04 Aug 09
Something I read today made me think.
http://euobserver.com/9/28522/?rk=1
Catholics alarmed by EU equal rights law
ANDREW RETTMAN
Today @ 09:15 CET
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - Atheists could attack galleries for showing religious art and witches could claim the right to use church halls under a draft EU equal rights law, the Roman Catholic church has warned.
The EU bill aims to curtail discrimination on grounds of religion, disability, age or sexual preference in social situations not covered by existing labour law, such as renting properties.
The directive could enter into force in 2011 if member states give unanimous approval in discussions planned for November by the Swedish EU presidency.
The question it keeps coming back to, is, does anyone have a right to bigotry? Can any group defend their rights to maintain their exclusivity?
Is there a consequence of equal rights, that denies the right to refuse entry?
04 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by kmax87I don't know about Europe. But in the United States, you do have the right to be a bigot. If you have a private club and want to exclude blacks or Jews or whatever, that's your right.
Something I read today made me think.
[quote]http://euobserver.com/9/28522/?rk=1
Catholics alarmed by EU equal rights law
ANDREW RETTMAN
Today @ 09:15 CET
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - Atheists could attack galleries for showing religious art and witches could claim the right to use church halls under a draft EU equal rights law, the Roman Catholic c ...[text shortened]... eir exclusivity?
Is there a consequence of equal rights, that denies the right to refuse entry?
It's called "freedom of association" and it's guaranteed under the First Amendment.
It does not apply to public accomodations or to anything open to the public (or to businesses that engage in any type of commerce). Discrimination in those areas is prohibited by civil rights laws.
In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, New Jersey had passed a law prohibiting the boy scouts (and other groups, of course) from discriminating based on sexual orientation. The Supreme Court ruled the law unconstitutional, essentially saying that it was none of New Jersey's business whom members of a private club choose to associate with.
There are still many country clubs that discriminate. Augusta National Golf course, where the Masters is held, does not allow women to become members. There are many golf clubs that don't allow blacks or Jews. Barry Goldwater, former GOP presidential nominee, was said to have once quipped regarding one of these clubs "I'm only half Jewish. Can I play 9 holes?"
04 Aug 09
2 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraReally?
Do people have a right to be bigots? Yes, of course.
Should bigotry be institutionalized by law? No. All references to religion in law should be removed.
What about something like:
"No employer shall discriminate against an employee or potential employee on the basis of his religion or lack thereof"
?
Is that okay?
04 Aug 09
Originally posted by sh76No, it should be:
Really?
What about something like:
"No employer shall discriminate against an employee or potential employee on the basis of his religion or lack thereof"
?
Is that okay?
"No employer shall discriminate against an employee or potential employee on the basis of his ideology or lack thereof"
04 Aug 09
Originally posted by sh76With regard to the Boy Scouts, I would agree with you as long as they refrain from accepting any government sponsorship. The ACLU took legal action to stop governmental organizations from serving as sponsors of Scouting units on the grounds that since the Boy Scouts also do not accept atheists, this constituted an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion. If the Boy Scouts want to exclude atheists then they would have to renounce any government sponsorship. If they want to have government sponsorship then they would have to accept atheists.
I don't know about Europe. But in the United States, you do have the right to be a bigot. If you have a private club and want to exclude blacks or Jews or whatever, that's your right.
It's called "freedom of association" and it's guaranteed under the First Amendment.
It does not apply to public accomodations or to anything open to the public (or to busine ...[text shortened]... once quipped regarding one of these clubs "I'm only half Jewish. Can I play 9 holes?"
04 Aug 09
Originally posted by kmax87Yes, of course people have a right to bigotry, an employer has the same right to discriminate against anyone for any reason that an employee has to discriminate against a potential employer for any reason. This goes for landlords or tenants.
Something I read today made me think.
[quote]http://euobserver.com/9/28522/?rk=1
Catholics alarmed by EU equal rights law
ANDREW RETTMAN
Today @ 09:15 CET
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - Atheists could attack galleries for showing religious art and witches could claim the right to use church halls under a draft EU equal rights law, the Roman Catholic c ...[text shortened]... eir exclusivity?
Is there a consequence of equal rights, that denies the right to refuse entry?
04 Aug 09
Originally posted by rwingettWe agree on something.
With regard to the Boy Scouts, I would agree with you as long as they refrain from accepting any government sponsorship. The ACLU took legal action to stop governmental organizations from serving as sponsors of Scouting units on the grounds that since the Boy Scouts also do not accept atheists, this constituted an unconstitutional government endorsement of ...[text shortened]... ponsorship. If they want to have government sponsorship then they would have to accept atheists.
04 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaThat's incorrect; at least under US law. Under US law, an employer subject to the Employment Discrimination Laws (generally speaking, one with 15 or more employees) may not discriminate in hiring based on race, national origin, religion, gender, etc. I don't know about European, Australian or New Zeland law on the subject.
Yes, of course people have a right to bigotry, an employer has the same right to discriminate against anyone for any reason that an employee has to discriminate against a potential employer for any reason. This goes for landlords or tenants.
04 Aug 09
Originally posted by sh76Don't bother, in Wajoma world employers and employees have the same degree of power.
That's incorrect; at least under US law. Under US law, an employer subject to the Employment Discrimination Laws (generally speaking, one with 15 or more employees) may not discriminate in hiring based on race, national origin, religion, gender, etc. I don't know about European, Australian or New Zeland law on the subject.
04 Aug 09
Originally posted by sh76Yep there may be laws and may get tested occasionally but let's face it employees choose not to work at all kinds of places because they discriminate against the owner for some reason, hair to frizzy, feet too large, the employers religion or even their race.
That's incorrect; at least under US law. Under US law, an employer subject to the Employment Discrimination Laws (generally speaking, one with 15 or more employees) may not discriminate in hiring based on race, national origin, religion, gender, etc. I don't know about European, Australian or New Zeland law on the subject.
04 Aug 09
Originally posted by sh76Exactly, right on point.
I don't know about Europe. But in the United States, you do have the right to be a bigot. If you have a private club and want to exclude blacks or Jews or whatever, that's your right.
It's called "freedom of association" and it's guaranteed under the First Amendment.
It does not apply to public accomodations or to anything open to the public (or to busine ...[text shortened]... once quipped regarding one of these clubs "I'm only half Jewish. Can I play 9 holes?"
Although you might be thinking of "Freedom of Assembly", unless there's another line about association.
04 Aug 09
1 edit
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperIt's freedom of "association," or, as the Supreme Court calls it, the right of "expressive association"
Exactly, right on point.
Although you might be thinking of "Freedom of Assembly", unless there's another line about association.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-699.ZS.html
It's not in the words of the First Amendment itself (the right to freedom of association), but I guess it's a corollary to the right to freedom of speech.
04 Aug 09
Originally posted by sh76Learn something new everyday 🙂
It's freedom of "association," or, as the Supreme Court calls it, the right of "expressive association"
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-699.ZS.html
It's not in the words of the First Amendment itself (the right to freedom of association), but I guess it's a corollary to the right to freedom of speech.
04 Aug 09
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperI was just re-reading the syllabus of that case.
Learn something new everyday 🙂
That was one complicated case! I'm glad it was decided after I finished Constitutional Law and so I didn't have to really figure out exactly what the All Stars were talking about. 🙂