religious discrimination

[Donray]

Should people be able to discriminant against others because of there religious views? For example should an ashiest be able to not rent to a christen because they think they worship a god? Should a Christain be able to discriminate against a Muslim and not rent a place for a wedding?

So the general question is should bigotry and discrimination be allowed for religious purposes?

[Miles]

.


Well, the "should" part may depend on the relevant laws that govern one's business.

"The United States has local, state, and federal laws that address refusing service to customers. Chief among these is the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

"The federal Civil Rights Act covers all businesses which are places of public accommodation [restaurants and stores, mostly]. Under that law, you cannot discriminate on the basis of protected classes: race, gender, religion, etc.," says Matthew Kreitzer, an attorney with Booth & McCarthy in Winchester, Virginia. Americans with disabilities are also protected from refusal of service.

The combination of federal and state laws is one big reason Masterpiece Cakeshop ran into so much trouble. While some states have enacted Restoration of Religious Freedoms Acts, attempting to grant extra protections to business owners who refuse service on the basis of their religious beliefs, "These laws have come under strict scrutiny by the various courts of our nation," Kreitzer says.
source

As for renting, there's the Fair Housing Act that one has to contend with.

"The Fair Housing Act prohibits housing providers from treating renters or homebuyers differently because of their religion or because they wear religious clothing or engage in religious practices and rituals. “Religion” includes both the practice and non-practice of religion, such as atheism, as well as religions that are outside the mainstream. However, a housing provider is not required to provide an accommodation from a neutrally applied rule for a person with religious needs. Discrimination includes refusing to rent or sell, charging more, or offering different terms to someone because of his or her religion. Housing providers are prohibited from making discriminatory statements or publishing discriminatory advertising, as well as from making false statements about availability.
source

.

[Donray]

You missed the question. They are a lot of Christians that think the current laws are unfair because of there religious beliefs. They want to be able to be bigots and discriminant based on religious beliefs.

My question is should they be able to discriminate because of religious beliefs?

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to Donray in post #1]

Well, Miles took care of the part of 'should' that pertains to the law of the land.

From what Christ said: 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you' should suffice, shouldn't it? If you want to be treated equitably, then treat others equitably. If you do not want to be discriminated against, then do not discriminate. I think many religions have (or had) a similar saying.



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[The Barbarian]

There's really two questions here.
Should people be allowed to religiously discriminate in public accommodations.?

One is a legal question. No, they shouldn't. It's illegal.

One is a moral question.
That depends on your faith, or lack of it.

For a Christian, the answer is "no." We are called upon to be an imitation of Christ, and He told His people to treat even a despised Samaritan as a neighbor.

Not sure about other religions, but I'm guessing most of them would be like that.

[Purple Knight]

Should people be able to discriminant against others because of there religious views?

No. The law is that you can't discriminate. Religious people shouldn't have exceptions to the law based on religion.

Otherwise this happens.

Some Bloke: "I just are six babies. *BELCH*"
Purple Knight: "That's horrid! Whose babies?"
Some Bloke: "Dunno. I found 'em, so I ate 'em."
Purple Knight: "Well I shan't have you 'round me anymore. Consider yourself evicted."
Some Bloke: "Can't do that. First Amendment. Can't arrest me either. Now give me your baby. My religion says I can eat it."

This is why I do not support the First Amendment. What the First Amendment ought to say is that you have religious freedom as long as your religion does not entitle you to break laws, and that laws may not be designed with loopholes in for the religious.

[Difflugia]

This is why I do not support the First Amendment. What the First Amendment ought to say is that you have religious freedom as long as your religion does not entitle you to break laws, and that laws may not be designed with loopholes in for the religious.

In principle, I agree with you, but I think in practice, the injustices we have to tolerate aren't as bad as they'd be if the law were explicitly as you say. The difference isn't entirely hypothetical, either.

Quite simply, the Supreme Court has consistently applied the Establishment Clause as prohibiting laws impacting religious practice de facto as well as de jure. We therefore have to tolerate a few things that are otherwise unfair or unjust (certain Native Americans using peyote or Catholics serving alcohol to minors, for example), but as demonstrated by the success of "moment of silence" laws, courts are too reluctant to divine intent, even when it's obvious. Nearly everyone acknowledges that "moment of silence" laws are intended to promote prayer in school and are thus unconstitutional in intent, but they have nevertheless been ruled to be constitutional. That means that in practice, actual effect is considered far more strictly than intent.

The corresponding negative example is the interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amemendment. In that case, racist discrimination is illegal de jure, but not de facto. The result is that there are still many, many laws that are racist in effect, but have been ruled by the courts to at least plausibly not be racist in intent. The simple fact that things like gerrymandering and the various laws that impact minority voting are considered constitutional is, in my opinion, sufficient evidence that we can trust neither the legislatures nor the courts to effectively avoid the "loopholes" that you're talking about.

In terms of religious entanglement by the government, things definitely could be, and in similar situations definitely are, worse.

[Purple Knight]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #7]

Moment of silence isn't even on my radar. To me it's an invitation to be contemplative. What is on my radar is when animal sacrificers torture animals to death in the streets and are protected.

See: Kapparos, Santeria

Normal people could not get away with this - it's illegal for good reason. If religion allows people to torture animals to death when it's illegal for me to do it, what's to stop them from eating babies? The law? We just established that the law does not apply to religious people. I recognise that no known religious sect does this, but it seems to me that if one came about, I would absolutely have to give them my baby so they could torture it to death and then eat it, if their religion says so.

As far as lawmakers not being trustworthy, I agree. The founders intended for us to shoot them if they became too corrupt, and while we may not be there yet, things seem to be circling the drain and armed rebellion may be inevitable. I don't look forward to it, but corruption cannot decrease while the system is so corrupt that corruption will never be held to account.

[Difflugia]

Moment of silence isn't even on my radar. To me it's an invitation to be contemplative. What is on my radar is when animal sacrificers torture animals to death in the streets and are protected.

See: Kapparos, Santeria

Normal people could not get away with this - it's illegal for good reason. If religion allows people to torture animals to death when it's illegal for me to do it, what's to stop them from eating babies? The law? We just established that the law does not apply to religious people.

No, we haven't. We've established that there are laws that don't apply to religious practices in certain situations. While people objectively have and society arguably has been harmed by some of those exceptions, straight-up murder has never been allowed as part of a religious ceremony (I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but it's not allowed). There are valid arguments that can be made within the context of this discussion, but the argument you're making now isn't one of them.

I recognise that no known religious sect does this, but it seems to me that if one came about, I would absolutely have to give them my baby so they could torture it to death and then eat it, if their religion says so.

That's absurdly false. The government can't normally legislate against religious practices, but neither can it force anyone to participate in them. Catholics may offer their children wine, but they can't take your wine or give it to your children without your permission. Even if a Santeria practitioner wanted your pet chicken (or cat) or the slope got so slippery that Methodists were finally allowed to eat babies, they still can't legally steal your pet or kidnap your child.

Now, if you dial it back, there are legitimate points to your argument and there is a definite tradeoff. Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses have harmed and killed their children by denying them lifesaving medical care. Even aside from Santeria rites, Kosher slaughter practices are generally considered cruel compared to modern meat production. Even without reinterpreting the Establishment Clause, though, both medical neglect and animal cruelty are being legally re-examined and judicial sentiment is moving toward being more restrictive, rather than less.

The other side of the coin is that it's very difficult in the US to create discriminatory legislation against particular religions and that's a good thing. Again, one can argue whether the cost is too high, either overall or in a particular situation, but that's what's at stake. If religious protection lost the Effect Prong of the Lemon test and were reduced to the dismal protection afforded racial equality, I don't think it'd be two weeks before we started seeing a bunch of carefully-worded anti-Muslim (and perhaps even anti-Semitic) laws. To me, that's worth protecting, even at the cost of leaving the boundary cases on the wrong side of the fence.

[Purple Knight]

straight-up murder has never been allowed as part of a religious ceremony (I'm not saying it hasn't happened, but it's not allowed).

That's absurdly false. The government can't normally legislate against religious practices, but neither can it force anyone to participate in them.

I'm just looking at the evidence. Based on the evidence of religious people having exceptions to the law (pretty much whenever they want it), why would they lack an exception to the law just because the crime is extreme? If their religion allows them to eat babies, they may be able to claim I'm discriminating against them on religious grounds by not giving them my baby to eat. They could claim the law against murder is not allowing them to practice their religion.

It's not absurdly false, but it is admittedly absurd, which means I'd be relying on common sense to get legislators to break with precedent and tell religious people not to eat my baby. The precedent is that religious people get special exception to the laws the rest of us have to follow. Can you think of a case when a religious person has wanted First Amendment special protection and not gotten it? As far as I know, the refusal to bake the gay wedding cake is the only example of a religious person ending up having to follow the same laws as everyone else.

Now, if you dial it back, there are legitimate points to your argument and there is a definite tradeoff. Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses have harmed and killed their children by denying them lifesaving medical care. Even aside from Santeria rites, Kosher slaughter practices are generally considered cruel compared to modern meat production. Even without reinterpreting the Establishment Clause, though, both medical neglect and animal cruelty are being legally re-examined and judicial sentiment is moving toward being more restrictive, rather than less.

I don't see how I ought to have to dial it back. You admit that lives are at stake. You (I hope) admit that torturing animals should not be permitted. Jews are literally torturing chickens to death in the streets of New York and they're allowed to do it because they are Jews. My extreme example is about the way the principles of religious protection, as per the First Amendment, have been applied to cases where religious people are trying to break the law. They have been repeatedly allowed to. If we go by the principle (and admittedly not common sense) religious people would be allowed to eat babies.

Legislators may well fall back on common sense in the case of a baby-eating religion, if only because doing otherwise would cause an outcry. But what this proves is that the First Amendment is a terrible principle. All people in a society should follow the same laws. If they can't, either:

1) The law should change for everyone.
-or-
2) The people who can't follow the law should leave the society.

The other side of the coin is that it's very difficult in the US to create discriminatory legislation against particular religions and that's a good thing. Again, one can argue whether the cost is too high, either overall or in a particular situation, but that's what's at stake. If religious protection lost the Effect Prong of the Lemon test and were reduced to the dismal protection afforded racial equality, I don't think it'd be two weeks before we started seeing a bunch of carefully-worded anti-Muslim (and perhaps even anti-Semitic) laws. To me, that's worth protecting, even at the cost of leaving the boundary cases on the wrong side of the fence.

If push comes to shove I don't mind looking at it that way until the Muslims are the ones trying to racially discriminate and claiming protection. But I do see the principle of religious protection as a bad principle. I don't agree with the idea that we have to sacrifice fairness to some just so we can have fairness for others. At that point it's the opposite of fairness. Putting the most likely victims in the spotlight just allows people to discriminate against everyone else. That doesn't mean Muslims don't need more protection; it just means don't put them ahead of others.