Firstly, this is an immensely hard question to answer. I'm not as informed as you are.
Two things, though. Should that Chick-Fil-A employer also ask about sexual partners and take Deuteronomy 22:13-21 into account? I'm not sure where you draw the line. Imo, it's none of their business. Christianity shouldn't be a burden for the ones that don't want to accept it, but a blessing for the ones that do.
Secondly, what if you turn the tables? Should an employer like Elon Musk be able to deny any Christian employees?
Originally Posted by: Rockmolder
Yours is a good question. I'd say, "yes." My belief -- which almost certainly runs counter to the mainstream view and also to a variety of statutes in employment law -- is that an employer should be able to choose his employees pretty much any way he wishes.
I believe this for three reasons. First, freedom of association. A core value in this country is -- or at least used to be -- is that adult individuals should be free to associate with whoever they wish to associate with, in whatever way they wish to, as long as that association doesn't involve the threat or use of physical force against another. (A man should be free to dress up in camo but without eye protection and run around on his land with his friends similarly attired, shooting paintballs at each other; he is not free to run around on other people's land or on public land, doing so.)
And to my mind, freedom to associate includes economic association. If Joe Bigot wants only to hire Good Ol' Boy Rednecks to work for him, he should be able to. If he wants to only hire people from his church or mosque or synagogue, or people who sign an affirmation of the Augsburg or Westminster confession in front of the congregation or a notary public or the Grand High Poobah of the Masonic Order of whatever, he should be able to.
I personally find such a practice reprehensible. If he were a member of my church I would consider myself under obligation to remonstrate with him to change his employment practices, to subject him to criticism and reproof, for I would consider such a refusal incompatible with the teachings of God. And if he demonstrated a continued unwillingness to change his practices, I would follow the injunctions of Paul in one of his letters (2 Corinthians, perhaps, I can't remember which one it is) and stop associating with him. I wouldn't buy from him and I wouldn't invite him to a child's wedding or baptismal celebration.
Were he a Muslim refusing to hire Christians, I would affirm his freedom to do so. And I would refuse to associate with him and argue that everyone else do so as well.
Second, it's his wealth at stake. If an individual wants to invest his wealth (financial, physical, and/or human) to sell corn or computers but will only pay people who share a particular faith, that should be his prerogative. No one has a natural "right" to benefit from the use of someone else's wealth, and with the exception again of cases of force/threat of force, should not be compelled by law to do so.
Again, I'd consider it a reprehensible practice. I would ask him if the accusation were true, and then I would tell him why I think it reprehensible. If he then cited the Qu'ran for his practice, then I would tell him that he is following reprehensible teachings, and offer to show him the wisdom of following another book's teachings. If he refused to change, or if he was unwilling to listen to my offer, then I'd affirm his "right" to him and stop associating with him, economically or otherwise.
Third, I think there is something particularly insidious about restricting actions of people that are driven by their faith. If a Christian believes deeply enough in the third (or fourth, depending on how you were taught) commandment about keeping the Sabbath, that he insists his business be closed on that day, he should be allowed to. If he believes deeply enough that he refuses to associate with those who refuse to affirm that they will keep the Sabbath, he should be allowed to do that, too. After all, if I know you are going to sin, and I say "that's okay, it's not against the law, and so that remains your choice", am I not agreeing with you in your knowing rebellion against God? Am I not then myself rebelling against Him.
If I believe compliance with a law of temporal authority or with shared social belief is in conflict with my duty of obedience to my Lord, I believe the correct thing to do would be to fail to comply. If I believed (which I don't) that God doesn't want me to employ a Muslim, then I should refuse to employ a Muslim and damn the consequences that state and society bring down upon me.
And so, if a Muslim acquaintance of mine refuses to hire me, even though I am unemployed and it means my family is going to miss meals and mortgage payments and have to wear garage sale clothes, I might plead with him, remonstrate with him, argue about the virtues of Christ and the evils of his Mohammedism, I might denounce his Islamocentrism to others, but I would also oppose any effort anyone made to force that acquaintance to employ me. And I would oppose it even if their efforts had the sanction and support of the state and the Constitution.
Indeed,
especially if their efforts had the state behind them.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)