• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Religious Freedom and Liberty: A Trojan Horse?

gsa

Well-Known Member
A broad, religious liberty/religious freedom exemption from anti-discrimination laws would render the latter essentially unenforceable. Consider these examples:

For example, Orthodox Jews do not believe women should wear pants. So could a woman be fired for wearing pants to work in a business owned by Orthodox Jews?

And according to the church website,
Mormon leaders believe women "should be wives and mothers above all else", and should resist what they call "insidious propaganda" including independence. Would that mean a Mormon-owned business could refuse to hire women at all, because they shouldn't be working? The Catholic church condemns birth control. Could a Catholic-owned business fire a woman if she was found to be using contraception?

Equally scary are hard-line Muslim views of women. Females are not to go out without a male relative, and must be covered head to toe at all times. Could a Muslim-owned business refuse to serve any woman without a headscarf, or one not accompanied by a male?

Should religious adherents be given a special pass from complying with the law? And what makes their situation different from someone without religious views, but with deeply held, sincere moral beliefs opposed to particular laws?
 

Marisa

Well-Known Member
A broad, religious liberty/religious freedom exemption from anti-discrimination laws would render the latter essentially unenforceable. Consider these examples:

For example, Orthodox Jews do not believe women should wear pants. So could a woman be fired for wearing pants to work in a business owned by Orthodox Jews?

And according to the church website,
Mormon leaders believe women "should be wives and mothers above all else", and should resist what they call "insidious propaganda" including independence. Would that mean a Mormon-owned business could refuse to hire women at all, because they shouldn't be working? The Catholic church condemns birth control. Could a Catholic-owned business fire a woman if she was found to be using contraception?

Equally scary are hard-line Muslim views of women. Females are not to go out without a male relative, and must be covered head to toe at all times. Could a Muslim-owned business refuse to serve any woman without a headscarf, or one not accompanied by a male?

Should religious adherents be given a special pass from complying with the law? And what makes their situation different from someone without religious views, but with deeply held, sincere moral beliefs opposed to particular laws?
Despite recent SCOTUS rulings, corporations of any size are not people too, my friend. We need to remember that though we may be religious individuals and own businesses, our businesses are not religious. Where federal monies are in play it's simple: want federal money? Don't discriminate anywhere the fed doesn't. Truly private businesses are a different story; RFRA laws validate the religious person's perception that having a mythical belief gives them permission to approve of how others live their lives that the rest of us mouth breathers don't possess. IMO, we should stamp this belief out, like the albatross around our society's neck it truly is.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
A broad, religious liberty/religious freedom exemption from anti-discrimination laws would render the latter essentially unenforceable. Consider these examples:

For example, Orthodox Jews do not believe women should wear pants. So could a woman be fired for wearing pants to work in a business owned by Orthodox Jews?

And according to the church website,
Mormon leaders believe women "should be wives and mothers above all else", and should resist what they call "insidious propaganda" including independence. Would that mean a Mormon-owned business could refuse to hire women at all, because they shouldn't be working? The Catholic church condemns birth control. Could a Catholic-owned business fire a woman if she was found to be using contraception?

Equally scary are hard-line Muslim views of women. Females are not to go out without a male relative, and must be covered head to toe at all times. Could a Muslim-owned business refuse to serve any woman without a headscarf, or one not accompanied by a male?

Should religious adherents be given a special pass from complying with the law? And what makes their situation different from someone without religious views, but with deeply held, sincere moral beliefs opposed to particular laws?
We already have anti-discrimination laws which address this well.
If a business provides a "public accommodation" (landlord, donut shop, baconarium, movie theater), one cannot discriminate against protected groups.
But I wouldn't eliminate all discrimination....if a church opposes women priests, then I'd let them discriminate in church affairs.
 

Laika

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Should religious adherents be given a special pass from complying with the law? And what makes their situation different from someone without religious views, but with deeply held, sincere moral beliefs opposed to particular laws?

No. but, it is fairly closely linked with the idea that religion is more natural than atheism. As a result freedom ends up privallaging religious belief because atheists as of yet have been unable to provide an objective and scientific ethics to counter religious ethical cliams. Instead we have ones based on subjective and individual preferences which can be rejected by appeal to god as a higher authority or source of moral beliefs to be enacted in laws.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
No. but, it is fairly closely linked with the idea that religion is more natural than atheism. As a result freedom ends up privallaging religious belief because atheists as of yet have been unable to provide an objective and scientific ethics to counter religious ethical cliams. Instead we have ones based on subjective and individual preferences which can be rejected by appeal to god as a higher authority or source of moral beliefs to be enacted in laws.

Appealing to a God is just an argument from authority in which we can not even begin to question the authority or to find out if it is in fact real. God and religion is subjective thus it is no better than atheism based views. However the theist concedes the ability to reason by invoking fallacies. People can invoke fallacious reasoning if they want but this does not convince me at all. Moral belief enacted by law show diverge systems of morality such as The British Empire making slavery illegal while it's colonies were not subject to this law as vassal states. Likewise GB vs American views on slavery.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
A broad, religious liberty/religious freedom exemption from anti-discrimination laws would render the latter essentially unenforceable. Consider these examples:

And according to the church website, Mormon leaders believe women "should be wives and mothers above all else", and should resist what they call "insidious propaganda" including independence. Would that mean a Mormon-owned business could refuse to hire women at all, because they shouldn't be working?
Your example was taken from a Conference address given more than 40 years ago. The Church has changed its stance quite a bit over that 40-year period. A considerably more current statement reads:

By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation.
 

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
I wonder why some people are so wanting to discriminate just because they own a business. Jeez, I myself can't stand some religions or ideologies, but pay me money to learn how to dance and I'll teach you how to dance. Trying to complicate things by wanting your business to be a personal extension of you and your individual morals makes you thinking your business really is all about you. And coming from a woman who is already self-absorbed, even *i* think motives like that are selfish and arrogant.

I've accepted students who were Muslim and who were Pentecostal, who wanted their daughters to wear something vastly different than leotards and tights to class. Did I have any reservations about working with them? HELL NO. It's business. Who gives a **** how I think their religious practices are misogynistic and bigoted? They're students who want to learn how to dance. I'm providing a service to them as patrons.

Do I have morals and ethics that are sincerely held? Yes, of course I do. But for instance....My personal feminist views do not give me the right to refuse service to people who I think are sexist against women.

Look, I work with my patrons unless they become abusive to me, my staff, or the other customers/vendors. It's called business, folks, bottom line. It's not that difficult a concept to grasp.
 
Last edited:

Thief

Rogue Theologian
I kinda thought religious freedom is what YOU do for God.

Getting in the path of your fellowman in everyday affairs is intrusion upon civil liberty.

If I want my flag on my back.....I just won't wear it into your church.
If I want to buy something in your store....that's another matter.

This is a country based on economics.

You let your religion get in the way and America will fail.
 

gsa

Well-Known Member
We already have anti-discrimination laws which address this well.
If a business provides a "public accommodation" (landlord, donut shop, baconarium, movie theater), one cannot discriminate against protected groups.
But I wouldn't eliminate all discrimination....if a church opposes women priests, then I'd let them discriminate in church affairs.


These proposals would create exemptions from public accommodation laws, however; that's what makes them so sweeping.
 

gsa

Well-Known Member
Your example was taken from a Conference address given more than 40 years ago. The Church has changed its stance quite a bit over that 40-year period. A considerably more current statement reads:

By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation.

The example is not my own; it is taken from the article. However, regardless of the church stance, the exemption would be based on individual sincerely held religious beliefs. So whether that is the actual teaching of the LDS or not, it makes little difference.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
These proposals would create exemptions from public accommodation laws, however; that's what makes them so sweeping.
Exceptions which don't result in widespread strife & discrimination.....sounds reasonable to me.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
What kind of exemption would that be?
Let me think of an example.....
If I had a bakery, I'd reserve the right to not put on overt confectionery messages which I disagree with.
All customers may still buy their cake, but some might have to furnish special embellishments.
 

gsa

Well-Known Member
Let me think of an example.....
If I had a bakery, I'd reserve the right to not put on overt confectionery messages which I disagree with.
All customers may still buy their cake, but some might have to furnish special embellishments.

And how do we write this exemption into law?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
And how do we write this exemption into law?
That gets tricky.
Perhaps something along the lines of....

No one shall be compelled to utter speech against one's will.
No one shall be denied cake either.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
The example is not my own; it is taken from the article.
Well then, the article is 40 years out of date.

However, regardless of the church stance, the exemption would be based on individual sincerely held religious beliefs. So whether that is the actual teaching of the LDS or not, it makes little difference.
Why even cite an example that "makes little difference"? If we're talking about "individual sincerely held religious beliefs" then any statement implied to be "official" is even less relevant.
 

gsa

Well-Known Member
Why even cite an example that "makes little difference"? If we're talking about "individual sincerely held religious beliefs" then any statement implied to be "official" is even less relevant.

No, it serves as a barometer of what kind of objections exist, and how many people may make them. After all, official stances help shape individual objections. It just isn't the end of the inquiry.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
A broad, religious liberty/religious freedom exemption from anti-discrimination laws would render the latter essentially unenforceable. Consider these examples:

For example, Orthodox Jews do not believe women should wear pants. So could a woman be fired for wearing pants to work in a business owned by Orthodox Jews?

And according to the church website,
Mormon leaders believe women "should be wives and mothers above all else", and should resist what they call "insidious propaganda" including independence. Would that mean a Mormon-owned business could refuse to hire women at all, because they shouldn't be working? The Catholic church condemns birth control. Could a Catholic-owned business fire a woman if she was found to be using contraception?

Equally scary are hard-line Muslim views of women. Females are not to go out without a male relative, and must be covered head to toe at all times. Could a Muslim-owned business refuse to serve any woman without a headscarf, or one not accompanied by a male?

Should religious adherents be given a special pass from complying with the law? And what makes their situation different from someone without religious views, but with deeply held, sincere moral beliefs opposed to particular laws?

Only one example: letting sick children die because of reliance in prayer instead of medicines.

Should it be allowed or not? I think most would say no, including religious governors or senators. But then we have at least one case where religious freedom cannot be used as an excuse, which undermines the blanket statement that religious freedom must be respected.

Therefore, religious freedom has obvious, mostly uncontroversial, limitations and the work left is "only" to decide where those limits are.

Ciao

- viole
 

Marisa

Well-Known Member
Religious freedom needs to simply mean the freedom to restrict YOURSELF further than law requires in accordance with your closely held belief(s). It need not give you power to restrict anyone else, and you should never be validated in presuming the privilege to restrict other people in order to massage your own religious ego. That means that if Hobby Lobby feels it can't allow its employees to make their own choices regarding their own health care, then it shouldn't be allowed to exist. It's that whole personal responsibility thing again.
 
Last edited:

gsa

Well-Known Member
That gets tricky.
Perhaps something along the lines of....

No one shall be compelled to utter speech against one's will.
No one shall be denied cake either.

But that isn't compelled speech, because it is simply a business service. Put another way, no one is forcing the commercial provider to endorse any particular message by baking a wedding cake or taking photographs. If you were to endorse the "compelled speech" rationale in those cases, you end up absolving the providers of providing services to, for example, black customers, interracial customers, etc. Because any service can be read as an "endorsement" or "compelled speech."
 
Top