War on Christmas - With Neighbors Like These

[Zkribbler]

Imagine a Muslim doctor who beliefs that it is improper conduct for him to work with female patients.

Would it be discriminatory for a hospital to expect him to not discriminate because of his religious beliefs?

Because there are few women doctors in Muslim countries, my guess would be that women are usually rewated by male doctors

 

[Ryika]

That may be the case, but if the Muslim doctor beliefs that it is improper, then that would still be his religious belief, and would need to be accounted for, would it not? After all, "Do not transport alcohol as part of your job." is not something that is written in Islamic scripture either, it is the individual's personal interpretation of the rules against drinking alcohol that they should not be transporting it.

 

[Commodore]

These are both cases in which business discriminated against a minority group,

So religious beliefs only matter when you are a minority? Interesting logic you have there...

 

[stinkubus]

That may be the case, but if the Muslim doctor beliefs that it is improper, then that would still be his religious belief, and would need to be accounted for, would it not? After all, "Do not transport alcohol as part of your job." is not something that is written in Islamic scripture either, it is the individual's personal interpretation of the rules against drinking alcohol that they should not be transporting it.

A person's religious beliefs do not need to be part of an established religion's dogma or canon in order for them to be afforded legal protection in the United States. The only standard applied is whether or not those beliefs are "sincerely" held which would be determined by the judge who hears the case. In practice I imagine the only way this could be proven in court would be to show that the individual in question had recent transported some alcohol.

The employer is then only required to accommodate if they can do so at literally no cost to themselves. Had the company in question been able to demonstrate that getting someone else to deliver the product would cost them so much as one thin dime the driver would've lost.

The employer/employee relationship is a completely different animal from laws regarding places of public accommodation (like bakeries), so the comparison between the two is apples and oranges.

 

[Ryika]

The employer is then only required to accommodate if they can do so at literally no cost to themselves.

Well that never happens. Even if they could just have shifted around the Muslim truck driver with another truck driver, the likely outcome of that would have been resentment among his colleges, and thus a worse working climate, which is likely to cause further problems, and then potential, indirect monetary losses.

A person's religious beliefs do not need to be part of an established religion's dogma or canon in order for them to be afforded legal protection in the United States. The only standard applied is whether or not those beliefs are "sincerely" held which would be determined by the judge who hears the case.

This part here is the reason for my question though, because I still wonder if this would apply to a Muslim doctor who does not want to operate females. After all, if the hospital is big enough, there should be enough people around to accommodate that, right? Some people might have to take some shifts they'd prefer not to do, but come on, it's his religious belief, don't discriminate!

And is so, what if, in some rare set of unforeseeable circumstances, that doctor is the only person around who could help in the female victim of an emergency, but refuses to do so? If the patient dies, is that then the fault of the hospital administration?

 

[stinkubus]

Hypothetical loses from imaginary resentful employees don't count. The doctor is a different case because he is a service provider who cannot legally discriminate against protected classes (of which gender is one) in the US. Employers are required accommodate the religious beliefs of their employees, but they cannot discriminate against protected classes when selling their products or services. The distinction is not difficult.

 

[Ryika]

What if a person holds the religious belief that breast implants are immoral, because they think the body is sacred and that purely esthetic changes are not okay? Are they allowed to discriminate against men and women with breast implants?

 

[stinkubus]

Probably, because "people with breast implants" are not a protected class, but I'm not certain how one would be able to tell unless they were involved in some sort of business where they get to see their customers naked?

It is only illegal (federal law) to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, pregnancy, familial status (with some exceptions, a landlord cannot legally refuse to rent to you simply because you have children), citizenship status (government services, not employment), disability, veteran status, or "genetic information" (an employer or insurer cannot require you to submit to genetic testing for predisposition to disease). Many states across the country have adopted additional protections, so one's rights can vary from state to state.

 

[Ryika]

Well, that doesn't sound like a very practical law to me. Who decides what are protected classes anyway, and why are people with breast implants not on that list? Is it not the case that people who feel like they need breast implants are usually already relatively insecure people? Being discriminated against by a doctor who thinks they're "impure" might push them over the edge.

 

[Zkribbler]

Who decides what are protected classes anyway,

Congress.

 

[metalhead]

Christian bakers refuse to bake a gay wedding cake for going against Christianity: FIned $135,000.

Muslim truck drivers refuse to drive alcohol trucks for going against Islam: Awarded $240,000.

Alcoholic beverages are a protected class?

Do you have any idea what the concept of "laws" is?

 

[Katie88]

That is, freedom of association is freedom to associate, not freedom to discriminate.

I think it’s pretty obvious that I’m talking about the inherent conflict between freedom of association and anti-discrimination laws.

 

[Katie88]

I don't think you quite understand the concept of "discrimination is illegal."

If you were pulled over by a cop, would you trot out "freedom of association" and tell him to get lost because you didn't want to associate with him?

Perhaps you could explain how someone ordering a cake from a private bakery is analogous to being stopped by the police.

Not sure about the U.S., but in Canada that would be a case of a hate group intending to spread more hate. I'm pretty sure the baker's Charter rights would trump the Nazi's Charter rights... since Naziism isn't a religion and it's not protected in any way under the Charter.

So the Christian baker’s religion doesn’t protect him from having to bake a cake that offends his beliefs, but the Jewish baker can refuse to bake one because Nazism isn’t a religion?!

That’s just…astonishingly incoherent.

Why don't you ask any of the LGBT members on this forum if they've had the experience of being around a bigot who rants about "their kind" and has no idea who (s)he is talking to? It would surprise me if any of them haven't had such an experience.

It's a valid question: Do you expect these bigoted bakers to check and verify the sexual orientation of every customer, no matter what kind of cake they ask for? Will you concede that baking a cake isn't the same as attending a wedding?

The issue is that the baker was forced to bake a cake (or pay compensation in lieu thereof) that went against his religious beliefs on homosexuality. Whether he knowingly or unknowingly met some homosexuals in other contexts is completely irrelevant.

Do you follow everything in Leviticus, or just the parts you like? Today is Sunday, yet I'd bet you've done some work today. As I recall, the penalty for that is rather grim. Eaten any shellfish lately? Worn mixed fabrics?

There seems to be an amazing number of cherries that get picked when arguing about this issue.

Leaving aside the factual errors the post below pointed out, you can doubtless demonstrate cherry picking and/or hypocrisy in almost anyone’s religious practice; but, unless you’re claiming that no religious belief is valid due to said cherry picking/hypocrisy, so what?

 

[stinkubus]

I think it’s pretty obvious that I’m talking about the inherent conflict between freedom of association and anti-discrimination laws.

There is no conflict. Individuals have freedom of association. Business entities do not.

 

[metalhead]

Right. Nobody disagrees that if you wanted to be a cake-maker relying purely on private patronage, you would have every right to refuse patronage from gay couples or anyone else.

It's when you want to open up to the public, that you become expected to serve the public. If making cakes for gay people bothers you that much, then don't open a cake store.

 

[Katie88]

There is no conflict. Individuals have freedom of association. Business entities do not.

So if the baker were a sole trader, then he would be entitled to refuse. Interesting angle.

 

[JollyRoger]

I am all for allowing those who operate without the government protection of limited liability be free to discriminate, but once you form a corporation, LLC, LLP, or other such entity, you can't discriminate. That is not the current state of the law, but I think it hits closest to home of allowing freedumb of association for bigots. You could even form a general partnership of bigotry - you just don't get the benefit of government protected limited liability.

 

[stinkubus]

Bigots can already start private clubs if they want to keep minorities out. The last thing the US needs right now is places operating publicly which allow whites only or exclude gays or whatever.

 

[Traitorfish]

So religious beliefs only matter when you are a minority? Interesting logic you have there...

It's fairly clear from context that I was using "minority" as a synonym for "protected class".

That may be the case, but if the Muslim doctor beliefs that it is improper, then that would still be his religious belief, and would need to be accounted for, would it not? After all, "Do not transport alcohol as part of your job." is not something that is written in Islamic scripture either, it is the individual's personal interpretation of the rules against drinking alcohol that they should not be transporting it.

I don't think that anybody in this thread has suggested that we should extended infinite tolerance to religious beliefs. The case involving the Muslim drivers hinged on the failure of the company to make reasonable effort to accommodate them, and the conclusion of the court that they would have been able to make such accommodations without financial loss. You can fuss over what constitutes "reasonable effort", if you want, but nobody has given you reason to believe that there's a universal rule for that, beyond the very general principal of minimising burden.

So the Christian baker’s religion doesn’t protect him from having to bake a cake that offends his beliefs, but the Jewish baker can refuse to bake one because Nazism isn’t a religion?!

Given the historical dynamics involved, it's really more like a Nazi baker refusing to make a Jewish cake.

 

[Commodore]

It's fairly clear from context that I was using "minority" as a synonym for "protected class".

Then your argument doesn't make sense. Religion is a protected class, yet you are agreeing with religious belief being protected in one case but not another. And so far the only reason you have provided for this logical inconsistency is the one you agree with being protected was a minority while the other wasn't.

Either everyone gets to refuse service/job duties based on their religion or no one does. You can't have it both ways.