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

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why would anyone who was not wanted, desire to be associated with them anyway?

It's often because they feel directed by God to do it.

Say you were a Catholic woman who sincerely believed you were being called to the priesthood. You pray and reflect on it until you're absolutely sure... but the local diocese won't even talk to you because they say women can't be priests. Would the word of some bishop be enough for you to - as you understand it - disobey God?

 

[exchemist]

The 1993 religious freedom act exempted religious organizations from certain suits. This new act eliminates that protection. It is that simple.

No, I don't think so.

All it says, as I read it, is that the 1993 religious freedom act cannot override this new act. But if this new act says nothing about religious practices, then religious practices are not affected by it.

I cannot see where religious practices are affected by this new act. Can you point to anything in it that affects them?

What suits could now be brought, that could not be brought before, that affect segregated worship?

 

[exchemist]

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.

This act does not infringe the first amendment, so far as I can see. It says nothing about religious practices.

 

[McBell]

You misquoted the provision. The provision eliminates the exception of religious organizations from certain suits.

Except that it is not I who misquoted it.
I merely copy/pasted from YOUR post...

And you have not explained:

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"?
​

I will flat out remind you that the two indented parts in quotes are direct copy/pastes from your posts.

 

[Altfish]

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.

OK, but the same religions shouldn't expect tax relief/exemption.
Following your suggestion, Rastafarians should be allowed to smoke dope but I can't.
Religious exclusion is not good

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

OK, but the same religions shouldn't expect tax relief/exemption.
Following your suggestion, Rastafarians should be allowed to smoke dope but I can't.
Religious exclusion is not good

I'm personally fine with exemptions of conscience; these often - but not always - come from a person's religion.

If a Rastafarian considers marijuana a sacrament and you just see it as a way to get high, then prohibiting marijuana does harm to the Rastafarian that it doesn't do to you.

(That being said, I personally support legalization of marijuana across the board)

I think it's perfectly reasonable to, for instance, not force someone who's a vegetarian for religious reasons to eat meat. However, I think it's important to provide the same protections to someone who's a vegetarian for secular ethical reasons.

Where conscience exemptions get tricky is when we talk about impositions on others... like @Shaul 's desire for a segregated synagogue.

 

[Altfish]

I'm personally fine with exemptions of conscience; these often - but not always - come from a person's religion.

If a Rastafarian considers marijuana a sacrament and you just see it as a way to get high, then prohibiting marijuana does harm to the Rastafarian that it doesn't do to you.

(That being said, I personally support legalization of marijuana across the board)

I think it's perfectly reasonable to, for instance, not force someone who's a vegetarian for religious reasons to eat meat. However, I think it's important to provide the same protections to someone who's a vegetarian for secular ethical reasons.

Where conscience exemptions get tricky is when we talk about impositions on others... like @Shaul 's desire for a segregated synagogue.

But, the law of the land must be sacrosanct.
What if a religion says, "It is ok to kill (say) black people" - would an exemption of conscience be applicable?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But, the law of the land must be sacrosanct.
What if a religion says, "It is ok to kill (say) black people" - would an exemption of conscience be applicable?

What do you think? Give your head a shake.

 

[Altfish]

What do you think? Give your head a shake.

So what qualifies for an exemption and what doesn't?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So what qualifies for an exemption and what doesn't?

Here in Canada, when it comes to, for instance, peyote for First Nations religious services, no "exemption" is required; that use is legal.

The Charter spells out protections for the right to freedom of conscience. Like all rights in the Charter, they're "subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society" and don't supersede the rights of others.

 

[metis]

First of all, the OP is nothing short of complete nonsense. The issue deals with sexual discrimination, but it doesn't go so far as to force Rabbi Shorty Schwartz or Pastor Pistol Pete to perform gay marriages. But, as usual, some on the right slant it so as to be something that it simply ain't.

Again, it's sexual discrimination that's the issue, and those who oppose it might as well try and force laws to discriminate against women or blacks or Amerindians, etc. What's next, a return to slavery?

 

[74x12]

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.

But it's progressive and ... liberal.

 

[exchemist]

But it's progressive and ... liberal.

And it has no impact whatever on religious practice.

Do you really think that the US Congress, with so many Jewish members, is going to pass a law that makes it impossible to have segregated worship without fear of litigation?

 

[Kenny]

Which provision is that?

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

H.R.5 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Equality Act​

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.

and here.....

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.

and here..ll

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.

and I don't find any exceptions.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I think the purpose of such laws are to protect people from being discriminated against but cannot rewrite the laws in the Bible or Quran etc.

 

[Kenny]

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.

And yet the government forced Catholic adoptions agencies to violate their faith as well as force faith organizations to provide services on abortions they didn't believe in.

 

[Shaul]

No, I don't think so.

All it says, as I read it, is that the 1993 religious freedom act cannot override this new act. But if this new act says nothing about religious practices, then religious practices are not affected by it.

I cannot see where religious practices are affected by this new act. Can you point to anything in it that affects them?

What suits could now be brought, that could not be brought before, that affect segregated worship?

This act allows for suits based on gender. Previously religious organizations were specifically exempted from Civil Rights Act(1964) suits. This current bill eliminates that exemption.

Examples of suits that could be brought if this passes that could not before include suits against religious organizations that specify a gender for a position. Such as the Catholic Church’s restriction of male only priests. Another example would be congregations that keep separate areas for congregants based on gender. Such separate congregations exist in certain Christian, Muslim and Jewish sects.

 

[Shaul]

Whatever the new legislation says, don't discriminate on the basis of sex - simple, all your problems have gone.

It isn’t that simple. Something that might be discrimination in one context may not be in another.

 

[Shaul]

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.

Any enterprises that is open to public attendance are under the purview of this. That includes most religious congregations.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Any enterprises that is open to public attendance are under the purview of this. That includes most religious congregations.

As nice as that would be, you're just wrong on this one.

Churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious organizations are generally not considered public accommodations. However; when these facilities are rented out to the public for non-religious purposes, they become public accommodations during that period of use.

Public Accommodations and Equal Rights - FindLaw.