Pot calling Kettle black!

The student teacher has a point , it is discrimination .
As for teachers having to share the religious views of the school .... rubbish .
There is a woman I work with at the moment, she does maths and science , the school is church owned and church run , she is a muslim . Does her religion mean she cannot teach those subjects in a Christian school ? The only time religion even comes up at all in those classes is when they do the Angelus at noon .
She also wears the hijab , does choosing to wear that impact on her ability to teach ? If it deos then what of those of the nuns who still choose to have their heads covered , does their attire impact on their teaching?

As for that second story thats simple isn't it , if you tell people that when you demolish their facilities you are going to replace them then of course you are going to get protests when you don't replace them .

[UnderseaLcpl]

It's a private institution, they should be able to hire whoever they want.

It's a private institution, they should be able to hire whoever they want.

It is a business and it has employees , so they have to follow the laws that regulate business and employment .
It was their choice to start a business , so it is their responsibility to fellow the laws .

[Digital_Trucker]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

It is a business and it has employees , so they have to follow the laws that regulate business and employment .
It was their choice to start a business , so it is their responsibility to fellow the laws .

And what are the laws, pray tell? Is a Christian School (or any school, for that matter) a business?

Is a Christian School (or any school, for that matter) a business?

Of course it is a business , it has income , a board of directors and publishes accounts and tax returns , it recieves money from its customers for the service it provides (though as it is Australia it also gets much of its income directly from the government for providing the service that the government would otherwise have to provide)

[SteamWake]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Of course it is a business , it has income , a board of directors and publishes accounts and tax returns , it recieves money from its customers for the service it provides (though as it is Australia it also gets much of its income directly from the government for providing the service that the government would otherwise have to provide)

Yea... see ... thats what happens when you appoach the subject with the view point that the buisness are beholding to the goverment and not the other way around.

[Kapt Z]

Originally Posted by Digital_Trucker

And what are the laws, pray tell? Is a Christian School (or any school, for that matter) a business?

They may not be a 'business' in the true sense of the word, but they are definately a 'employer'. Does the janitorial and cafeteria staff have to be Christians as well?

It just seems very shortsighted for the school to take such a stance on a teacher who intended to teach basically secular courses. I mean is there a different way to teach math and French from a Christian vs Muslim perspective?

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

It is a business and it has employees , so they have to follow the laws that regulate business and employment .
It was their choice to start a business , so it is their responsibility to follow the laws .

Technically, that is arguable, but that wasn't really my point. Don't you ever question laws? Assuming that a job candidate meets the requirements to work (and be taxed) in that country, why should the state dictate who can and cannot be hired? Is that more productive? Does it ease conflict along racial or religious or gender lines? Experience in the U.S. says no.

Let us suppose that you had a school based upon some particular belief structure (even if it is simply secular). Parents send their children to your school because they like the curriculum. Suddenly, some diametrically opposed applicant shows up. Perhaps they are qualified, or perhaps they are not.
What do you do? If you hire this person, how do you explain it to your students' parents?

[AVGWarhawk]

School, business or whatever one could call it, is she the most qualified applicant? If not, then the position goes to the person that is the most qualified. What, is the affirmative action now applying to Muslims?

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

It is a business and it has employees , so they have to follow the laws that regulate business and employment .
It was their choice to start a business , so it is their responsibility to fellow the laws .

When they hire models that are great looking over those that are ugly, is it not along the same lines? They are simply discriminating based on looks in this case instead of religion. Get used to it, or you will be buying your bar soap from ugly fat woman commercials.

-S

[AVGWarhawk]

Yes, it is like the man who sued Hooters because, well , the name of the restaurant is after all Hooters and they did not hire men. If I go to Hooters I want to see, well, hooters. Not some guy named Biff.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Yes, it is like the man who sued Hooters because, well , the name of the restaurant is after all Hooters and they did not hire men. If I go to Hooters I want to see, well, hooters. Not some guy named Biff.

HEY MCFLY!! YOU READY TO ORDER?!

[Kapt Z]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Technically, that is arguable, but that wasn't really my point. Don't you ever question laws? Assuming that a job candidate meets the requirements to work (and be taxed) in that country, why should the state dictate who can and cannot be hired? Is that more productive? Does it ease conflict along racial or religious or gender lines? Experience in the U.S. says no.

Let us suppose that you had a school based upon some particular belief structure (even if it is simply secular). Parents send their children to your school because they like the curriculum. Suddenly, some diametrically opposed applicant shows up. Perhaps they are qualified, or perhaps they are not.
What do you do? If you hire this person, how do you explain it to your students' parents?

So equality of opportunity for ALL is actually a bad idea? How did that happen? Maybe I'm just a naive optimist, but I do like to think things are a little better between the races, genders, and religions than they were when my folks were kids. They thought so. I do think the 'state'(meaning us) helped with that.

As a principal of whatever school I would tell the parents the same thing-

"Mr/Ms was the best qualified candidate in our judgement to teach these courses."

Really, what else would you say?

[AVGWarhawk]

Let me back peddle if I may. Since the school is considered a business in this thread, hiring the women is potential to losing customers(students). This is a paying school. Parents send the kids there for a particular education and foundation of the Christian faith. The did not pay good hard cash to have a Muslim teach their children. So having the potentional to lose customers over this she was not hired.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Kapt Z

So equality of opportunity for ALL is actually a bad idea? How did that happen?

No, I think it's a great idea. So is Communism. Neither can exist, though. The closest you can ever get to equal opportunity is maximization of individual freedoms. The second the state steps in and says you must or must not hire/train/educate/trade with/etc... this person, equality of opportunity gives way to equality of outcome.

Maybe I'm just a naive optimist, but I do like to think things are a little better between the races, genders, and religions than they were when my folks were kids. They thought so. I do think the 'state'(meaning us) helped with that.

That's possible, and is a difficult point to argue either way. The one thing I will give the state credit for is preventing the state from discriminating, more or less. In that way, the state expanded individual freedoms.

As a principal of whatever school I would tell the parents the same thing-
"Mr/Ms was the best qualified candidate in our judgement to teach these courses."
Really, what else would you say?

You're looking at it backwards. Demand, and therefore capital, flows from the consumer. A business must meet consumer expectations if it is to continue. As a private school, a Catholic school is vulnerable to competition, whether it recieves state funding or not. If it fails to satisfy the consumers, it ceases to exsist.
You seem to have a top-down perspective, in which what seems to be the most efficient choice is apparent. It would seem more "fair" to hire this teacher, and should she indeed prove to be the most qualified, she would appear to be the wisest choice. Unfortunately, that isn't how it works. In this particular instance, selecting a Muslim teacher would almost certainly cause drastic repurcussions amongst the school's consumer base, resulting in the loss of customers. Consider the nature of religion, and tell me that parents would not withdraw their children over such a slight.

The alternative is to mandate hiring policies and curricula in all schools. This, though, creates an even worse set of harms. Whereas fallacious religious or personal convictions about school selection may harm some students, a fallacious state policy on education harms all students and their parents have no choice in where they are schooled, no escape.
The U.S. itself is a shining example of the failure of state-monopolized education, for reasons I am sure you are quite familiar with.

In this case, or in any other, the goal should be to provide individuals with the freedom to choose, (even if they choose poorly) whilst preserving the individual rights of others. That means choice in employees, wages, consumer demographics, etc.. for all industries. That results in choice for consumers and employees.
It can be argued that that business can also create a monopoly, but to give power to the state is to simply skip everything and willingly create a monopoly right away. Contrary to your assessment, the state is not us. You don't have a vote, and though you technically have a voice, it is very, very faint. In a best-case scenario, you are subject to the tyranny of the masses, and in the worst case you just get tyranny.

Never confuse Equality of Opportunity with Equality of Outcome.