gays (and the rest of us, in a wide
range of other ways as >well); but we undermine our principled position if we
then seek to have government impose >restrictions on their private behavior
(as opposed to the laws they advocate).
Ed's post has helped put some thoughts in order for me.
It's my impression that conservative religionists are concerned that
secular recognition of gay marriage and other rights would force them to
acknowledge and condone relationships that they believe are morally wrong.
Perhaps this is true -- but it's not the first time that's happened. It's
taken me several days to come up with a similar situation, but I finally
have. People have been using interracial marriage as a comparison -- I've
come up with one that's much more straightforward: equal treatment of
women.
There were, and I believe still are, some very conservative sects (the ones
I'm the most familiar with are Jewish, having spent many years living and
working in NYC) that believe that women should not act or be treated in ways
that are equal to men. Even more mainstream sects believe that
interactions between men and women should be very strictly restricted.
I have no doubt that Title VII led to some very heated discussions among
those adherents. If they wanted to run a business of any substantial
size (and therefore profitability), they would be forced not only to hire women,
but to hire women who most likely did not conform to their standards of proper
dress for women. They would be forced to interact with women at other
companies. They would undoubtedly face situations where female strangers
would expect to shake hands with them. All in all, it was undoubtedly
a great change from what they were used to.
Over the years, though, they've adapted. Yes, some of their
adaptation has been to form more insular communities and neighborhoods, so they
can limit their interactions with "the outside world" to some extent. But
others have simply gotten used to the new way of things. Yes, I'm sure
(albeit without proof) that some discrimination is happening -- or at least
discouagement of people who don't "fit" from continuing in the hiring process --
but it's on a very small scale.
The religious sects survived, the people practicing them adapted, and women
play a greater role in the marketplace than they did 40 years ago. And
today, I don't hear anyone screaming (in the US at least) that forcing employers
to treat women equally trod on the rights of religious groups and prevented them
from living according to their convictions.
-Renee
|
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
