This topic of discrimination always gets my mind going because people ignore its healthy role. People equate racial discrimination with all sorts of discrimination. The ability for any organization to set itself apart, and I mean absolutely any organization, is to hire those people that not just need a job but actually are hired for their ability to support the goals and vision of the organization.
Make up your mind, Adam.... previously you said:
Postscript: Due to the size of the creation museum, I suspect that many roles will be filled by people who don't agree with the overall mission statement of AiG. People working in gift shops, ticketing, etc...
Some positions will need hard workers that know how to do their jobs whether they agree or not.
So, should the requirement be "hard workers that know how to do their jobs whether they agree or not" or should it be only those who are able "to support the goals and vision of the organization"?
Remember, I have repeatedly pointed out there are jobs for which an "ability to support the goals and vision of the organization" is a perfectly legitimate job requirement and there are other jobs such as "working in gift shops, ticketing, etc...." for which such a requirement is not valid.
The NFL has a very discriminatory hiring practice. Due to that practice all players are men and many are African for their physical strength and agility.
The NFL has one job requirement for players.... that they be able to play football at the highest level. That is a legitimate job requirement. For some reason, I don't think a 100 pound, 60 year old woman is likely to be very successful as a lineman in the NFL.
Hooters wants an environment where large breasted attractive women serve food. Very discriminatory.
Hooters also hires men to serve food. The market place does a lot more to sort out the staff at Hooters as the "large breasted attractive women" get much larger tips. But that's discrimination on the part of the customer, not the business.
Jockeys are hired to be light weight and strong. Should a class action law suit be awarded to over weight middle-aged men?
Jockeys are hired for one reason only..... to ride horses really fast..... many of them are middle-aged and a significant number are women. If that overweight man can show the horse will run just as fast with a 300 pounder in the saddle as it will with the 110 pound jockey then he has a case.
So AiG is stringent on their hiring practices to make sure people realize that their activity and success is predicated on a very specific biblical belief. Good for them..
What about those jobs for which their Biblical belief doesn't matter?
Previously you indicated there were jobs that would fit in that category. I listed 8 of 13 positions offered by AIG/Creationist Museum for which belief in YEC has no relevance at all to the ability of someone to do the job... yet AIG maintains their religious requirement for such positions.
I've acknowledged AIG's right, as a religious ministry that is not keeping government taxes to do so. That's the difference... at AE, AIG will be keeping tax money that has been collected for the state of Kentucky.
Companies that do precision manufacturing and engineering are also looking for a very specific demographic. People who are good at spacial/abstract reasoning, problem solving and math. It's very discriminatory. Companies will provide preliminary tests to reject people who display an average or lower skill to perceive nuances in their environment and problem solving.
Right.... they look for people who can do the job. Nothing wrong with that.
Pi, I'm not providing a straw man. I'm demonstrating that "discrimination", as what it's morphed into in recent years, is a perverted rubber ruler that gets implemented by the well-meaning then it dies the death of a thousand qualifications as practice and reason rejects it.
You absolutely positively set up a straw man. Here it is:
Pi's comment is ludicrous isn't it? Next he'll advocate that Christian churches must hire Muslims for ministers.
Nowhere have I ever suggested religious ministries can't discriminate in their hiring for their religious positions. I've even clearly stated there are some positions for which a religious test would be entirely appropriate.
Then you go on to point out there are jobs that people can do without agreeing to AIG's mission statement.... which is my whole point.
Then you added a whole list of other straw man arguments..... NFL players.... Hooters waitresses.... horse racing jockeys ..... precisions manufacturing and engineering ... and how those employers discriminate.... ENTIRELY on the ability of the employment candidate to do the job.