• 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!

If your congregation isn’t unisex, get ready to be sued

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
The so-called Equality Act[sic] has passed the House. One of it’s provisions is to allow any religious congregation that has separate sections based on gender to be open to being sued. In other words, destroyed by litigation.
 

Orbit

I'm a planet
The so-called Equality Act[sic] has passed the House. One of it’s provisions is to allow any religious congregation that has separate sections based on gender to be open to being sued. In other words, destroyed by litigation.

That is utter nonsense.
 

The Hammer

[REDACTED]
Premium Member
The so-called Equality Act[sic] has passed the House. One of it’s provisions is to allow any religious congregation that has separate sections based on gender to be open to being sued. In other words, destroyed by litigation.

I'm certainly not seeing what you are here.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
The so-called Equality Act[sic] has passed the House. One of it’s provisions is to allow any religious congregation that has separate sections based on gender to be open to being sued. In other words, destroyed by litigation.
:facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:
This bill prohibits discrimination based on sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity in areas including public accommodations and facilities, education, federal funding, employment, housing, credit, and the jury system. Specifically, the bill defines and includes sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity among the prohibited categories of discrimination or segregation.

The bill expands the definition of public accommodations to include places or establishments that provide (1) exhibitions, recreation, exercise, amusement, gatherings, or displays; (2) goods, services, or programs; and (3) transportation services.

The bill allows the Department of Justice to intervene in equal protection actions in federal court on account of sexual orientation or gender identity.

The bill prohibits an individual from being denied access to a shared facility, including a restroom, a locker room, and a dressing room, that is in accordance with the individual's gender identity.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Which provision is that?

Be specific
Here is a link to it to help you out:


SEC. 1107. CLAIMS.

“The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.) shall not provide a claim concerning, or a defense to a claim under, a covered title, or provide a basis for challenging the application or enforcement of a covered title.”.


Here is a link to the bill as passed. Text - H.R.5 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Equality Act
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
The so-called Equality Act[sic] has passed the House. One of it’s provisions is to allow any religious congregation that has separate sections based on gender to be open to being sued. In other words, destroyed by litigation.

Do you have a reference link?
 

Mestemia

Advocatus Diaboli
Premium Member

SEC. 1107. CLAIMS.

“The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.) shall not provide a claim concerning, or a defense to a claim under, a covered title, or provide a basis for challenging the application or enforcement of a covered title.”.


Here is a link to the bill as passed. Text - H.R.5 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Equality Act
How does one get
"allow any religious congregation that has separate sections based on gender to be open to being sued"​
from
"not provide a claim concerning, or a defense to a claim under, a covered title, or provide a basis for challenging the application or enforcement of a covered title"?​
 

exchemist

Veteran Member

SEC. 1107. CLAIMS.

“The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.) shall not provide a claim concerning, or a defense to a claim under, a covered title, or provide a basis for challenging the application or enforcement of a covered title.”.


Here is a link to the bill as passed. Text - H.R.5 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Equality Act
This Act consists solely of a series of amendments to existing laws against discrimination, in order to extend their scope to encompass gender-related orientations more generally. That is all it does, as far as I can see.

The section you quote simply means that the 1993 religious freedom act does not override the provisions of this new one.

There is nothing in this law about the practice of religion, so far as I can see.

So either you have drawn a wrong conclusion, or you need to explains exactly what previous law is modified by this new one, in a way that now enables the Jews to be sued for segregating the sexes in religious services.

Make your case, if you have one.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
How does one get
"allow any religious congregation that has separate sections based on gender to be open to being sued"​
from
"not provide a claim concerning, or a defense to a claim under, a covered title, or provide a basis for challenging the application or enforcement of a covered title"?​
You misquoted the provision. The provision eliminates the exception of religious organizations from certain suits.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
This Act consists solely of a series of amendments to existing laws against discrimination, in order to extend their scope to encompass gender-related orientations more generally. That is all it does, as far as I can see.

The section you quote simply means that the 1993 religious freedom act does not override the provisions of this new one.

There is nothing in this law about the practice of religion, so far as I can see.

So either you have drawn a wrong conclusion, or you need to explains exactly what previous law is modified by this new one, in a way that now enables the Jews to be sued for segregating the sexes in religious services.

Make your case, if you have one.
The 1993 religious freedom act exempted religious organizations from certain suits. This new act eliminates that protection. It is that simple.
 

Jainarayan

ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
Staff member
Premium Member
Two words: First Amendment.

Expanded: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...”

If it’s part of religious tradition and doesn’t infringe on the rights of others (why human sacrifice is prohibited), the bill ain’t gonna fly. The SCOTUS will slap it down faster than **** goes through a goose.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Two words: First Amendment.

Expanded: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...”
Government (including the USSC) has ruled against specific
language in the Constitution before. "Free exercise" has
evolving limitations.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Whatever the new legislation says, don't discriminate on the basis of sex - simple, all your problems have gone.
Oh, you ferriners....our system is not so simple.
Anti-discrimination laws have harsh remedies, so we endure
many lawsuits over questions of illegal discrimination. Lawyers
& attorneys pro se often pursue bogus suits in order to extract
settlements. I've endured some of those. Did nothing wrong..
..but they know that the cost of defense is so high that they can
use it to extort settlements.
Our country is run by lawyers for lawyers. They gear the system
to encourage suing, eg, the rarity of being awarded legal costs
when one wins a suit against one.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member

SEC. 1107. CLAIMS

“The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.) shall not provide a claim concerning, or a defense to a claim under, a covered title, or provide a basis for challenging the application or enforcement of a covered title.”.


Here is a link to the bill as passed. Text - H.R.5 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Equality Act
As far as I can tell, anything in the Equality Act prohibiting segregated seating is specifically for places of public accommodation.

I'm not sure whether you think places of worship are places of public accommodation, or if you think there's something in the act that I'm not seeing.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
You misquoted the provision. The provision eliminates the exception of religious organizations from certain suits.
It's pretty standard that when a new law is passed, there's a clause in the new law to the effect that the new law supersedes any older laws that might conflict with the new law.

I don't see the issue.
 

capumetu

Active Member
The so-called Equality Act[sic] has passed the House. One of it’s provisions is to allow any religious congregation that has separate sections based on gender to be open to being sued. In other words, destroyed by litigation.

I certainly believe in freedom of religion, and separation of church and state. I am not aware of, but no doubt there are faiths that do not allow women, or men for that matter, but if they are a religious organization, I believe they should have the right to govern it. Why would anyone who was not wanted, desire to be associated with them anyway?

I guess I can actually answer that, perhaps they think that it is the path to salvation, and I sympathize with them.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
The 1993 religious freedom act exempted religious organizations from certain suits. This new act eliminates that protection. It is that simple.
It eliminates the protection with respect to claims under the Equality Act.

A synagogue or church isn't a place of public accommodation, so the Equality Act wouldn't eliminate protections the way you're suggesting. You're free to discriminate and segregate within your congregation to your heart's delight.

Where this will affect synagogues and churches is when they operate - secondary to their worship functions - a place of public accommodation... for instance, a banquet hall.

So if a church has a hall they rent out for, say, wedding receptions or community group meetings, they can't discriminate based on sex (including sexual orientation or gender identity) when it comes to that.

There will be a number of churches that will have to decide between renting out their parish hall or whatnot to everyone or not renting it out at all, but this law seems crafted to not affect worship services.

Short version: it doesn't affect actual places of worship, but it gets rid of some of the "this business is owned by a church, so it gets all the freedom to discriminate that a church gets" nonsense.
 
Last edited:
Top