4 ms·
They most certainly are allowed to discriminate based on religion. The only laws on the books regarding religious discrimination are for employers who could po
by riskable 2y ago
They most certainly are allowed to discriminate based on religion. The only laws on the books regarding religious discrimination are for employers who could potentially discriminate against their employees (or in hiring) based on their religion:
https://www.eeoc.gov/religious-discrimination https://www.eeoc.gov/religious-discrimination
There's no law that says you can't say, run a website that only allows atheists to participate, or non-Jews, or non-Christians, or non-Muslims, or whatever religion or religious classification that you want.
Discriminating based on race or ethnicity is a different topic entirely. You can choose your religion (it's like, just your opinion, man) but you can't choose your race/ethnicity. There's much more complicated laws in that area.
- pc86 2y agoThere absolutely is such a law, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically Title II. If you provide public accommodations you may not discriminate based on religion. You can't stick a "No Muslims allowed" sign on your restaurant because it's open to the public. Reddit is publicly available even if they require registration, and neither Reddit nor subreddit mods may legally discriminate based on anything covered under the CRA. https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-ii-civil-rights-act-public-accommodations https://www.justice.gov/crt/title-ii-civil-rights-act-public...
- riskable 2y agoThe CRA only covers physical spaces (places of "public accommodation"). Not services (like Reddit).
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- Manuel_D 2y agoMy understanding is that businesses cannot deny service based on protected class. E.g. Reddit couldn't put "Catholics are barred from using Reddit" in their TOS. But subreddit bans are done by users of Reddit, not by Reddit itself. If someone on Xbox Live mutes the chat of Catholics and kicks them from the lobbies they're hosting, you can't go complain to Microsoft because these are the actions of a user not the company.
- pc86 2y agoWebsites are public accommodations, this has been litigated over and over and over again. That why you can sue the owner of a website over ADA violations if they offer services or products to the public. I don't know why you keep doubling down when you're verifiably, provably wrong. I understand you may not want this to be the case, but it is.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- tzs 2y ago> The only laws on the books regarding religious discrimination are for employers who could potentially discriminate against their employees (or in hiring) based on their religion. You've overlooked prohibitions on religious discrimination in public accommodations [1]. [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000a https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000a
- Manuel_D 2y agoReddit is not a place of public accommodation. It's a private web company. And furthermore, Reddit isn't the one doing the banning. It's Reddit users that are blocking members from their subreddit. The rest of Reddit is free to be browsed by said users. If I create a Google chat group, and I only invite my church members to said group is Google violating anti-discrimination laws? No. ~~You're~~ the commenter 3 layers above is trying to interpret anti-discrimination laws to cover the actions of users of a service, no the service itself.
- tzs 2y ago> You're trying to interpret anti-discrimination laws to cover the actions of users of a service, no the service itself You are failing to take into account context. My comment had nothing whatsoever to do with anything about Reddit. My comment is responding to a comment that asserted that the only laws regarding religious discrimination are for employers potentially discriminating against employees. I provided an example of a law prohibiting religious discrimination in something other than employment.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]