Catholic Charities Issue

[RLCyr at aol.com]

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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20060323/c09e4103/attachment.htm