3 ms·

"Freedom of religion is not freedom from consequences, you can believe in X god but don't be surprised when we do not allow you into our shops and universities"

by chr1 6y ago

"Freedom of religion is not freedom from consequences, you can believe in X god but don't be surprised when we do not allow you into our shops and universities" Do you see a substantial difference between your statement and the one above?

sk5t 6y ago
That'd be discrimination against a protected class at a place of public accommodation. This is more like dropping a person from club membership due to incompatible views or behaviors.
- Digory 6y ago
  California makes political view a protected class. In fact, in 1986, the California ACLU sued a restaurant for excluding Nazis, under California anti-discrimination laws. The restaurant settled. http://volokh.com/2006/02/24/a-very-strange-but-true-aclu-case/ http://volokh.com/2006/02/24/a-very-strange-but-true-aclu-ca...
  - sk5t 6y ago
    It's not as cut-and-dried as you suggest. Individuals--but not broad classes of people--can be excluded based on their behavior. The Nazis likely could be excluded as long as they insisted on wearing Nazi pins/garb, but not merely on suspicion of their beliefs. A spineless out-of-court settlement by an insurer doesn't tell us that much about how the case might have fared in court, only that the insurer chose to avoid further risk.
    - Digory 6y ago
      I think the more interesting part is that the ACLU was committed so strongly to non-discrimination in 1986. And I agree the settlement doesn’t prove the claim was valid. But why would protection matter less when you’re wearing the garb of the political view you’re trying to express? If the law is trying to protect unpopular political views from being excluded in public services, it matters the most precisely when they’re wearing MAGA hats or Newsom 2022 pins.
- chr1 6y ago
  The question is not about what is defined as protected class, but why we needed to start protect religious freedom. Allowing people to escalate disagreements in one issue into sabotage of each other, leads to hostility and all out war.

by chr1 6y ago

sk5t 6y ago

That'd be discrimination against a protected class at a place of public accommodation. This is more like dropping a person from club membership due to incompatible views or behaviors.

Digory 6y ago
California makes political view a protected class. In fact, in 1986, the California ACLU sued a restaurant for excluding Nazis, under California anti-discrimination laws. The restaurant settled. http://volokh.com/2006/02/24/a-very-strange-but-true-aclu-case/ http://volokh.com/2006/02/24/a-very-strange-but-true-aclu-ca...
- sk5t 6y ago
  It's not as cut-and-dried as you suggest. Individuals--but not broad classes of people--can be excluded based on their behavior. The Nazis likely could be excluded as long as they insisted on wearing Nazi pins/garb, but not merely on suspicion of their beliefs. A spineless out-of-court settlement by an insurer doesn't tell us that much about how the case might have fared in court, only that the insurer chose to avoid further risk.
  - Digory 6y ago
    I think the more interesting part is that the ACLU was committed so strongly to non-discrimination in 1986. And I agree the settlement doesn’t prove the claim was valid. But why would protection matter less when you’re wearing the garb of the political view you’re trying to express? If the law is trying to protect unpopular political views from being excluded in public services, it matters the most precisely when they’re wearing MAGA hats or Newsom 2022 pins.
chr1 6y ago
The question is not about what is defined as protected class, but why we needed to start protect religious freedom. Allowing people to escalate disagreements in one issue into sabotage of each other, leads to hostility and all out war.