4 ms·

Um, before you go on a crusade you might want to re-think the consequences: Freedom of religious expression guarantees the right to no have a religion. As in i

Um, before you go on a crusade you might want to re-think the consequences: Freedom of religious expression guarantees the right to no have a religion. As in it's just as illegal to only hire Christians than it is to not hire one.

VladRussian 16y ago
you're missing the point. A company can not fire a religious guy over long hair and can fire a non-religious one with the same hair length and dirtiness. That is discrimination, a penalty for being non-religious.
- run4yourlives 16y ago
  Considering you are perfectly free to join the exact same religion and have the same protections, it is not. The fact that your choosing to not join the religion - also your protected right - doesn't come with exactly the same perks is not grounds for discrimination. I consider the fact that I'm not mandated by the government to pray to Mecca three times a day at work a pretty acceptable trade off.
  - VladRussian 16y ago
    >Considering you are perfectly free to join the exact same religion and have the same protections thank you, i couldn't say it better myself. Reminds me about Medieval Europe - either join the religion or burn at stake.
- joshuacc 16y ago
  Actually, that doesn't constitute discrimination. Consider the case of a disabled worker in a wheelchair. The employer is required to make reasonable accommodations if the employee is otherwise suited for the job. That doesn't mean that the US discriminates against the non-disabled. Incidentally, the same law protects the atheist with a tattoo of His Noodliness* as a statement of non-belief, as well as the Christian with a tattoo of the Cross. * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
  - VladRussian 16y ago
    >disabled worker in a wheelchair it isn't a matter of personal choice. Brandishing off one's religion is a matter of the one's personal choice. >Incidentally, the same law protects the atheist with a tattoo of His Noodliness* as a statement of non-belief don't know about employment law. In the immigration law your religion needs to have a registered tax free church in the US , otherwise it isn't a religion
    - joshuacc 16y ago
      "Brandishing off one's religion is a matter of the one's personal choice." The issue is that you can come up with all sorts of interesting restrictions that are theoretically neutral, but amount to de facto religious discrimination. For instance, consider a store owner who hates Islam, but knows better than to say so for fear of being sued. Instead the store owner prohibits employees from wearing head scarves. Presto! Now most Muslim women would be unable to work there. It's to prevent these supposedly neutral rules that the law of reasonable accommodation is in place. "needs to have a registered tax free church in the US , otherwise it isn't a religion" This is limited to particular circumstances like data collection, but doesn't apply to religious freedom laws (like the employment law).
      - VladRussian 16y ago
        >Instead the store owner prohibits employees from wearing head scarves. Presto! Now most Muslim women would be unable to work there. Instead the store owner forces employees to wear head scarves. Presto! Now most non-religious women would be unable to work there. Unfortunately, there is no law that can help them. This asymmetry is a discrimination against non-religious citizens.
        joshuacc 16y ago
        "Now most non-religious women would be unable to work there." Not true. Most non-religious women have no problem with head scarves. "This asymmetry is a discrimination against non-religious citizens." Asymmetry != discrimination. The asymmetry of the law is due to the asymmetry of religious discrimination. Namely, it is easy to target religion for discrimination with "neutral" laws, while it is hard to target non-religion for discrimination with "neutral" laws. This is due to the fact that the non-religious are free to do or not do these things (head scarves, dreadlocks, etc.), while the religious have no choice if they are to be faithful to their beliefs.

VladRussian 16y ago

you're missing the point. A company can not fire a religious guy over long hair and can fire a non-religious one with the same hair length and dirtiness. That is discrimination, a penalty for being non-religious.

run4yourlives 16y ago
Considering you are perfectly free to join the exact same religion and have the same protections, it is not. The fact that your choosing to not join the religion - also your protected right - doesn't come with exactly the same perks is not grounds for discrimination. I consider the fact that I'm not mandated by the government to pray to Mecca three times a day at work a pretty acceptable trade off.
- VladRussian 16y ago
  >Considering you are perfectly free to join the exact same religion and have the same protections thank you, i couldn't say it better myself. Reminds me about Medieval Europe - either join the religion or burn at stake.
joshuacc 16y ago
Actually, that doesn't constitute discrimination. Consider the case of a disabled worker in a wheelchair. The employer is required to make reasonable accommodations if the employee is otherwise suited for the job. That doesn't mean that the US discriminates against the non-disabled. Incidentally, the same law protects the atheist with a tattoo of His Noodliness* as a statement of non-belief, as well as the Christian with a tattoo of the Cross. * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster
- VladRussian 16y ago
  >disabled worker in a wheelchair it isn't a matter of personal choice. Brandishing off one's religion is a matter of the one's personal choice. >Incidentally, the same law protects the atheist with a tattoo of His Noodliness* as a statement of non-belief don't know about employment law. In the immigration law your religion needs to have a registered tax free church in the US , otherwise it isn't a religion
  - joshuacc 16y ago
    "Brandishing off one's religion is a matter of the one's personal choice." The issue is that you can come up with all sorts of interesting restrictions that are theoretically neutral, but amount to de facto religious discrimination. For instance, consider a store owner who hates Islam, but knows better than to say so for fear of being sued. Instead the store owner prohibits employees from wearing head scarves. Presto! Now most Muslim women would be unable to work there. It's to prevent these supposedly neutral rules that the law of reasonable accommodation is in place. "needs to have a registered tax free church in the US , otherwise it isn't a religion" This is limited to particular circumstances like data collection, but doesn't apply to religious freedom laws (like the employment law).
    - VladRussian 16y ago
      >Instead the store owner prohibits employees from wearing head scarves. Presto! Now most Muslim women would be unable to work there. Instead the store owner forces employees to wear head scarves. Presto! Now most non-religious women would be unable to work there. Unfortunately, there is no law that can help them. This asymmetry is a discrimination against non-religious citizens.
      - joshuacc 16y ago
        "Now most non-religious women would be unable to work there." Not true. Most non-religious women have no problem with head scarves. "This asymmetry is a discrimination against non-religious citizens." Asymmetry != discrimination. The asymmetry of the law is due to the asymmetry of religious discrimination. Namely, it is easy to target religion for discrimination with "neutral" laws, while it is hard to target non-religion for discrimination with "neutral" laws. This is due to the fact that the non-religious are free to do or not do these things (head scarves, dreadlocks, etc.), while the religious have no choice if they are to be faithful to their beliefs.