Do atheists fake egalitarianism?

[Pyrrho]

I'm actually not sure how a theist can be an egalitarian. You have to get past a lot of "kill people for being different" before you finally get to a part that says love your neighbor and enemy, that isn't even original or unique to the bible. It's just the classic glossing over the majority of the old testament, while trying to keep some bits that they like.

Such as the ten commandments, where even in that women are put in the same category as livestock. Also the part that demands discrimination against homosexuals.

What prompted this thread is in a previous thread I made the argument that homosexuality is not equivalent to heterosexuality.  I made a rational argument for that position and the only refutation I could come up for it(since you guys all failed to refute it) is that perhaps God created them both to be equivalent.  

Like most or all of you, I usually treat different genders, ethnicity, sexual orientations as equivalent in my day to day real world activities. However I'm really just going through the motions.  I'm a fake egalitarian.

Lets assume for a moment that egalitarianism is optimal human behavior.  Why would it be optimal behavior?  One answer and perhaps the best answer is because genders, ethnicity, and sexual orientations are all actually equivalent.  If this is true it implies the existence of a God because an unconscious nature simply wouldn't care to create them as such. 

Here, perhaps, is the essential part eluding you.  To make the concepts easy to understand, let us consider a specific example.  Suppose I own a factory, and I make cars.  Now, what matters for me when hiring a worker, if I want the best cars, are things that relate to making cars.  Whether my workers are heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or whatever their sexuality, has nothing to do with making cars, and so it is irrelevant to whether I should be hiring a person or not.  Likewise with race and ethnicity and gender.  I am not having my workers use penises in the construction of the cars, so it makes no difference for making cars whether my workers have penises or not.  So none of the things irrelevant to making cars should be used in deciding who to hire.  So, for making cars, differences in sexuality and race and gender really are equal, because they have nothing whatever to do with making cars.  (That is to say, those qualities are all equally irrelevant to making cars, and consequently ought not be considered in the hiring process.)

Of course, the things that are relevant to making cars do matter, and so I should pay attention to those things.  Thus, someone who is unreliable and never shows up on time, is someone I should probably fire, as they are not making cars when they are not at the factory.  If I require someone to use a wrench to tighten a nut, the person I hire must be able to use a wrench appropriately.  Etc.


Now, let us think further about those irrelevant things for my car factory.  Suppose I were to discriminate against black people and never hire any black people.  That would mean that instead of selecting the best workers, I am using irrelevant criteria for hiring people, which is likely to mean that I will not always be getting the best workers available.  So this is not smart for me.  Also, of course, it is unfair to those against whom I am discriminating, as they now have fewer options for making a living, so it hurts them as well.  Additionally, it is bad for my customers, because inferior workers are likely to be slower (thus driving up the cost to make the car and therefore the price of it), and also more likely to make mistakes, giving the customer an inferior product.  Additionally, it affects people who don't buy my car if they are defective, as a brake problem could cause one of my customers to kill someone else on the street.   Thus, it is bad if I discriminate based on things irrelevant to making cars, both for myself, and for others, and is consequently a legitimate concern for society.

There is nothing magical about any of this.  It is (or should be) just plain common sense.