Religion as a protected class?

[icehorse]

As I read through the SCOTUS, web designer thread in the NA Politics forum, it seems a number of spin off threads are worthy..

The idea of protected classes is now common in the law. Here's a typical list of protected classes:

Applicants, employees and former employees are protected from employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity), national origin, age (40 or older), disability and genetic information (including family medical history).

It strikes me that "one of these is not like the others". All of these classes of people (except one), are based on immutable aspects of a person's identity that they are born with... except religion (and perhaps gender identity, but that's for a separate thread?)

So for this thread, I'm going to argue that - despite the fact that religious people have suffered enormous persecution historically - RELIGION SHOULD NO LONGER BE A PROTECTED CLASS.

A religion is just a set of ideas. A person can change the ideas they believe. Why should a religion be a protected class?

 

[Quintessence]

A religion is just a set of ideas. A person can change the ideas they believe. Why should a religion be a protected class?

Because for the relevant intents and purposes, religion is an immutable aspect of who and what a human is. It's hardly "just a set of ideas" - it's a person's culture, identity, and way of life. At least if that human bothers being actually religious about their religion. For those who just wear the label as a superficiality, sure, it's more or less mutable. But for many of us - myself included I might add - it is absolutely not.

 

[icehorse]

Because for the relevant intents and purposes, religion is an immutable aspect of who and what a human is. It's hardly "just a set of ideas" - it's a person's culture, identity, and way of life. At least if that human bothers being actually religious about their religion. For those who just wear the label as a superficiality, sure, it's more or less mutable. But for many of us - myself included I might add - it is absolutely not.

I would say that being "of a religion" is a choice a person makes over and over again. We know that millions and millions of people chose to change their religion at some point, correct?

I understand that people often become quite attached to a set of ideas, I know there are quite a few ideas that I'm quite attached to

But I don't think I should be a member of a protected class just because I believe fervently in non-linear pedagogy, should I ? I mean it's a huge aspect of my life! I think about it all the time.

 

[sun rise]

I see a politically conservative active SCOTUS making law which is reserved for Congress. I did not read the entire dissent but did read the beginning and agree with it. https://www.npr.org/2023/06/30/1185339349/colorado-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-decision Someday this "wrongly decided" new law that SCOTUS enacted will need to be repealed by a future SCOTUS.

Her dissent starts: Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... for this thread, I'm going to argue that - despite the fact that religious people have suffered enormous persecution historically - RELIGION SHOULD NO LONGER BE A PROTECTED CLASS.

A religion is just a set of ideas. A person can change the ideas they believe. Why should a religion be a protected class?

Wikipedia: Protected Group > United States begins:

US federal law protects individuals from discrimination or harassment based on the following nine protected classes: sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity[3]), race/color, age, disability, national origin, religion/creed, or genetic information (added in 2008).​

So, protected class is a legal construct employed to characterize classes of people that require protection against discrimination and harassment. You would exclude religion/creed because a person can change it (i.e., it's their fault), as if the ability to change one's beliefs (presumably under duress) makes protection less deserving, and despite acknowledging that the most vicious forms of religious discrimination and harassment have plagued mankind throughout history.

That strikes me as more than a little sophomoric.

 

[Quintessence]

I would say that being "of a religion" is a choice a person makes over and over again.

Sure, about as much as having particular genitalia is a choice a person makes over and over again - that is, it's not really something someone actually thinks about or "chooses" in any meaningful way on a day-to-day basis. In spite of people's ways of life (aka, religions) changing and evolving over time (as they should - because life itself changes over time) in that moment where someone is being fired because of their religion? Yeah, no - one's way of life isn't some article of clothing one can pick and choose on notice.

I understand that people often become quite attached to a set of ideas, I know there are quite a few ideas that I'm quite attached to

Again, religion is not just "a set of ideas." It just isn't. I don't know why you keep insisting that it is. Even dogmatic religions - for which adhering to the "right beliefs" is of central importance - are not solely about ideas.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

As I read through the SCOTUS, web designer thread in the NA Politics forum, it seems a number of spin off threads are worthy..

The idea of protected classes is now common in the law. Here's a typical list of protected classes:



It strikes me that "one of these is not like the others". All of these classes of people (except one), are based on immutable aspects of a person's identity that they are born with... except religion (and perhaps gender identity, but that's for a separate thread?)

So for this thread, I'm going to argue that - despite the fact that religious people have suffered enormous persecution historically - RELIGION SHOULD NO LONGER BE A PROTECTED CLASS.

A religion is just a set of ideas. A person can change the ideas they believe. Why should a religion be a protected class?

What? It's about not being allowed to discriminate against people for religious reasons. You think it should be okay to discriminate against religious people in employment or housing?

 

[Sand Dancer]

As I read through the SCOTUS, web designer thread in the NA Politics forum, it seems a number of spin off threads are worthy..

The idea of protected classes is now common in the law. Here's a typical list of protected classes:



It strikes me that "one of these is not like the others". All of these classes of people (except one), are based on immutable aspects of a person's identity that they are born with... except religion (and perhaps gender identity, but that's for a separate thread?)

So for this thread, I'm going to argue that - despite the fact that religious people have suffered enormous persecution historically - RELIGION SHOULD NO LONGER BE A PROTECTED CLASS.

A religion is just a set of ideas. A person can change the ideas they believe. Why should a religion be a protected class?

Religion is a choice, so I hope they do away with this as a protected class. Someday I have a feeling it will change. Perhaps sooner due to the backlash against the fundamentalist taking over of our government.

 

[Sand Dancer]

Because for the relevant intents and purposes, religion is an immutable aspect of who and what a human is. It's hardly "just a set of ideas" - it's a person's culture, identity, and way of life. At least if that human bothers being actually religious about their religion. For those who just wear the label as a superficiality, sure, it's more or less mutable. But for many of us - myself included I might add - it is absolutely not.

But it's not an innate quality like the other things mentioned are.

 

[VoidCat]

Why would an innate quality be the reason you should be a protected class? And not discrimination?

 

[VoidCat]

including pregnancy

Many pregnancies are planned. Should we all discrimination against those who are pregnant by choice?

 

[sun rise]

What? It's about not being allowed to discriminate against people for religious reasons. You think it should be okay to discriminate against religious people in employment or housing?

A broad reading of the decision would allow people to do just that. If my "sincerely held belief" is that religious people are trying to destroy civilization and indoctrinate the youth to their false beliefs, I could hang out a sign saying "no religious people will be served" and be on the side of the law as SCOTUS has articulated it.

Applying that less broadly, a Christian can have a sincerely held belief that Jews killed Jesus and are anti-Christian today, they could refuse to serve Jews.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Why would an innate quality be the reason you should be a protected class? And not discrimination?

Because it's an @icehorse precondition?

 

[VoidCat]

Because it's an @icehorse precondition?

It's like why do we have protected classes? Its not cuz it's an innate quality. It's cuz of discrimination.

 

[VoidCat]

Like am I missing something @icehorse? You seem to miss the point of protected classes if you think innate qualities is the reason they protected

 

[icehorse]

Wikipedia: Protected Group > United States begins:

US federal law protects individuals from discrimination or harassment based on the following nine protected classes: sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity[3]), race/color, age, disability, national origin, religion/creed, or genetic information (added in 2008).​

So, protected class is a legal construct employed to characterize classes of people that require protection against discrimination and harassment. You would exclude religion/creed because a person can change it (i.e., it's their fault), as if the ability to change one's beliefs (presumably under duress) makes protection less deserving, and despite acknowledging that the most vicious forms of religious discrimination and harassment have plagued mankind throughout history.

That strikes me as more than a little sophomoric.

So if we protect a class of people because of the ideas they hold, then where do we draw the line? As I said, I strongly believe in non-linear pedagogy. Should I be guaranteed a teaching job because those holding my belief tend to be discriminated against?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

So if we protect a class of people because of the ideas they hold, then where do we draw the line?

First, explain to us the intent of the category and, based on that understanding, why you would want to "draw the line."

As I said, I strongly believe in non-linear pedagogy.

Sooo cool - thanks for sharing! FWIW, I strongly believe in relevance.

Should I be guaranteed a teaching job because those holding my belief tend to be discriminated against?

No, nor should you be guaranteed a teaching job because those sharing your pigmentation tend [sic] to be discriminated against.

 

[Brickjectivity]

A religion is just a set of ideas. A person can change the ideas they believe. Why should a religion be a protected class?

It is primarily keeping the employer or coworkers from coercing you to be religious. If they try to coerce you (through threatening unemployment), then you have a civil case against them. The main thing is protecting you for not have the correct religion. This is worded as protection for people having religious positions. It is effectively the same thing.

If I work for a non-profit such as Catholic Family Services, I don't have to become a Catholic. They cannot require me to.

Without this protection I would not have my current job by-the-way, because I am not in the correct church for my employer's taste.

 

[wellwisher]

As I read through the SCOTUS, web designer thread in the NA Politics forum, it seems a number of spin off threads are worthy..

The idea of protected classes is now common in the law. Here's a typical list of protected classes:



It strikes me that "one of these is not like the others". All of these classes of people (except one), are based on immutable aspects of a person's identity that they are born with... except religion (and perhaps gender identity, but that's for a separate thread?)

So for this thread, I'm going to argue that - despite the fact that religious people have suffered enormous persecution historically - RELIGION SHOULD NO LONGER BE A PROTECTED CLASS.

A religion is just a set of ideas. A person can change the ideas they believe. Why should a religion be a protected class?

Religion requires faith, with faith not a very common characteristic of Atheists or Materials. This implies there is an innate quality to being religious; unique neural disposition, that the Atheists have discriminated against for years. You can have a drag queen parade; excessive materialists, but heads will roll if people gather to pray wrapped in nothing but faith?

The Left is nervous because their rigged discrimination games are being exposed and their protection racket monopoly is being made more fair to the Conservatives and religion.

Did anyone read the news about how a Federal Judge has placed sort of a restraining order on top level officials in the Biden administration. They have been accused of collusion with Big Tech, in terms in terms of partisan based first Amendment censorship, on social and main stream media. These con artists are now forbidden from engaging in any further collusion censorship behavior. These include people from the FBI, CIA and Injustice Departments, as well as many Biden Cabinet members, and current and previous spokes people. The swamp is being drained, by shining light on their colluded discrimination against free speech and freedom of religion; 1st Amendment rights were violated in a scary Orwellian way.

It turns out that the COVID pandemic, when run by the Biden Administration, also became a Lefty censorship scam, with black box medical science; CDC, a big part of the collusion problem; cover up.

 

[Revoltingest]

Religion is a choice, so I hope they do away with this as a protected class. Someday I have a feeling it will change. Perhaps sooner due to the backlash against the fundamentalist taking over of our government.

I could (but won't) have a sex change.
But no way could I ever stop being an atheist.
Well...perhaps with a lobotomy.
Religion isn't always immutable, but because
it sometimes is, that makes it useful that the
law treats it thus.