4 ms·

I'm not sure where you learned that the US legal system is against religious discrimination in private organizations, but it's not strictly true. Many religiou

I'm not sure where you learned that the US legal system is against religious discrimination in private organizations, but it's not strictly true. Many religious organizations in the US openly discriminate against people who are not their religion, from christian charities and businesses requiring staff to sign contracts that state they agree with/are members of the religion, to catholic hospitals openly discriminating against non-catholics based on their own "religious freedom to deny care". One way they can do this is an exemption to discrimination called bona fide occupational qualification suggesting that only certain people can do the job. In a more broad sense, any private organization with limited membership (signing up vs allowing everyone) can discriminate. For example some country clubs discriminate based on race to this day. One reason for this is that the constitution guarantees "Freedom of Association" which includes the ability to have selective membership.

jjmarr 2y ago
It's on a state-by-state basis.[1] In California in particular, courts have ruled online businesses that are public accommodations cannot discriminate:[2] > The California Supreme Court held that entering into an agreement with an online business is not necessary to establish standing under the Unruh Act. Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Liu emphasized that “a person suffers discrimination under the Act when the person presents himself or herself to a business with an intent to use its services but encounters an exclusionary policy or practice that prevents him or her from using those services,” and that “visiting a website with intent to use its services is, for purposes of standing, equivalent to presenting oneself for services at a brick-and-mortar store.” I'm not sure what Catholic hospitals refuse non-Catholics care. My understanding is they refuse to provide medical treatments such as abortion that go against Catholic moral teachings, and this refusal is applied to everyone. [1] https://lawyerscommittee.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Online-Public-Accommodations-Report.pdf https://lawyerscommittee.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Onli... [2] https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-133/white-v-square/ https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-133/white-v-square/
- ideashower 2y ago
  > In California in particular, courts have ruled online businesses that are public accommodations cannot discriminate. Yes. But there is a legal distinction between a business website that offers goods/services to the public (like an online store), and a social media platform's moderation decisions or user-created communities. Prager University v. Google LLC (2022)[1] - the court specifically held that YouTube's content moderation decisions didn't violate the Unruh Act. There's a clear distinction between access to services (where public accommodation laws may apply), and content moderation/curation decisions (protected by Section 230). [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2022/h047714.html https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2022...
  - jjmarr 2y ago
    You are right, thank you for the citation. edit: there's another comment chain you might be interested in about whether the federal civil rights act is applicable.
    - ideashower 2y ago
      Thanks :-)

jjmarr 2y ago

It's on a state-by-state basis.[1] In California in particular, courts have ruled online businesses that are public accommodations cannot discriminate:[2] > The California Supreme Court held that entering into an agreement with an online business is not necessary to establish standing under the Unruh Act. Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Liu emphasized that “a person suffers discrimination under the Act when the person presents himself or herself to a business with an intent to use its services but encounters an exclusionary policy or practice that prevents him or her from using those services,” and that “visiting a website with intent to use its services is, for purposes of standing, equivalent to presenting oneself for services at a brick-and-mortar store.” I'm not sure what Catholic hospitals refuse non-Catholics care. My understanding is they refuse to provide medical treatments such as abortion that go against Catholic moral teachings, and this refusal is applied to everyone. [1] https://lawyerscommittee.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Online-Public-Accommodations-Report.pdf https://lawyerscommittee.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Onli... [2] https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-133/white-v-square/ https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-133/white-v-square/

ideashower 2y ago
> In California in particular, courts have ruled online businesses that are public accommodations cannot discriminate. Yes. But there is a legal distinction between a business website that offers goods/services to the public (like an online store), and a social media platform's moderation decisions or user-created communities. Prager University v. Google LLC (2022)[1] - the court specifically held that YouTube's content moderation decisions didn't violate the Unruh Act. There's a clear distinction between access to services (where public accommodation laws may apply), and content moderation/curation decisions (protected by Section 230). [1] https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2022/h047714.html https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2022...
- jjmarr 2y ago
  You are right, thank you for the citation. edit: there's another comment chain you might be interested in about whether the federal civil rights act is applicable.
  - ideashower 2y ago
    Thanks :-)