Downvoted. This hypothetical situation might have been an good discussion about what evidence of irrational beliefs and behavior such a club-membership implies, and to what degree such traits would make the candidate ill-suited to be your corporate minion (i.e. how to rationally make use of such a person). However, the scenario is too bare-bones and open-ended to be interesting as it stands; top-level posts should not rely on comments for elaboration to the point of usefulness. Worse, this post is asking us for our opinions on a political topic (discrimination legislation) and taking potshots at the Catholic Church, thus setting the discussion up for a mindset which is unlikely to be healthy and productive.
top-level posts should not rely on comments for elaboration to the point of usefulness
We are in the discussion section, more or less an improved open thread. This is allowed.
However, we know something about politics.
Let's say you are interviewing a candidate for a job. In casual conversation, the candidate mentions that he is a member of a rather old and prestigious country club. You've never heard the name of the club before.
You look up the country club afterwards, and are surprised by what you read. The club refuses membership to homosexuals. It revokes the membership of couples who use birth control. Leadership positions are reserved to unmarried males.
The candidate is otherwise competent. Under what conditions would you hire him? Would you want a law passed banning hiring discrimination based on country club membership?
(The country club is analogous to a nicer version of the Catholic church. I left out a couple bad things.)
Religious discrimination is illegal in many parts of the world, and I think that's probably a good thing. Still, keeping this at the object level (no meta-rules or veils of ignorance) it seems to me that discriminating against religious people is fine. I'm curious what other people think.