3 ms·

"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 ar

"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
    >Asymmetry != discrimination. The asymmetry of the law is due to the asymmetry of religious discrimination. yep. asymmetry of religious discrimination. It is definitely here. If history is any indicator, the religious discrimination, especially in its most nightmarish forms, has almost always been perpetrated by religious people (just of another religion), and not by non-religious people >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. absolutely unfounded claim. There are a lot of religious practices, that if "dress-coded" would prevent, for example, me from going there, and i'd have no "religious accommodation" way of getting around them.

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
  >Asymmetry != discrimination. The asymmetry of the law is due to the asymmetry of religious discrimination. yep. asymmetry of religious discrimination. It is definitely here. If history is any indicator, the religious discrimination, especially in its most nightmarish forms, has almost always been perpetrated by religious people (just of another religion), and not by non-religious people >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. absolutely unfounded claim. There are a lot of religious practices, that if "dress-coded" would prevent, for example, me from going there, and i'd have no "religious accommodation" way of getting around them.