“Discrimination” is often perfectly valid

The Gillard Labor government has drawn very considerable fire recently from many sections of the community concerned about proposed laws to overhaul, and, it’s claimed, “simplify” Australia’s current “anti-discrimination” laws. Some believe these proposed reforms may resemble a “secular version of the Spanish Inquisition”.

But despite this, a small beacon of light has emerged in that the Gillard Labor government has decided to continue allowing exemptions for religious organisations when it comes to choosing their employees. Perhaps inevitably, this has brought howls of disappointment from many political “progressives”, many of whom seem increasingly inclined to impose their own values on anyone who may see things a little differently to themselves.

Foremost in their minds was the hope that religious organisations would no longer be able to “discriminate” against homosexuals (or bisexuals) when it came to employment. Leading the charge was the militant “Gay” activist lobby, whose support, of course, comes mostly from “progressive”-minded heterosexuals, not homosexuals. The ultra-progressive Australian Greens (perhaps better renamed the Watermelons), were also vocal in calling for Gillard to remove the exemptions.

Underlying this mindset is the dogmatic conviction held by many “progressives” that homosexuals are an incredibly precious and important minority group, and that no-one, regardless of religious or philosophical views, has any right to object to their behaviour or lifestyle.

Because of all the political propaganda, “discrimination” is a completely loaded term. The issue has been tried, judged and sentence passed BEFORE the issue has even been discussed. Like a few other terms (“racism”, “sexism”, “equality”, “prejudice”, and “homophobia”), it is used as part of a linguistic “lynch-mob” mentality, and as a psychological weapon to intimidate any opposition to “progressive” agendas.

Yet it can be demonstrated by any thinking person’s analysis, that in reality, “discrimination” is RIFE in our society and is often PERFECTLY VALID.

Frequently our society discriminates on the basis of gender, age, weight, mental or physical abilities, religion, lifestyle, values and various other criteria. Therefore there may be times when it is perfectly valid to “discriminate” against any group, depending on the circumstances. The morality of any situation is always dependent on circumstances.

For example, there are a range of views on homosexuality; however, people are entitled to their own personal views and to their own religious convictions, regardless of whether those views be favourable, neutral, or unfavourable. We should not call for “open slather” on homosexuals, just that there be common sense and balance applied, rather than dogmatism and extremism when it comes to the issue of “discrimination”.

Anti-discrimination laws are often not about “equality” at all. Rather, they are about making some groups MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS. And there can be no doubt that two of the greatest beneficiaries are homosexuals and ethnic minorities especially. This is due to the influence of Cultural Marxism that views the world in terms of “victims” and “oppressors” and seeks to vigorously protect the perceived group interests of its own highly-favoured “victim groups”. And because they have gained so much mileage out of it, the militant “Gay” activist lobby is very keen to continue to portray homosexuals as “victims”. Yet many would argue that in today’s politically correct day and age, that it is the politically correct, or Cultural Marxists, who are acting as the persecutors, supposedly on behalf of their favourite “victim groups”.

Other groups are certainly not treated so favourably when it comes to anti-discrimination laws. Smokers, in particular, are nowadays subjected to all kinds of “discrimination”, and it’s usually ENCOURAGED AND PERPETRATED by government! Bikies are another group who governments have a particular dislike for and are increasingly passing laws “discriminating” AGAINST them.

The desire religious groups may have to have their employees reflect the culture and values of their organisations hardly seems unreasonable. Just as some of these would find it inappropriate to employ people who are openly homosexual, it would not seem unreasonable that a Jewish group would want to refuse employment to a skinhead with a swastika tattoo, and a Muslim organisation probably isn’t going to want to employ a member of the Q Society; conversely, a group promoting the pork industry probably isn’t going to want to employ too many Jews or Muslims as spokesmen. And a group promoting the beef industry probably isn’t going to want to employ too many avid vegans or devout Hindus.

Many organisations in fact have selection preferences for employees to share the culture and beliefs of the organisation. Environmental organisations would probably prefer not to employ someone supportive of the nuclear industry or logging in old growth forests. “Quit smoking” groups probably don’t really want to employ smokers, or tobacco farmers. And schools, kindergartens and childcare centres are probably not going to want to employ someone with a history of child abuse or who wants to legalise pedophilia.

Of course, some industries are highly discriminatory when it comes to selecting employees. The music industry doesn’t seem to promote many new artists over the age of forty. Modeling and advertising agencies certainly don’t seem to employ too many midgets or obese people. There’s even been complaints that they prefer some racial groups over others! Yet it is broadly accepted that such organisations have every right to act in their own perceived best interests, and hence to be just as “discriminating” as they like.

A great many organisations insist on their employees wearing uniforms or signing “codes of conduct” to reflect the values of their employer. Professional football organisations are very strong on assuring that their players not be seen to be misrepresenting or damaging the public image of their sport in general or their club in particular. All of this is a reflection of how society broadly accepts that organisations have a right to ask that their employees reflect the culture and values of their employers.

This is also prevalent in the various dress codes that businesses, companies, public services and organisations may apply to their members, employees, and/or customers. Visible tattoos, long hair, long beards, male cross-dressers, facial piercings, scruffy hair or clothes, hair dye and other such things may be banned because the business or organisation may desire to have its members, employees, and/or customers reflect the culture and values of that particular business or organisation. This is all unquestionably “discrimination”, yet society is usually perfectly comfortable with it.

And political parties, discriminate too, of course. They insist that members uphold the values of the party. Which would seem to be a “no-brainer”.

These are all examples of how organisations commonly “discriminate” in various and numerous ways to reflect the values and culture of those particular groups.

And yet if any organisation ever seeks to exclude open homosexuals, no matter what the circumstances, howls of outrage will ensue from the legion of politically correct types thoroughly convinced that no individual or group is entitled to have anything other than a completely favourable attitude towards homosexuality. And no quarter will be given. This dictatorial attitude epitomises the degree of politically correct brainwashing in our society, as well as the sheer arrogance and intolerance of so-called “progressives”.

The notion that homosexuals are a “marginalised” or “persecuted” minority group is once again exposed as a nonsense, when in fact the reality is the exact opposite. The influence of Cultural Marxism (political correctness) instead sees homosexuals placed on a very high pedestal, being deemed as too precious to ever be “discriminated” against, no matter what the circumstances. And hence in today’s politically correct day and age, homosexuals actually enjoy a very privileged status. And, of course, a plethora of state and federal “anti-discrimination” laws reflect this. The personal values, or religious views of business owners, landlords, military personnel, fellow sportspeople, etc. must all be compromised to accommodate this particularly precious minority group. Property rights or any concerns about potential loss of revenue must all be compromised also. Because to the politically correct Cultural Marxists, no-one is more important than homosexuals. Well, except maybe ethnic minorities – that other highly favoured “victim” category.

Of course, many “progressives” have the goal of “changing society’s attitudes” to homosexuality in mind, which is their prerogative, but let them do so in the open court of public opinion, NOT by abusing the power of the law to enforce, impose and intimidate those whose values may differ. To do so may unfairly deny other people THEIR rights, such as their freedom of religion.

One issue that was in contention for many years was the issue of open homosexuals serving in the military. The arguments against were perfectly valid. Military commanders felt strongly that the presence of open homosexuals would compromise the morale of military units, whilst many ordinary servicemen did not like the idea of potentially having to shower with homosexuals or to live in close quarters with them in a potentially highly-stressed environment. Undoubtedly, any anonymous surveys of military personnel would have revealed very strong objections. Even today, homosexual advocates say witch-hunts and harassment of serving members is common. Hence, there was a valid group interest and national interest in excluding open homosexuals. But these factors were simply not important to the zealots of political correctness, who insisted that open homosexuals had some kind of unalienable “right” to serve in the military, and that it would be just “hard cheese” for anyone who didn’t agree with it.

Yet no one argues for any “right” for midgets, the physically unfit, or the visually impaired to serve in the military. Rather, it’s accepted that their presence in the armed forces would be a burden on the group and therefore contrary to the interests of both the military and, by extension, the nation as a whole. And therefore to “discriminate” against these groups would hence be perfectly valid, as “discrimination” often is.

So why not “discrimination” against homosexuals in some situations? Shouldn’t religious bodies have the right to choose not to employ people whose practices and/or public affiliations are felt to be in direct conflict with an organisation’s morality and religion?

In reality, society picks and chooses when it comes to “discrimination” and for many years now homosexuals have been getting a particularly good deal. But it’s never enough for the dogmatic mindset of the intolerant politically correct zealots who do not seem to understand the need for limits.

References:
“Schools practise what they preach”, The Age, 17 January 2013 (Kevin Donnelly)
“Christian lobby can’t set policy: Greens”, The Australian, 16 January 2013 (AAP)
“Collective Bargaining Agreement”, AFL Players Association
“Macy Gray talks age discrimination in the music business”, Brown Sista, 11 June 2010
“The musical cut off: Age discrimination in the music industry”, 1888 Articles
“Height discrimination rampant in the modeling industry”, Yahoo! Voices, 31 December 2007 (Jillita Horton)
“Modelling agency denies racism claims”, The Sydney Morning Herald, 16 March 2011 (Lucy Rickard)
“Dress Code Australia”, Job Search Australia
“LGBT rights in Australia”, Wikipedia
“Mateship lost for gays in the military”, 14 April 2011 (Senthorun Raj)
“Twenty years on, great strides for full inclusion in the military”, The Sydney Morning Herald, 13 May 2012 (Cosima Marriner)
“Medical & Fitness Requirements”, Defence Jobs (Department of Defence and Manpower Services, Australia)
“Portia was way off course with women only interviews”, The Punch, 23 November 2010 (David Koch)
“Anti-discrimination legal moves a clear lesson in the perils of overkill”, The Sydney Morning Herald, 30 January 2013 (Nicholas Tonti-Filippini)