Can it be made legal for one religion to discriminate against another?

[Auxora]

Answering the question, I think it definitely can be made legal (even though it should be possible). The problem are the Freedom of Religion laws like Indiana has and that I'm sure Pence would like to take national. Although it's been most widely covered in LGBT discrimination, that law really applies to anything that might infringe on someone's religion. Technically what the law says is that an individual/business/church can discriminate and then use the law as defense if they think that the actions are a significant burden on exercising their religion. So really it could apply to many things beyond just LGBT topics. A Christian could for example refuse service to a Muslim, or Atheist, or vice-versa, and use the law as defense that it is a burden to serve a non-believer. That's pretty much the definition of discrimination in my book.

Thankfully it's only a law in Indiana I believe currently. It was attempted in Arizona and didn't pass. So at least at that 1 state level it can be done. I'd bet more hard conservative majority states will try to pass something similar. Personally I don't see how the law doesn't conflict with other non-discrimination federal laws, but maybe that's something for the Supreme Court to decide.

[Tackhisis]

In a secular state, no law can be made for or against a certain religion.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Answering the question, I think it definitely can be made legal (even though it should be possible). The problem are the Freedom of Religion laws like Indiana has and that I'm sure Pence would like to take national. Although it's been most widely covered in LGBT discrimination, that law really applies to anything that might infringe on someone's religion. Technically what the law says is that an individual/business/church can discriminate and then use the law as defense if they think that the actions are a significant burden on exercising their religion. So really it could apply to many things beyond just LGBT topics. A Christian could for example refuse service to a Muslim, or Atheist, or vice-versa, and use the law as defense that it is a burden to serve a non-believer. That's pretty much the definition of discrimination in my book.

Thankfully it's only a law in Indiana I believe currently. It was attempted in Arizona and didn't pass. So at least at that 1 state level it can be done. I'd bet more hard conservative majority states will try to pass something similar. Personally I don't see how the law doesn't conflict with other non-discrimination federal laws, but maybe that's something for the Supreme Court to decide.

Yeah in the world as such yup I can see this seeing the light of day.

[Kellhound]

Please don't derail by debating religion, the purpose for my question is about the interpretation of the law, if someone establishes a faith that is based on excluding certain ideologies (political party), races or religions, based on the constitution or the U.S law as it were or anywhere else?



Can it be made legal for one religion to discriminate against another? Or could it be a religious right to not serve people of other races, or religions?

I dont think there should be any requirement for any private company to provide any goods or services to any group or individual they do not want to for any reason unless they are a monopoly.

[Perkunas]

Your right to freedom of religion ends at the point where you start stepping on other people's freedom of religion. You can believe whatever you want. When you start doing stupid crap like running a store that refuses to serve certain people because of your religion...well that crap needs to be stopped in a hurry.

I think they should be allowed to refuse service to homosexuals, but they also have to ban people that cut their hair, eat shellfish, wear two different types of fabric as well otherwise they can shut the fuck up about being discriminated against for "following the bible".

[Zeta333]

You ask to not derail the thread yet you put a joke option in the poll.

how is jedi a less valid religion than say being a mormon or catholic?

[Ghostpanther]

Discriminate in what way? A private club, church etc, has the right to exclude anyone from membership and thus deny service or benefits to them within the club , organization. Public service is a different situation and no, they cannot deny service to those they also give the same service to any other citizen of the public. It is how it has to be. There is a Supreme Court case coming which should confirm that. But there are other matters to look at which also can cross over to a person's exercise of religious freedom. Will be interesting to see how they rule on it.

[Perkunas]

Discriminate in what way? A private club, church etc, has the right to exclude anyone from membership and thus deny service or benefits to them within the club , organization. Public service is a different situation and no, they cannot deny service to those they also give the same service to any other citizen of the public. It is how it has to be. There is a Supreme Court case coming which should confirm that. But there are other matters to look at which also can cross over to a person's exercise of religious freedom. Will be interesting to see how they rule on it.

With Gorsuch now? May as well have a Inquisitor's Tribunal now instead of a Supreme Court.

[Raeph]

Please don't derail by debating religion, the purpose for my question is about the interpretation of the law, if someone establishes a faith that is based on excluding certain ideologies (political party), races or religions, based on the constitution or the U.S law as it were or anywhere else?



Can it be made legal for one religion to discriminate against another? Or could it be a religious right to not serve people of other races, or religions?

Maybe: from what I have seen in recent (within the last 15 years) court cases that I have skimmed over "discrimination" can be allowed if it is related to services that are exclusively related to the promotion/instruction/administration of the religion and associated activities that are religious in nature. But that which either is by or with other entities separate from that religion, even if the activities are within the scope of the doctrine of that religion, the organization loses the ability to "discriminate". This "discrimination" is often defended as "Freedom of Association". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association

Example 1: a church/mosque/temple is within its rights to prevent speakers that don't promote the doctrines of that congregation.

Example 2: a church/mosque/temple is not within its rights prevent a speaker from speaking at a public multi-faith gathering that it engages in as a regional fair administered by a county or city.

There hasn't been a lot of activity against this kind of "discrimination' because if you attack the legal right to gather as a religious community then you can damage the rights of workers to form a strong union for collectively bargain.

In general though individuals acting by such conscience are, as a whole, unprotected as most cases take the line that the rights of a person to be served trumps the right of a person to be discriminatory in who they serve. There are a number of states that are trying to push conscience exceptions, for good or ill.

Me personally as a person of faith, I would advise that if you want to make a conscience determination against some activity or social contact, don't put yourself in a job that requires you, as matter of your position, to perform those duties. If you are running a small business and you want to make a conscience determination against some activity or social contact, then as a matter of your business don't engage in any business activity that would allow anyone to request such activity. As example, since the supreme court took up the case to review for next term; If you run a bakery and you don't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding then you have to not service any weddings under your business name or you can expect a fine.

This may result in you losing a lot of business but at least you won't be fined out of business by a city or state level anti-discrimination board.

State level case law is pretty clear on that point. We'll see what the supreme court rules next year.

[Deleted]

Every country, including those with freedom of religion, has a list of religions the state recognizes. any religion not on that list can be discriminated against in various ways, the details vary per jurisdiction.

as for in between religions themselves, i never heard anyone bat an eye in church when they talked about heathens and stuff, call other religions barbaric or condemn non believers to hell etc. so i guess as long as you aren't overly specific with your rhetoric you can get away with a lot.

[Raeph]

With Gorsuch now? My as well have a Inquisitor's Tribunal now instead of a Supreme Court.

With Scalia the court was 3 liberals, 2 center rights, 3 conservatives.

With Gorsuch the court is 3 liberals, 2 center rights, 3 conservatives.

Now if Kennedy or Ginsburg, or both, step down then you will see the court lurch to the far right, but right now the court is at the same balance it was after Justice Kagan was sworn into office in 2010.

[Nehezbegar]

Well if the country was free i could serve whoever the fuck i want and i would not serve whoever the fuck i do not want to serve. But since countries are not free You really have no option.

I personally think that discrimination is not a bad thing, look at the catholic churches in Poland, they were discriminated for the entire PRL (communist Poland before 89), but thanks to that it even got stronger and more ppl were with it. Now is the same, left wing spits on catholics every day and seeing the rising conservatives in the PL it only proves this.

[Ghostpanther]

With Gorsuch now? My as well have a Inquisitor's Tribunal now instead of a Supreme Court.

There is no conservative/ liberal tilt to the Supreme Court at the moment. Kennedy was considered by some to be conservative, but I would place him as a moderate, considering his recent trend of votes. Now this could change before too long. But no matter, they are the Highest Court in the land and we have to abide by their rulings, agree or disagree. Which I can assure you, they have made decisions in the past I have disagreed with.

[Laerrus]

I don't think it ever should. The majority of our founding fathers were Deist, this is why we have the First Amendment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fa...unding_Fathers
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_deism

[Powerogue]

I'm thinking that any society that values freedom should automatically discriminate against religions and ideologies that aim to destroy freedom.

That's kind of the core of the controversy with this. Certain religions do proclaim that they're better than others and deserve a heightened status above those lesser heathens. On a topic like this the people that believe those parts (people are very selective) will say "yes, absolutely, religious freedom after all!" whereas people like me, who would be the first targets, will go "f!@# no! Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose!"

[Warpaladin]

Frank told me that all the Jedi are to be killed.

[Gaaz]

My understanding is that it IS already legal. More so, it IS practiced in some of the less talked about religions in the US. Correct me if I am wrong, but mormon faith is ultra discriminative to all other religions. Many smaller factions are as well.
In any case, I think it would be problematic to actually make discrimination illegal, since any faith automatically shuns the others at least to a degree, some doing it more than others. But prohibiting that means invasion and denial of said religion in the first place.

[ezgeze]

Please don't derail by debating religion, the purpose for my question is about the interpretation of the law, if someone establishes a faith that is based on excluding certain ideologies (political party), races or religions, based on the constitution or the U.S law as it were or anywhere else?



Can it be made legal for one religion to discriminate against another? Or could it be a religious right to not serve people of other races, or religions?

Religions can discriminate, and yes its perfectly legal. What is the correct question to ask is to what level of discrimination are religions able to discriminate. For example, some religions do not let women become priests. That's discrimination. Keep in mind not all discrimination is wrong.

Should a Catholic church be forced to hire a Muslim Imam? Ummm, no. Yet that's discrimination.

[PACOX]

Every country, including those with freedom of religion, has a list of religions the state recognizes. any religion not on that list can be discriminated against in various ways, the details vary per jurisdiction.

as for in between religions themselves, i never heard anyone bat an eye in church when they talked about heathens and stuff, call other religions barbaric or condemn non believers to hell etc. so i guess as long as you aren't overly specific with your rhetoric you can get away with a lot.

I went to private school for two years, attempts to demonize other abrahamic religions or denominations were met with great debate. Also knew a pastor that would shut that "holier than thou" shit down.

[Yoshimiko]

It's not illegal to discriminate against anyone. You're not going to jail because you dislike an ethnicity or religion.

Companies can even turn people away for whatever reason(well..almost any reason. You can't turn away disabled people). That being said, bigoted people tend to get well known for bad reasons. Remember the bakery who turned away the gay couple?