3 ms·
I've always thought the whole 'protected categories' thing was made a little odd by the inclusion of religion, given the obvious nexus between religious beliefs
by livueta 4y ago
I've always thought the whole 'protected categories' thing was made a little odd by the inclusion of religion, given the obvious nexus between religious beliefs and political positions, e.g. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby. Political opinions receiving protection iff colored by a religious belief is pretty asymmetric. To maintain logical consistency, either both or neither.
- torstenvl 4y agoJust to be clear, the implications of what you're suggesting would be the immediate legalization of anti-Semitism in the workplace. Are you sure that's better?
- livueta 4y agoNo, you're right, it's a half-baked idea. There's got to be some way of slicing things such that freedom from discrimination is prioritized over the ability to use that freedom to implement discrimination, but I'm not seeing it yet. It does bother me that the status quo enables straight-up discrimination on the basis of religion, though, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Guadalupe_School_v._Morrissey-Berru https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Guadalupe_School_v.... The whole broad application of the ministerial exemption thing is a perfect figleaf for arbitrary bullshit, laundered as inspired by faith. e: s/religious discrimination/discrimination on the basis of religion
- int_19h 4y agoThat whole "freedom of religion" thing is essentially freedom of speech and association in ritual trappings that allow it to go further than it could without them. There's no reason why it should be special-cased like that - we should either broaden these protections to all opinions, or treat religion same as any other opinion.