Why Are There Religious Rights?

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
11,619
6,262
113
Olympus Mons
Why do we still have religious rights today?

I understand the purpose for the most part, to prevent discrimination against people because of their religion. But this has been turned into an excuse for religious people to discriminate against others for religious reasons.

Here's my problem with religious rights. Rights are generally based on inherent attributes like colour, race/ethnicity, gender, species etc. These are inherent attributes. Disability is another inherent attribute even though not all disabled people are born that way, but anybody who wan't born that way and IS disabled sure as hell didn't choose to be. Well, with the exception of a very small handful of people with serious, yet un-diagnosed psychological issues.

And that's the crux of my argument. Religious belief is a choice, not an inherent attribute. It's no different than being politically partisan. Nobody is born a muslim or a christian. Just like nobody is born on one side of the political spectrum or another. They are choices we make in life.

Yet for some f*cked up reason, we permit discrimination against people, based on their inherent attributes, for religious reasons which are not inherent attributes.
So what the hell is going on? Why are religious beliefs being given precedence over inherent attributes that are supposedly protected by basic human and civil rights?

When did it become acceptable to once again discriminate against people for the way they were born based on one's personal belief in some non-existent entity in the sky?
It's way past time to prune religious freedoms until the religious zealots, and the morons who are running the shit show right now, get the f*cking clue that freedom of religion means the exact same thing as freedom FROM religion. That means ALL religions.

I'm tempted to say we should just do away with freedom of religion altogether until the zealots get a firm understanding that their right to believe their nonsense does NOT include the right to force their nonsense onto anyone and everyone else. And if it's fair game to discriminate against people for their political beliefs, then it should be fair game to discriminate against people for their religious beliefs, n'est ce pas?

And if we're going to allow shit like discriminating against disabled people purely because of personal beliefs, then you can't really slam some idiot with the law who refuses to serve Black and Mexicans because they "believe" that all Blacks and Mexicans are thieves. You can't really slam a business owner who refuses to serve muslims because they "believe" that all muslims are terrorists. Or a business owner who refuses to serve White people because they "believe" that all Whites are White supremacists.
When you open the door to allow discrimination based on personal beliefs, then you're opening the door for the "smart" mental midgets who will use their own personal beliefs to legally discriminate against one group or another based entirely on what that person "believes" about said group of people.

Let's think about it for a moment. We have basically said it's okay to use religious beliefs to discriminate against someone for the way they were born. Seriously? That's "progress"?
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,149
9,429
113
Washington DC
My thoughts exactly. Which is why I've always been reasonably happy with the state of American law that prevailed for decades: you are free to discriminate in your church, but if a church or a believer chooses to enter the stream of commerce, they must follow the rules of the stream of commerce.. Which includes non-discrimination against the seven (and a half) Federally protected classes, and whatever classes the local jurisdiction chooses to protect.
 

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
11,619
6,262
113
Olympus Mons
My thoughts exactly. Which is why I've always been reasonably happy with the state of American law that prevailed for decades: you are free to discriminate in your church, but if a church or a believer chooses to enter the stream of commerce, they must follow the rules of the stream of commerce.. Which includes non-discrimination against the seven (and a half) Federally protected classes, and whatever classes the local jurisdiction chooses to protect.
Seven (and a half). I see what you did there. Sadly accurate too.

In Canada with the way things are looking right now, we don't have anti-discrimination laws so much as we have a hierarchy of who can legally discriminate against whom.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,149
9,429
113
Washington DC
Seven (and a half). I see what you did there. Sadly accurate too.
I'm not sure you do. The "half" is age discrimination, but that's only forbidden in employment, and only for people over 40. The other classes are for education, employment, housing, and "places of public accommodation."

In Canada with the way things are looking right now, we don't have anti-discrimination laws so much as we have a hierarchy of who can legally discriminate against whom.
There is no good so pure that it can't be harmed by overdoing it.
 

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
11,619
6,262
113
Olympus Mons
I'm not sure you do. The "half" is age discrimination, but that's only forbidden in employment, and only for people over 40. The other classes are for education, employment, housing, and "places of public accommodation."
Ah, my mistake. I was thinking about Native Americans. Up here they're about "half" simply because while they are recognized, the real issues are still ignored.


There is no good so pure that it can't be harmed by overdoing it.
Or in less poetic terms, if it ain't broke, you haven't been f*cking with it enough.
 

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
2
36
Why do we still have religious rights today?

I understand the purpose for the most part, to prevent discrimination against people because of their religion. But this has been turned into an excuse for religious people to discriminate against others for religious reasons.

Here's my problem with religious rights. Rights are generally based on inherent attributes like colour, race/ethnicity, gender, species etc. These are inherent attributes. Disability is another inherent attribute even though not all disabled people are born that way, but anybody who wan't born that way and IS disabled sure as hell didn't choose to be. Well, with the exception of a very small handful of people with serious, yet un-diagnosed psychological issues.

And that's the crux of my argument. Religious belief is a choice, not an inherent attribute. It's no different than being politically partisan. Nobody is born a muslim or a christian. Just like nobody is born on one side of the political spectrum or another. They are choices we make in life.

Yet for some f*cked up reason, we permit discrimination against people, based on their inherent attributes, for religious reasons which are not inherent attributes.
So what the hell is going on? Why are religious beliefs being given precedence over inherent attributes that are supposedly protected by basic human and civil rights?

When did it become acceptable to once again discriminate against people for the way they were born based on one's personal belief in some non-existent entity in the sky?
It's way past time to prune religious freedoms until the religious zealots, and the morons who are running the shit show right now, get the f*cking clue that freedom of religion means the exact same thing as freedom FROM religion. That means ALL religions.

I'm tempted to say we should just do away with freedom of religion altogether until the zealots get a firm understanding that their right to believe their nonsense does NOT include the right to force their nonsense onto anyone and everyone else. And if it's fair game to discriminate against people for their political beliefs, then it should be fair game to discriminate against people for their religious beliefs, n'est ce pas?

And if we're going to allow shit like discriminating against disabled people purely because of personal beliefs, then you can't really slam some idiot with the law who refuses to serve Black and Mexicans because they "believe" that all Blacks and Mexicans are thieves. You can't really slam a business owner who refuses to serve muslims because they "believe" that all muslims are terrorists. Or a business owner who refuses to serve White people because they "believe" that all Whites are White supremacists.
When you open the door to allow discrimination based on personal beliefs, then you're opening the door for the "smart" mental midgets who will use their own personal beliefs to legally discriminate against one group or another based entirely on what that person "believes" about said group of people.

Let's think about it for a moment. We have basically said it's okay to use religious beliefs to discriminate against someone for the way they were born. Seriously? That's "progress"?

What about Constitutionally-imposed discrimination on the basis of religion? For example, if a public servant in Ontario provides funding for separate Catholic and Protestant schools but then denies it to a Jewish school, that public servant might not even agree with the laws and the.Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms but must still adhere to it. The same applies to forcing all public schools to follow a Christian holiday calendar.and denying funding to any private school that chooses to follow a different calendar.

Likewise, an enforcement officer in Ontario might have a legal obligation to impose a fine on a business that illegally opens its doors for business on Easter Sunday even if the owner does not profess the Christian Faith.

I have no qualms with a government adopting the Christian Faith as its official state religion as the UK has for example (and at least the UK does not pretend to be a secular state), but I do have a problem with the government discriminating on the basis of religion in educational funding and on imposing a Christian holiday calendar on public schools and private.businesses with maybe an exception for natural monopolies.

Isn't it hypocritical to turn a blind eye to religious discrimination in public education, government administration, and the Canadian Constitution while complaining about what some private business does?

How about the Constitution lead by example?

And on the point concerning choice, is religious belief really a choice? Does a person who does not believe in God choose to not believe in God or does he.just not believe in God maybe even in spite of himself?

And on the point about religion somehow being 'anti-progressive,' consider that many vegans, Esperantists, and others have often been motivated by religion.
 
Last edited:

Retired_Can_Soldier

The End of the Dog is Coming!
Mar 19, 2006
12,395
1,367
113
60
Alberta
I would like to see religion completely removed from politics. I'm sure our valiant leaders could steer the boat without the help of [pick your favorite savior or prophet.]


Let's get back to roads and infrastructure or even a chicken in every pot.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,887
126
63
I would like to see religion completely removed from politics. I'm sure our valiant leaders could steer the boat without the help of [pick your favorite savior or prophet.]


Let's get back to roads and infrastructure or even a chicken in every pot.
I believe what you are trying to say is you would like religion removed from gubmint.
 

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
2
36
I would like to see religion completely removed from politics. I'm sure our valiant leaders could steer the boat without the help of [pick your favorite savior or prophet.]


Let's get back to roads and infrastructure or even a chicken in every pot.

I don't think we could totally remove religion from government, but we could certainly minimize it. For example, we could let any public school and any private business other than a natural monopoly freely choose its own holiday calendar and limit statutory holidays and any weekend law to interbal government administratikn and natural monopolies only.

As for Christian symbols such a the cross on some of our provincial flags, I see no harm in that since anyone is free to ignore it. Sane with anthem: he could just choose to not sing it. Imposed religious statutory holidays are harder to just ignore.
 
Last edited:

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,187
14,244
113
Low Earth Orbit
I don't think we could totally remove religion from government, but we could certainly minimize it. For example, we could let any public school and any private business other than a natural monopoly freely choose its own holiday calendar and limit statutory holidays and any weekend law to interbal government administratikn and natural monopolies only.

As for Christian symbols such a the cross on some of our provincial flags, I see no harm in that since anyone is free to ignore it. Sane with anthem: he could just choose to not sing it. Imposed religious statutory holidays are harder to just ignore.

Imposed days off with pay suck.
 

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
2
36
Then you get Stat pay. Duh.

What if your employer closes his doors on that day to avoid paying stat pay when you would have rather worked that day?

There is no denying that the point of statutory holidays is to impose religious holidays on people by legal means.
 

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
11,619
6,262
113
Olympus Mons
What about Constitutionally-imposed discrimination on the basis of religion? For example, if a public servant in Ontario provides funding for separate Catholic and Protestant schools but then denies it to a Jewish school, that public servant might not even agree with the laws and the.Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms but must still adhere to it. The same applies to forcing all public schools to follow a Christian holiday calendar.and denying funding to any private school that chooses to follow a different calendar.
No public funding of ANY religious schools should be allowed. You want a religious school, well then you and your community can pay for it.

Likewise, an enforcement officer in Ontario might have a legal obligation to impose a fine on a business that illegally opens its doors for business on Easter Sunday even if the owner does not profess the Christian Faith.
It is not illegal to be open for business on stat holidays.

I have no qualms with a government adopting the Christian Faith as its official state religion as the UK has for example (and at least the UK does not pretend to be a secular state), but I do have a problem with the government discriminating on the basis of religion in educational funding and on imposing a Christian holiday calendar on public schools and private.businesses with maybe an exception for natural monopolies.
I have major qualms about it. Keep religion out of politics and public life.

Isn't it hypocritical to turn a blind eye to religious discrimination in public education, government administration, and the Canadian Constitution while complaining about what some private business does?
I didn't. Religion should be given no legitimacy.

How about the Constitution lead by example?
And on the point concerning choice, is religious belief really a choice? Does a person who does not believe in God choose to not believe in God or does he.just not believe in God maybe even in spite of himself?
Yes, it is a choice. Are you born a particular religion? No. You may be born into a religious family who considers you their religion but you are NOT of that religion until you make a conscious decision as an individual human being to be such.

And on the point about religion somehow being 'anti-progressive,' consider that many vegans, Esperantists, and others have often been motivated by religion.
Don't care about "Esperantists". And vegans? You have GOT to be kidding me. The device has yet to be invented that can measure how little I care what some vegan thinks or says. If you need an ancient book of rules of ancient date attributed to a non-existent being to tell you how to be a decent human, then it really doesn't say much about you as a person.

What if your employer closes his doors on that day to avoid paying stat pay when you would have rather worked that day?

There is no denying that the point of statutory holidays is to impose religious holidays on people by legal means.
Labour Day is a religious holiday? Canada Day is a religious holiday? Victoria Day is a religious holiday? How about New Year's Day? Family Day? the Civic Holiday? Remembrance Day? Boxing Day? Yeah, gimmie a break dude, your rhetoric is getting to be over the top.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,187
14,244
113
Low Earth Orbit
What if your employer closes his doors on that day to avoid paying stat pay when you would have rather worked that day?

There is no denying that the point of statutory holidays is to impose religious holidays on people by legal means.

You still get paid because it's a stat.

Do you have an Arts degree in Mid Century Kitsch?
 

Jinentonix

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 6, 2015
11,619
6,262
113
Olympus Mons
In Ontario, a business can face a 50,000.00 fine for defiantly opening on Easter weekend.

Update: MPP Lisa MacLeod slams Whole Foods for defying holiday shopping law | Ottawa Citizen
It depends on whether the City has passed its own by-laws stating the Act does not apply, as long as they have also passed a by-law requiring certain retail businesses to be closed on a holiday.
The law also does not apply to retail stores of less than 2400 sq ft with no more 3 or 4 employees, as long as the merchandise is produced and sold on site.