At the risk of further hijack, j/k PM me where I send the book(s).
At the risk of further hijack, j/k PM me where I send the book(s).
It did not claim, that psychics were part of any Christian religion, or actuslly any particular form of religion. To tm’s Statement that he wasn’t aware of ANY religion. I provided a few where they are.Is being a psychic part of the OP's religious beliefs? Perhaps, though I'd think it unlikely since I am not aware of any religion in which being a psychic is part of the religious practice. Like lying, it may simply be a nonreligious act that is frowned upon by some religions. I think it would be very difficult to come up with a compelling religious discrimination argument here.
whether you wish to deny a religion is a religion is between you and yourself but it doesn’t mean they aren’t religions.
do you realize that some listed actuslly incorporate parts of Christian and catholic religions.
here is Wikipedia’s explanation of Santería
Santería, also known as Regla de Ocha, La Regla de Ifá, or Lucumí, is an Afro-American religion of Caribbean origin that developed in the Spanish Empire among West African descendants. Santería is a Spanish word that means the "worship of saints". Santería is influenced by and syncretized with Roman Catholicism.
you need to open your mind a bit there m&g.
You did not address my example of the cake baker. But again, applying your logic, because the baker's own religious beliefs were that homosexuality is wrong and that was the basis for his discrimination against the gay couple, he would have illegally discriminated against them based on religion as well as because they are homosexuals. But the CCRC did not charge him with discrimination based on religion, only with discrimination based on the couple being homosexuals. If your theory were correct the CCRC would have charged both. But it didn't because your theory is not how the law works. For it to be illegal discrimination based on religion the baker would have had to refuse to bake the cake because of the CUSTOMERS' religion.
(a) Employer practices
It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -
(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or
(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a) (underling added). Note the parts I underlined: the focus of the Act is on the characteristics/beliefs of the employee, not the employer. Thus, the test for establishing a prima facie case for illegal religious discrimination by an employer has been stated by the federal courts as follows:
We first adopt the approach to plaintiff's prima facie case taken by several courts of appeal:
A plaintiff in a [Title VII] case makes out a prima facie case of religious discrimination by proving: (1) he or she has a bona fide religious belief that conflicts with an employment requirement; (2) he or she informed the employer of this belief; (3) he or she was disciplined for failure to comply with the conflicting employment requirement.
Turpen, 736 F.2d at 1026; accord Brown v. General Motors Corp., 601 F.2d 956, 959 (8th Cir.1979); Anderson, 589 F.2d at 401; Redmond v. GAF Corp., 574 F.2d 897, 901 (7th Cir.1978).
Philbrook v. Ansonia Bd. of Educ., 757 F.2d 476, 481 (2d Cir. 1985), aff'd and remanded, 479 U.S. 60, 107 S. Ct. 367, 93 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1986).
Note that the first requirement focuses on the employee's religious beliefs, not the beliefs of the employer.
In the context of religious discrimination by places of public accommodation, the test is set out a bit differently, but the focus remains the beliefs of the customer, not the business:
To establish a prima facie case under § 2000a, plaintiff must show that he or she (1) is a member of a protected class; (2) attempted to exercise the right to full benefits and enjoyment of a place of public accommodation; (3) was denied those benefits and enjoyment; and (4) was treated less favorably than similarly situated persons who are not members of the protected class. McCoy, 390 F.Supp.2d at 584–85.
Bormuth v. Dahlem Conservancy, 837 F. Supp. 2d 667, 674 (E.D. Mich. 2011).
So the customer must be a member of a protected class, i.e. a person with a particular religious belief (and for this purpose being agnostic or atheistic counts as a religious belief) and that customer must have been treated differently than similarly situated persons not of that class, i.e. persons with religious beliefs different from that of the customer. Again, nothing in there focuses on the religious beliefs of the business person.
This is not to say that the religious beliefs of the employer or business person are irrelevant. They can certainly help inform on the issue of whether the the acts of the employer/business person might have caused him/her to discriminate against the employee/customer because of the employee's/customer's religion. But you have to make that link — how the employer's/business person's beliefs resulted in discrimination based on the beliefs held by the employee/customer.
So the bottom line here is that in an illegal discrimination analysis we'd be looking at whether the center discriminated against the OP because of the OP's religious beliefs. I'm not seeing anything here that suggests that to be the case. The fact that the center has religious beliefs that have them frown on psychic readings does not itself amount to religious discrimination against the OP. You need to take the extra step to show how that then leads to discrimination against the OP because of the OP's religious beliefs.
And, of course, there is the additional problem that even if under this analysis the organization is discriminating against the OP because of religion it may not be illegal. Only discrimination in specified circumstances (employment, places of public accommodation, housing, etc) is illegal, and even within those areas there situations that are exempt from the prohibition of discrimination.
of course that statement is sarcasm but the point being made isn’t.
If one is discrimanted against because your beliefs do not comport with mine on the basis of religion, that is religious discrimination. In essence the statement is that if you are not of my religion then you are excluded. How is that not religious discrimination? In this situation that is exactly what the op has been told; our religion condemns psychics so since you are a psychic, you are not allowed to use our facilities. It was not based on their personal feeling towards psychics but invoking the tenets of their religion.
The problem with arguing one must belong to a protected class to invoke anti discrimination laws is it ignores the fact that it allows discrimination based on protected classes if the action involved is based on the fact the one being discriminated against doesn’t belong to the same class as those discriminating against them. It’s saying I can’t discriminate against you because you are [a member of a protected class] but I can discriminate against you because you aren’t a memeber of that same protected class and I am. How do not you see that that is discrimination based on a protected class.
You touched on the point itself when you stated; for the purposes of the discussion being agnostic or atheist is a religious belief. That actually supports my point. A religious non-belief is no different that being not white in my flippant statement. The law is saying you can’t discriminate against a person because they don’t accept your religious beliefs because a religious non-belief is not a religious belief. It is the exact opposite. In the case st hand, that is what the basis of the denial of service is based upon.
Actuslly, this allows for a very simple game to be played using current definitions within the law.
all the op has to do is state that his religious beliefs of atheism include belief in psychics. That then converts his position to being discriminated against based on his religious beliefs. Of course it is actusllly the opposite but the laws as you have explained allow for it. My interpretation simply removes the game and says if your religious beliefs are the basis for your actions against me, that is religious discrimination.
And if you read my original statement I asked if this community center is private or publicly owned. Haven’t gotten an answer to that question so I’m already ahead of you on that point.
The statment is in no way a logical application of the case law on religious discrimination and thus I do not see the point you are making.
Right. In that case then the discrimination is because your religious beliefs and my religious beliefs are only relevant in that they inform the reason why I am discriminating against you because of your religion. Think about it. If I took the exact same action because of your religious beliefs that is discrimination. It does not matter what my religious beliefs are. Again the focus of the law is whether you are being discriminated against because of YOUR religious beliefs.
No, the OP was not told that he is being excluded because he is not of the same religion. That's the flaw in your logic. His religion was not a factor in the decision at all unless you can make the argument that being a psychic is part of the relgious practice of the OP, which I addressed in my first post. It is the same thing as discriminating against someone for being a liar because your religious beliefs says lying is a sin. That is not religious discrimination because, while your religion tells you lying is a sin, you are not discriminating against the other person for his religion, unless somehow the person could credibly claim that lying is part of his/her religious practice.
That is not what the case law says nor it is that what I am saying. If you discriminate against someone for NOT being a Christian, Jew, or whatever, it is of course religious discrimination because you are discriminating based on the other persons religious beliefs. But the OP was not told "We are not allowing you to use the space because you are not practicing __________ religion." He was told that he was being excluded because he's going to do psychic readings. That does not discriminate against the OP because of his religious beliefs unless being a psychic is actually part of his religious practice. The law protects you from discrimination because of your religious beliefs; it does not protect from discrimination because your acts might offend the religious beliefs of another unless your acts are part of your religious beliefs.
No, because being agnostic or atheist is a particular set of beliefs about whether any god or gods exist. He is not being discriminated against because of any religious belief he has, e.g. any beliefs about god. He was not told he is being excluded because he does not believe a god exists. If he were, that would be religious discrimination because it is based on HIS beliefs about god.
And people have tried playing that game, and the response of the courts is that the person must have sincerely held religious beliefs; suddenly adopting a religious belief at the time it might benefit you to claim that belief undermines the idea that you had some sincerely held religious belief that is now being discriminated against.
Your interpretation is not what either the statutes say or what the courts have said. Your idea turns the entire concept on its head. The law was meant to protect YOUR religious beliefs. But you are saying that your religious beliefs are actaully not relevant; that instead you say it only matters whether the other person is making his decision based on his beliefs. So if he takes an action against you that is based on your religion but has nothing to do with his religious beliefs that would be ok under your interpretation. That's clearly not what Congress and state legislatures had in mind. Moreover, under your interpretation all of the following are religious discrimination:
- an employer fires an employee for lying because the employer's religious beliefs say lying is wrong;
- an employer fires an employee for being a sex offender because the employer's religious beliefs say such sexual activity is wrong;
- an employer refuses to hire a convicted thief because the employer's religious beliefs say that stealing is wrong; and
- an employer fires an employee for wearing skimpy clothing to work because the employer's religious beliefs are that one should dress modestly.
I could go on and list many more examples, of course, but you get the idea. Yet I think would concede that the employer would be permitted to do all those things. Certainly its clear in the law he could do those things. Yet under your theory it would be religious discrimination. So how does your interpretation deal with that?
Moreover, you allow an employee/customer to play the game of claiming anything is religious discrimination as long as he or she can tie the action to some religious belief of the employer/business even though that doesn't infringe on any religious belief of the employee/customer. Lying is not part of the religious practice of any religion I know about, but under your theory discriminating against a liar is religious discrimination if the employer/business person's religious beliefs says lying is wrong. So now you suddenly make firing an employee for lying illegal discrimination simply because lying is against the employer's religious beliefs.
Your interpretation would deny employers and business people from ever acting in accordance with their religious beliefs even if that does not infringe the religious beliefs of the employees/customers because under your view any time the employer/business acts based on a religious belief it is automatically religious discrimination. Thank God that is not the way the law works. (Yes, the pun was intended.) I suppose if you were very anti-religion you might find having that result attractive, but I don't think most would find that a good outcome.
The law is meant to protect you in the exercise of YOUR religious beliefs. It is the infringment of YOUR beliefs that is the focus of the law. It is not the religious beliefs of the other person that matters except as it helps to explain why the other person infringed on YOUR beliefs.
I have cited the stautes and case law that explain what the law is. You evidently don't like the way the law is and you are free to ask Congress and your state to change the law to make it to your liking. But I'm not going to endlessly debate what you would like the law to be. I have explained what it is with citations to prove it. If you want to assert that the law is actually what you think it is, find some actual case law that says it is what the person who allegedly discriminated believes that matters rather than the beliefs of the person who was supposedly discriminated against believes and we can continue the discussion. If you can't find any case law out of the literally thousands of cases on religious discrimination that supports your view of it then you have your answer: the courts don't take your interpretation of it.