religious discrimination

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

Donray
Guru
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:25 pm
Location: CA
Been thanked: 3 times

religious discrimination

Post #1

Post by 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?

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3246 times
Been thanked: 1996 times

Re: religious discrimination

Post #11

Post by Difflugia »

Purple Knight wrote: Tue Feb 02, 2021 7:35 pmI'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?
The operative phrase is "compelling state interest."
Purple Knight wrote: Tue Feb 02, 2021 7:35 pmCan 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.
Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith
Purple Knight wrote: Tue Feb 02, 2021 7:35 pmI 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.
That slippery slope is exactly why "compelling state interest" is always a factor in Free Exercise Clause decisions.
Purple Knight wrote: Tue Feb 02, 2021 7:35 pmLegislators may well fall back on common sense in the case of a baby-eating religion, if only because doing otherwise would cause an outcry.
Legislators explicitly passing a law allowing baby-eating, even if explicitly for religious purposes, would be the opposite of religious people getting away with a crime; it would instead explicitly decriminalize what was once a criminal act and the Bill of Rights won't protect anyone from that. We've already seen legislatures pass laws that legalize homicides that were previously murder, so if that's your fear, then religious exemptions aren't what you need to worry about.
Purple Knight wrote: Tue Feb 02, 2021 7:35 pmBut what this proves is that the First Amendment is a terrible principle. All people in a society should follow the same laws.
So far, all you've proven is that you find some applications of it to be distasteful. I do, too, but not enough to be willing to give up the very real protection that it affords to religious minorities.
Purple Knight wrote: Tue Feb 02, 2021 7:35 pmBut 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.
I disagree with your characterization. That pattern of governance leads to what is known as tyranny of the majority and is one of the things that the Bill of Rights is intended to protect against. In short, with a democratic form of government, the majority doesn't need its "fairness" to be constitutionally protected because it has the power of election to protect its interests. Minorities don't have such power, however. Protecting a Muslim's right to wear a hijab for religious reasons isn't putting her "ahead" of anyone else. In fact, everyone else is already allowed to not wear one, no matter how uncomfortable it might make a Muslim.

bjs1
Sage
Posts: 898
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2020 12:18 pm
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 225 times

Re: religious discrimination

Post #12

Post by bjs1 »

[Replying to Donray in post #1]

In the USA it is illegal to discriminate against someone for being religious. For instance, it is a crime not to rent a multipurpose hall to a Christian or Muslim for a wedding. I support those laws.

There are limitations on those laws, and I also support the limitations. The Courts do not allow what they call “forced speech.” For instance, a Christians cannot demand that an atheist DJ say a prayer at the beginning of a reception. Or at least the DJ has the right to refuse the job if that is a condition of employment.
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.
-Charles Darwin

Donray
Guru
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:25 pm
Location: CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: religious discrimination

Post #13

Post by Donray »

Why is OK for a Christain that owns the hall to discriminate against a gay couple that wants to use the hall.

bjs1
Sage
Posts: 898
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2020 12:18 pm
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 225 times

Re: religious discrimination

Post #14

Post by bjs1 »

Donray wrote: Wed Feb 03, 2021 4:56 pm Why is OK for a Christain that owns the hall to discriminate against a gay couple that wants to use the hall.
It’s not. If it is a multi-purpose hall that is open to the public then it is not okay or legal to refuse to allow a gay couple to use it simply because they are gay. Has someone claimed otherwise?
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.
-Charles Darwin

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: religious discrimination

Post #15

Post by Purple Knight »

The way I read this, it says higher courts ruled in favour of the peyote users.
The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed that ruling, holding that denying them unemployment benefits for their religious use of peyote violated their right to exercise their religion. The Oregon Supreme Court agreed, although it relied not on the fact that peyote use was a crime but on the fact that the state's justification for withholding the benefits—preserving the "financial integrity" of the workers' compensation fund—was outweighed by the burden imposed on the employees' exercise of their religion. The state appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, again arguing that denying the unemployment benefits was proper because possession of peyote was a crime.

The U.S. Supreme Court let stand the Oregon Supreme Court's judgment regarding the two employees and returned the case to the Oregon courts to determine whether or not sacramental use of illegal drugs violated Oregon's state drug laws (485 U.S. 660 (1988)). On remand, the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that while Oregon drug law prohibited the consumption of illegal drugs for sacramental religious uses, this prohibition violated the free exercise clause.
Difflugia wrote: Tue Feb 02, 2021 10:44 pmLegislators explicitly passing a law allowing baby-eating, even if explicitly for religious purposes, would be the opposite of religious people getting away with a crime; it would instead explicitly decriminalize what was once a criminal act and the Bill of Rights won't protect anyone from that. We've already seen legislatures pass laws that legalize homicides that were previously murder, so if that's your fear, then religious exemptions aren't what you need to worry about.
Regardless of what you call it, religious people are protected from laws they would have to follow, were they not religious. To me this is legalised crime - a crime for one (so clearly the act itself is criminal) but not for another.
Difflugia wrote: Tue Feb 02, 2021 10:44 pmSo far, all you've proven is that you find some applications of [the First Amendment] to be distasteful. I do, too, but not enough to be willing to give up the very real protection that it affords to religious minorities.
I think I've proven that the principle itself is distasteful. That they don't always apply the principle doesn't make the principle better.
Difflugia wrote: Tue Feb 02, 2021 10:44 pmIn short, with a democratic form of government, the majority doesn't need its "fairness" to be constitutionally protected because it has the power of election to protect its interests.
That assumes everyone just votes selfishly - for their own interests. And that every issue is votable. And that one person can't be singled out just because they're a member of a majority in one way. It's a nice ideal but I don't think reality always plays out that way, and I also don't think that we have to sacrifice anyone. Muslims need more protection, but that can happen without throwing them up like a hostage to protect a bad principle. If we really had to let animal sacrificers get away with slaughtering animals in the street so Muslims would have that protection, if put to it I suppose I'd choose the Muslims. I just don't think we have to make that choice.

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3187
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 824 times

Re: religious discrimination

Post #16

Post by nobspeople »

Donray wrote: Mon Feb 01, 2021 1:41 pm 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?
Absolutely. It should be legal to discriminate as long as religious affiliations are allowed to be (in the USA) tax free and allowed to influence the legal landscape.
Once religions are tax and prevented from interfering with society in legal ways, then they can stop being discriminated against.

One way to settle this is for people just to ignore the religious affiliation (or lack of) of everyone. Let people live their lives and you live yours. But people these days aren't like this. And religion is a big reason for this based on all the religious wars throughout history and the current state of hate in many parts of the world.
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: religious discrimination

Post #17

Post by RightReason »

Donray wrote: Mon Feb 01, 2021 1:41 pm
A few questions for you . . .

If you owned a t-shirt shop and someone wanted to print t-shirts that said KKK with a big swastika. Would you take the business?

If you are a photographer or filmmaker and someone wanted you to photograph their porno shoot, do you have to take the job or can you decline?

If you are a baker, should you be forced to bake the cake of a polygamist man celebrating the marriage of him to his seven 19 year old brides?

If you are a declared atheist, who teaches a course titled, “Debunking Christianity”, and is looking for someone else to take over the class, do you have to hire the devout practicing Catholic who meets all the educational and course requirements to teach the course?

Would you rent your banquet hall to NAMBLA (The North American Man/Boy Love Association) to have their annual meeting?

[NAMBLA is a pedophilia and pederasty advocacy organization in the United States. It works to abolish age-of-consent laws criminalizing adult sexual involvement with minors[2][3] and campaigns for the release of men who have been jailed for sexual contacts with minors that did not involve what it considers coercion]

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: religious discrimination

Post #18

Post by Purple Knight »

RightReason wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 12:02 pmIf you owned a t-shirt shop and someone wanted to print t-shirts that said KKK with a big swastika. Would you take the business?
All of these are marvelous questions because they're about establishing the principle. And no one - no one - is going to like my answer.

My answer is that the principle should be nondiscrimination against everyone who consents to nondiscrimination.

So no to the KKK people. Yes to everyone else. Including NAMBLA. Protections against discrimination are for everyone who needs them, with the sole exception of people who would be gaining protection off a system of protection they would abolish. You might find NAMBLA distasteful (and I find it downright pukatronic, as in, my stomach actually turns when I think about them having sex with little boys) but yes, we should both be forced to rent our assembly halls to NAMBLA and treat them the same as any other guests if they pay the price we're asking. If protections don't apply to the disgusting, then there's no reason to have them.

But not racists. A law isn't required to help people destroy it.

Donray
Guru
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:25 pm
Location: CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: religious discrimination

Post #19

Post by Donray »

I will answer your questions and I hope you will answer mine in return.

If you owned a t-shirt shop and someone wanted to print t-shirts that said KKK with a big swastika. Would you take the business? It depends on the profit from the order and if people will find out I printed them. What does this question have to do with a Christain not wanting to supply a cake fro a gay wedding? Are you equating gays to the KKK?

If you are a photographer or filmmaker and someone wanted you to photograph their porno shoot, do you have to take the job or can you decline? You are discussing an illegal activity. So no I would not do it. Again, what does this have to do with a Christain refusing to photograph a gay wedding? Are you implying the gays are like porno?

If you are a baker, should you be forced to bake the cake of a polygamist man celebrating the marriage of him to his seven 19 year old brides? Again, you are discussing an illegal activity. Being gay in my opinion is not illegal. Are you again implying that being gay is illegal?

If you are a declared atheist, who teaches a course titled, “Debunking Christianity”, and is looking for someone else to take over the class, do you have to hire the devout practicing Catholic who meets all the educational and course requirements to teach the course? As long as the person will teach the course as written I am OK with a devote Christian doing it. They most likely will be bigot and refuse to do it. Again what does this have to do with Christians wanting to be able to be bigots and discrimination?

Would you rent your banquet hall to NAMBLA (The North American Man/Boy Love Association) to have their annual meeting? Again I think having sex with a boy is an illegal activity so I would support an illag activity. Aagin you seem to think thata all Gays are NAMBLA members. You appers to hate gays pr[eople. By gays we maens both male and female.

So, you think it is OK to discriminate against a legal activity as long as they are LGBT? Why do you feel you have that right to discriminate against something that is not illegal?

RightReason
Under Probation
Posts: 1569
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 6:26 pm
Been thanked: 16 times

Re: religious discrimination

Post #20

Post by RightReason »

Donray wrote: Fri Feb 05, 2021 4:29 pm I will answer your questions and I hope you will answer mine in return.

If you owned a t-shirt shop and someone wanted to print t-shirts that said KKK with a big swastika. Would you take the business? It depends on the profit from the order and if people will find out I printed them.
So, you believe you have the right to refuse to make their racist t-shirts, but would gladly take their money if no one found out your company provided the t-shirts?
What does this question have to do with a Christain not wanting to supply a cake fro a gay wedding? Are you equating gays to the KKK?
I am showing people have all sorts of reasons why they would not want to do business with someone. Personally, I would not feel comfortable if my business were to assist a racist organization. And I would like to think I would not be punished for refusing to provide them this service.
If you are a photographer or filmmaker and someone wanted you to photograph their porno shoot, do you have to take the job or can you decline? You are discussing an illegal activity.
Not sure if you are aware of this, but pornography is perfectly legal. I find it immoral and would not want to use my talents as a photographer to take part in an industry I feel is exploitive and harmful.
Again, what does this have to do with a Christain refusing to photograph a gay wedding? Are you implying the gays are like porno?
I am showing a person can and should be able to refuse what they feel would be a violation of their conscience. Porn and gay marriage are both legal. In my opinion, that doesn’t make them right. You agree with me about one of those, but not the other.
If you are a baker, should you be forced to bake the cake of a polygamist man celebrating the marriage of him to his seven 19 year old brides? Again, you are discussing an illegal activity.
Perhaps, polygamy is technically illegal, but clearly there is nothing the state could do if a man and seven 19 year old women wanted to live together and declare unto themselves that they are in an agreed upon polygamist relationship. So, would you bake the cake to celebrate what they are calling a wedding?

As a cake designer, I would want no part of it. It would violate my conscience to do so.
Being gay in my opinion is not illegal. Are you again implying that being gay is illegal?
Of course being gay is not illegal. But I’m not sure why it all comes down to legality for you. Abortion is legal, but in my opinion wrong/immoral. That Man-boy love group is legal, but in my opinion wrong/immoral. And while, being gay is not illegal, I believe same sex unions are wrong/immoral. And I do not think same sex unions are immoral because the Bible or my church say so, but because of science/biology. I think abortion is immoral because of science, not because I am a Christian and the Bible says it’s wrong. I also think man-boy relations are immoral, but again, not because of my religion. So, why would any of my views be Christian discrimination?
Again what does this have to do with Christians wanting to be able to be bigots and discrimination?
You keep saying Christians are wanting to be bigots and discriminate, but you fail to understand that not wanting to take part in a gay marriage, an abortion, a porn filming, a man-boy love conference, providing t-shirts for a KKK rally does not make a person bigoted. Individuals should have the right to not support or be forced to use their talents or livelihoods in ways that they feel would be taking part in something wrong or immoral or violates their conscience.
Would you rent your banquet hall to NAMBLA (The North American Man/Boy Love Association) to have their annual meeting? Again I think having sex with a boy is an illegal activity so I would support an illag activity.

NAMBLA itself is not an illegal activity. It is a group that simply wants to use your facilities for their meeting. Do you let them?
Aagin you seem to think thata all Gays are NAMBLA members. You appers to hate gays pr[eople. By gays we maens both male and female.
I don’t seem to think any such thing. You seem to like to spout a lot of red herrings.
So, you think it is OK to discriminate against a legal activity as long as they are LGBT? Why do you feel you have that right to discriminate against something that is not illegal?
I provided several examples of things that both legal(gay marriage/abortion/porn) and illegal (polygamy/racism) that I think a person should have the right to not participate in or feel they are encouraging or contributing to. You disagree?
Last edited by RightReason on Fri Feb 05, 2021 8:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply