Pope says UK legislation violates Natural Law
Posted on: February 2, 2010 - 7:35am
Offline
Pope says UK legislation violates Natural Law
[Apologies if the Mods feel this should be in Irrational Precepts... I thought it better here]
The pope has attacked the UK government on an equality bill, which may force the Catholic church in Britain to stop discriminating against gay people, for violating natural law.
I prefer coverage of this at the Daily Mash, which carries the headline "Allow me to explain natural law, says celibate voodoo witch-doctor"
What an ass-hat. Essentially the cry seems to be "forcing us to employ gay people restricts our religious freedoms and our ability to practice as an organization!". My heart bleeds for them.
Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss
- Login to post comments
My heart bleeds for no one but me, however...
The "cry", seems to essentially be
"Hear ye, hear ye... gather 'round followers that we may better rally ourselves to the cause of the sacred texts..... and oppress the peasants of the land while empowering their lords (and slave drivers), we shall inflict grievous wounds on those do not agree with us, and drown those of alternative lifestyles in their own sins, while impaling them on a stake.. and we shall tap our leaders on the head with a silver hammer after they die... so maybe they'll STAY DEAD. Muahahahahahaha"
Quite a few people I know of should only be so lucky as to have such a law here in the USA.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
"Certainly wasnt like this when I was in the Hitler Youth." he went on to say, at least the trains ran on time......
Just a queery though (pun intended) arent all those preist that have been shagging alter boys gay, in a funny sort of a way?
LMFAO these clowns really wanna shut up they do nothing for their own causes, I love it.
Ok, this is where I part company. This is a BAD idea.
A better way for gays to do it, is dump the bigoted church and start their own. Trying to force a religion to conform rather than lead by example, is a bad idea.
Would you like it if RDF was forced to have a priest at every meeting? Should RDF be forced to have a Catholic President?
This is a bit too Orwellian for me. I DO understand the intent. But you cant legislate morality nor can you force people to like you. I think it would be better for gays to start their own church and invite all supporters to dump the church as well. The Pope doesn't own them, he cant force them to stay.
What if the UK's next law is, "You cant call the Pope names". I don't think people understand the slippery slope this type of thing can lead too.
The Pope's argument is stupid of course, but my point isn't in support of him at all. My point is the issue of TACTIC in fighting bigotry. I think this is a bad tactic.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Why would I feel lucky to have a government who tells me who to like and not to like? If I wanted to live under that kind of goverment I'd go live in Iran.
What if they start forcing atheist organizations to employ Pat Robertson types?
I don't think well intended people understand how this will shoot themselves in the foot long term.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
What kind of employment discrimination should be prohibited if any? If I own a bakery and my patrons don't like Arabs can I discriminate against Arabs in my hiring practices? May I put a sign in my front window that says "Now Hiring, except Arabs"?
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
You misunderstand the issue.
In the UK, the official church is owned by the state - and the state cannot discriminate when hiring.
The church wants to be an exception to the rules that apply to everybody else on the grounds that they are religious.
This is not about being well intended, this is about equality before the law.
"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)
http://www.kinkspace.com
We are not talking about a business, we are talking about religion.
If you own an atheist organization do you think you should be forced to hire a fundy? How about Pat Robertson as president of American Atheists? Hey, if you don't you are discriminating.
One is private business, meaning the bakery you speak of, in that case, I agree. The business of business is not the same as the extreemly personal issue of religion. I would NOT want to be told as an atheist who I had to allow into my atheist organization anymore than a Chrisitan or Muslim would want to be forced to hire us.
BUT all of us can agree, or should agree, on non religious business jobs, that you should not discriminate.
AGAIN, the better tactic is for gays to start their own church. If the Pope sees he is losing followers as a result of that, he will change his tune.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
A non-profit organization like a church is a kind of business. Anyone who runs any kind of business can provide good reasons for discrimination. Certainly better reasons than thinking homosexuals are from the devil.
The difference is that they use their surplus funds to further their goals instead of distributing them to shareholders. If the religious person wanted to further the goals of my atheist organization then no I shouldn't be able to discriminate on the basis of their beliefs.
EDIT: Part of what that organization does is provide legal advice to atheists who have been discriminated against on that basis. So, if I'm a fundamentalist Christian and a legal expert, and I want to give assistance to atheists who have suffered discrimination then you think American Atheists should discriminate against me and not allow me to do that.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Firstly, and this relates to something you said in your earlier post, I don't agree that any would would suffer "being forced to hire a fundy". No-one is suggesting for a minute that the catholic church would be forced to hire gay people. That's the argument of the fundamentalists: "This is an attack on religious freedom! They'd force us to mingle with people we don't agree with!", and it's a complete misrepresentation of the position. The legislation is there to make sure that no employer can discriminate against a potential employee on any grounds. That's different from 'forcing' them to hire someone.
The second thing, which I think is missed in the BBC article, is that I can't imagine there'll be a huge rush of gay people wanting to join the catholic church if the legislation gets put through. Most the gay people I know find the institution abhorrent because of its views on sexuality so this isn't going to make any sweeping changes. However, in a just society, membership of any organization (especially one that gets tax breaks) should be non-dscriminatory.
It's the same in your example of religious organizations. Should an atheist organization be forced to hire christians? Absolutely not. Should an atheist organization be able to refuse someone work because of their religion, assuming said religious person knew where they were applying to ? Absolutely not.
Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss
Little nit-pick here.... this is about the catholic church, which isn't owned by the state at all.
Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss
If you want to make an argument for losing non-profit status, that is one thing. Or losing public funding. If that is the case in the UK, then I agree.
But what I warn against is banning people even from setting up privately funded clubs, which is what religion is.
Even with business you could take the logic to an absurd level. Should a strip club be forced to hire a 500 lb woman? I am sorry, but when I did go to strip clubs I didn't expect to see whales in g-strings, anymore than a Catholic would expect to see Dawkins in their pulpit.
No atheist group in their right mind is going to hire a fundy nor do I think it is reasonable for us to expect theists to be forced to associate with people they don't want to associate with. I think it is much more reasonable to lead by example and compete with one's own voice rather than attempt to use government to force others to be clones of you. They do that in Iran and Saudi Arabia and were quite apt in the Dark Ages of making clones of society.
It doesn't work when theist want to make Borgs out of us and it wont work if we do it either.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
And besides, why the heck would a gay person want to be part of a church that despises them? That would be like a black person insisting the right to be a KKK member.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I think the best tactic for gays to take if they want their own Catholic church is to flip the finger at the Pope and tell him to fuck off, and start their own Church.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I've seen fat strippers before. Some people like to look at that sort of thing. As long as the bitch can put asses in the seats that's all that matters.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
But, yeah, it is about equality before the law. Every religious organization in England should be subject to the same laws as all other organizations and business, namely not being allowed to discriminate.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
If people are into fat strippers, fine, then the strip club owner should market it that way and then it would be reasonable for them to only hire fat women.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
If the UK employed Jefferson's wall then I would agree that it is about equality. But I doubt that this will bode well long term for the UK. I think it will do nothing but serve to produce more entrenched fundies.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Your thinking is too "American". The fundies have no power (an even less respect) in the UK.
There's a steady decline of "faith" in all Western European countries - and it has been like that for quite some time.
Why is this? Education, education and education. With a generous dash of social security.
"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)
http://www.kinkspace.com
I don't know what that is, Brian, and I'm too lazy to find out. I very much doubt if this will "produce" more entrenched fundies. The fundies in the UK are fairly stable and the Catholic curch isn't so huge. Canada has similar laws already in place ...no noticeable rise in fundamentalism that I can tell.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
The words "NAMBLA" and "Butterfly Kisses" come to mind...
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
A strip club is a business. You said that non-religion business jobs shouldn't discriminate. But now you say they should be able to discriminate against fatties even if they can make money. Fuck it, why not just say everyone should be able to discriminate and I can keep Arabs out of my bakery?
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Again, I like the good intent, but I simply see it as short term thinking. When government gets into thought police it can look benign short term. What people seem to forget long term is that power changes hands and YOU or I may not be in the position of power or that the powers that be will always agree with you.
AND it doesn't take into account that atheists are just as capable of becoming oppressive. WE are the same species. We are all subject to the same issues of human psychology and human behavior.
I have heard many times on many atheist boards that religion should be outlawed. That is a utopia and just as much as a utopia when people like Pat Robertson blame abortion on gays and atheists. Should he have the power to outlaw things because he doesn't like them?
My issue AGAIN, is not intent, but tactic. You do not want to set up a long term situation where things cannot be reversed and where absolute power can arise BY ANY SIDE.
EVEN IF the world's 6 billion people were atheists, I can tell you that I don't always agree with all atheists all the time. I do not agree with Gene, for example, on his economic views and I do not agree with political correctness be it from a theist or atheist.
If I fail to protect those I disagree with I fail long term to protect myself. I think the battle against bigotry can be won, but not through 1984/Animal Farm tactics.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I agree with you Brian.
You shouldn't outlaw religion. As long as they're free to practice (without imposing their beliefs on others via legislation etc) we're free to be free of religion. We, as athiests, should know this better than most since we have been defacto outlawed if not outright outlawed since the first priest.
My thought on it is that religion is a societal evolutionary process which was a common ancestor along with other dead fields of knowledge like alchemy -> Chemistry Astrology -> Astronomy Religion -> Science. Some people didn't get the memo that these old fields of thought are wrong and perpetuated it by teaching their irrational beliefs to successive generations. People have been wising up though. Eventually we are going to outgrow it and evolve beyond it as a species. We can already see this happening.
By trying to squelch free thought on religion or religious practices we not only become just as bad as the theists in their intolerance but we can stimulate religious fervor (See Roman persecutions of Xians)......
The way you kill irrational beliefs is through education, debate, and time.
Blatantly outlawing it might help it to live past its expiration date.
"Lisa, if the Bible has taught us nothing else, and it hasn't, it's that girls should stick to girls sports, such as hot oil wrestling and foxy boxing and such."
Homer Simpson
I would rather my neighbor have the ability to tell me I am going to burn in hell so I can in turn tell them they are full of shit, than to have daddy tell us both what to do. I'd rather foster a society where we can bitch at each other AND KNOW no matter what that is said that we have nothing to fear of each other.
I think it is dangerous ground to make laws placating people's emotions wrather than have COMMON law that says "thoughts and actions are two different things".
We like to bitch. I don't think anyone here can fool themselves into thinking theire isn't one single Christian in the world that if given the power would not outlaw, "Jesus is fiction". We do live in a species that had some members threating a cartoonist because someone picked on Allah.
It is simply a warning to be careful HOW you go about doing things, especially since power does shift.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
http://definitions.uslegal.com/f/fighting-words/
"Fighting words are words intentionally directed toward another person which are so venomous and full of malice as to cause the hearer to suffer emotional distress or incite him/her to immediately retaliate physically. Fighting words are not an excuse or defense for a retaliatory assault and battery. However, if they are so threatening as to cause apprehension, they can form the basis for a lawsuit for assault, even though the words alone don't constitute an assault.
The utterance of fighting words is not protected by the free speech protections of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The words are often evaluated not only by the words themselves, but the context in which they are spoken. Courts generally impose a requirement that the speaker intended to cuase a breach of the peace or incite the hearer to violence."
You don't have an absolute right to speak your mind. But you can take it a lot further than PC folks would have you believe.
When I say Religion is Bullshit I don't think that's a fighting word or believing in god is irrational.
I'm not directing something at someone that I think would incite a reasonable person to violence.
But if you called my wife a fucking C-Word (being nice for the ladies here) then you're gonna spit teeth....
or maybe if you used a racial epithet directed at a minority.
"Lisa, if the Bible has taught us nothing else, and it hasn't, it's that girls should stick to girls sports, such as hot oil wrestling and foxy boxing and such."
Homer Simpson
DUH!
But you are not the entire population of the world and there ARE others who disagree with you that WOULD take "Religion is bullshit" and "believing in god is irrational" AS FIGHTING WORDS!
Otherwise we wouldn't have people blowing up planes or killing abortion doctors. The key is not to oppress your opposition, but to get them to the COMMON GROUND that neither of you want to die as a result of a disagreement.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I just don't get the need to kill to defend the big bad voodoo sky daddy - if he's even close to Omni (fill in the damn blank) then he should be able to take care of me fast if he gives a shit....
"Lisa, if the Bible has taught us nothing else, and it hasn't, it's that girls should stick to girls sports, such as hot oil wrestling and foxy boxing and such."
Homer Simpson
True. I don't have the right to sell Playboy to a 5 year old and I don't have the right to yell "fire" in a theater.
But merely saying, "You are full of shit" does not give the right to the person I say it to the right to beat me up. Otherwise I could not be convicted if I smacked the shit out of Christians who told me I was full of shit.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Fuck!
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Ok, and many people feel the same way and even more so about their gods.
If I call your wife a "cunt" it is understandable that you would have an emotional reaction to that. But that still would not give you the right to punch me in the face. Much like if you or I would say "god is a prick" would give a Muslim or Jew the right to punch us in the face.
If you are going to hit someone for calling your wife a cunt, then you cant bitch when someone hits you for calling God/Allah?Yahwey a prick.
Are you advocating that we are entitled to act on our emotions when we hear things we don't like? I'd love to punch someone who says I will burn in hell. I guess since I was offended that makes me right?
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Ok, I don't know about you, but I doubt it is "discrimination" when the NFL denies a place kicker's job to someone with no legs. And I think it is REASONABLE that a Catholic Church expects it's employees to ascribe to the club. Just like if you started an atheist club you wouldn't be discriminating against a Catholic if you didn't make them president.
How far do you want to take this?
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
You're being ridiculous; don't bring up blatantly stupid examples. A person who has no legs is precluded from that job because it is not possible for it to be performed. That is not discrimination and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is very clear about it. The constitution and relevant legislation in the UK is similarly clear.
Further, in the case of a Catholic applying to the presidency of an Atheist organization ...why on Earth would the Atheist organization make the job open? I don't think you'll see any organization putting such an advert out into the open. That's a non-issue as far as I'm concerned and presumably, the job add, if it were open, would be specific enough not to discriminate but to make it apparent that a religious person could not perform the job as requested. If it weren't, well, that's their problem if they come under fire ...though there are ways to protect yourself from frivolous discrimination cases and the person has to have proof that they were discriminated against in the first place, that they were not-hired due specifically to discrimination and not some other consideration.
You are imaging scenarios based on some paranoia of yours that is not bound in reality.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
OF COURSE I was being ridiculous! Just as I think it is ridiculous to expect a club you don't agree with to employ someone who doesn't fit the position you are trying to fill. I think IT IS reasonable for a Catholic church to employ a Catholic preist. Just like I think it is reasonable for American Atheists to hire an atheist as president.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Brian, you find where I contradicted what you just wrote and then you point it out to me. Your reading comprehension is suffering presently. It seems we're in agreement. I also think it's reasonable. I just also think that people must not violate my rights by explicitly and only not hiring me based on any of those things listed in the above quoted document. If they have a job that requires a particular skill set in order for me to be hired, then I can't be hired as a catholic priest or as the president of some atheist organization. If they do not, then there is no particular reason for them not to hire. You seem to have completely missed the part wherein I state that the person must be able to perform the job as required. A requirement may preclude a particular person from even being eligible for the job without discriminating against them based on the things listed in the above quoted document. In other words, such legislation isn't telling people that they have to hire anyone who comes along in fear that they may be discriminating by not hiring, it is preventing them from not hiring, subject to penalty by law, based solely on a person's religion, sex, physical or mental health, etc. Again, the law doesn't require anyone to hire anyone, it requires them to not not-hire them based on those things. There can be, you might imagine, a lot of reasons not to hire a catholic bishop as the president of an atheist organization that don't necessarily discriminate on him because of his religion.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
The examples you give to bolster your argument are really quite bad. It's not like a sports club refusing to hire a person with no legs to be a kicker. It like a sports club refusing to employ a person with no legs in any capacity, even sitting at a desk because they don't believe in hiring people with no legs. You really think everyone who works for Catholic organizations are priests.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
Let's hope he can understand how these laws are applied and what they mean and who they're meant to protect.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Sigh.
Hmmm.
It does seem to me that there are inherent problems with this sort of legislation, at least in principle, which means that it is open to (mis - ? ) interpretation.
"Race"is actualLy a very subjective term, "ethnic origin" somewhat less so.
"Religion" is very problematic. That is where terms such as 'thought police" start to become potentially applicable. What makes a particular pattern of ideas and/or beliefs a 'religion'? And how do determine just when someone's beliefs are going to interfere with the performance of their duties? It is easy to think of clear-cut cases, but its at the borderline where problems arise.
Then there is the double negative problem - not allowing someone to not hire based on some specified factor requires a bit of a mental juggling act.
In practice, unless the organisation actually spells out a reason which is prima facie in conflict with the legislation, how do you prove what the decision not to hire someone was actually based on?
When there is such 'fuzziness' in legislation, it does leave it open to abuse. It may work perfectly well when everyone involved understands the intent, but that is not really quite good enough, when people coming at things differently get into power.
Brian may have gone a little far in some comments, but I think there is justification for concern at this sort of legislation, even if possibly not quite from the angle he sees it.
Anti-discrimination Law seems highly desirable, but is intrinsically difficult in practice, especially when extended beyond relatively easily determined things like gender, skin color and place of origin.
EDIT: All that aside, the Catholic Church has made it clear they are objecting on highly questionable grounds, based ultimately on simple homophobia. The Pope is an evil douche-bag.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
This isn't so much as forcing them to hire particular people, this is more about protecting the rights of their employees.
Say an employee of American Atheists changed their mind, maybe something as extreme as becoming a fundy, maybe something as small as disagreeing with the approach of the group. They now disagree with the company they work with and are ideologically opposed in some way. At the same time, this is their livelyhood - they depend on this job to pay their rent. If they leave, it needs to be in their own time and on their own terms rather than being forced out by the organisation for ideological disagreement.
A person working for a religious organisation needs a right to an honest opinion without their job hanging on it.
It might be they've discovered that they're now homosexual, it might be that they support a political position that their organisation doesn't, it might be something as simple as moving in with a partner without getting married. Whatever it is, whatever their organisation might not approve of, their job should not be threatened by it.