Religious institutions and religious employers should be allowed to hire based on their views

Thank you for accepting the challenge. I would like to address your response to my statement that religious beliefs are grounds to discriminate for leadership positions. You seem to agree with the idea but disagree with the specific statement. I'd like to address that. From a governmental standpoint, you are allowed to discriminate on the basis of qualifications for the job. However, the government cannot qualify what "having a relationship with God" consists of, and therefore could not allow that to be the sole reason for why someone is not qualified for a job. If a man attended seminary, is knowledgable in the Bible, and has led a morally upright life from a Christian perspective, he may be qualified for a specific pastoral job. If this same man converted to Islam the day before, he is no longer qualified. The government cannot look at those two men and say that one has a better relationship with God than the other. The only difference the government sees in them is that they are of different religions, and this is more than enough reason to allow a church to hire based on those men's religion. While I agree that in the eyes of most there is some additional level of insight that is desired for teaching or leadership positions, from the government's perspective, the difference the government sees is one of religion, and they should allow decisions to be made based on that element. Now to focus on non-leadership and non-teaching positions. Religious institutions teach a certain doctrine. They tell their listeners to behave according to that doctrine. They teach that what is within that doctrine is right, and what is outside of it is wrong. The government cannot tell a religious institution to act differently than they believe. That infringes on their first amendment rights. If the government tells a religious institution to hire 'x' type of person, despite the fact that the institution believes doing 'x' is wrong, the government is essentially telling the institution that the government disagrees with their believes and they must act according to what the government believes, not what they believe. This is setting one religion lower than another and infringes on the first amendment. Additionally, many religions only want members of their faith in certain areas of their buildings. I may be wrong here, but to my knowledge, there are parts of Jewish synagogues and Muslim mosques that are typically off-limits to people who are not of their religion. They should not have to break a tenant of their religion such as this simply because repairs are needed and the government does not allow you to choose their handymen based on religion. The point that Christians should be accepting according to their own beliefs is true. However, that does not mean they should be legally forced to hire people they disagree with. If you work for a church, you are an example of it. People will expect certain things of you and will make judgements on the church as a whole based on how you act. Therefore, a church or any religious institution should be allowed to hire based on the image that a potential employee will give to their institution. Now I will focus on employers being allowed to discriminate based on religious beliefs, personal opinion, and/or behavior. There are several cases for which I will argue that a company should be allowed to discriminate on these bases, but I will first acknowledge that there are many cases in which they should not. I am not arguing that if an employer, meaning the person doing the employing, is religious then these exceptions should be in place. I am arguing if the company, as a whole, is religious, then these exceptions should. I am not saying that large corporations, such as Walmart, should be allowed to discriminate on these bases. Typically, the companies for which I am arguing will be smaller, community-centric companies. The first argument I make is that of image. A company's success relies heavily on the image the company portrays. Let's say you are Muslim and you run a restaurant. You are an outstanding member of your local Muslim community. You follow the five pillars. You are known as being a deeply religious man. This standard of religious excellence you have brought to your restaurant. People know it as being a Muslim-friendly place. Muslims come from all around to eat at your restaurant. They come because the food is good, but they primarily come in order to support a restaurant that represents and agrees with their beliefs. As a result, business has increased and you are looking to hire a new employee. You have one opening and two candidates. One is far more qualified than the other, but he is Jewish (both in belief and ethnicity) and vehemently disagrees with Islam. If you are not allowed to use religion as a basis for your hiring practices, you hire the Jewish one. As a result, your restaurant is no longer viewed as a outstanding place exemplifying Muslim beliefs. Now it is simply a restaurant. Your image is tarnished. People still come to it, because the food is good, but you have lost a lot of clientele because you are no longer viewed how you once were. It is in cases like this that I argue religion and/or personal beliefs and/or behaviors should be allowed to discriminate by. I'd also argue for cases in which a company is inherently religious. Christian bookstores, private religiously-affiliated schools, that type of thing. These places focus on their religion as their defining aspect, and so for the same reasons I gave in saying that religious institutions should be allowed to make decisions, I also believe inherently religious companies should be given this same consideration. On top of that, the argument based on image also applies to these companies.