I frankly haven’t seen a lot from ACB’s history that would make me think she would be a threat to atheists or atheism directly, or the ability of atheists to freely live their lives etc. There are extant ‘ceremonial deism’ type shit in the United States that many atheists have disliked and filed lawsuits over (i.e. phrases like “In God We Trust” on currency, the Pledge of Allegiance etc), but the jurisprudence on those matters had already carved out exceptions for the religiosity long before ACB was on the bench.
ACB is much more likely to circumvent Federal civil rights laws as it pertains to private businesses if the private business asserts a religious objection, much of this ties in to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of the early 90s, one of the worst pieces of legislation in effect in America. But even then I think the direct negative impact on atheists would be fairly indirect and unlikely excepting atheists who might be employed by explicitly religious organizations. Although the court had been trending in the wrong way for awhile on that, historically if say, the Catholic Church runs some sort of organization that has regular employees, they have to follow normal non-discrimination and employment laws. Only in “ministerial” roles where the job has explicitly religious duties, could the church discriminate based on religiosity (i.e., you couldn’t force the church to hire a priest who was an atheist or a Muslim, fairly reasonably), but some jurisprudence in the last 5 years have made it easier for Church orgs to classify jobs as being “spiritual” in nature. The effect on LGBT people wanting to obtain services from various service businesses on the other hand could be meaningful.
My apologies, @Saintly_Loser . I know there are compassionate and generous people who are opposed to abortion. I feel very fortunate that I have never had to face circumstances that would require me to make that sad and terrible decision. But I sure don’t want someone else deciding for me.
Yes, you are right. I meant Pro-choice and wrote pro-life. I do not call the anti-abortion movement “Pro-life” as they are not pro life, just anti-abortion. Brain fart on my part.
Religious beliefs include theistic beliefs (i.e. those that include a belief in God) as well as non-theistic…
mozcron’s link shows there are people who aren’t happy with that, and one way to fix that would be via the courts. How would ACB rule on such a case? I don’t know, but I’d rather not find out.
Even if atheists were not protected under Title VII, the protection benefits believers too.
Imagine if a Christian found himself working for a bigoted Muslim employer who believed that Christians worshipped a false God. If it were legal to fire atheists, he might have a defense by claiming that he considered adherents of false religions atheists.
It is highly unlikely that for 99% of employed persons in the United States, ACB would rule in a way that would strip protections in employment under the 1964 Civil Rights act away from atheists. It is likely that she would rule (as the already extant conservative majority has done already) that religious institutions have broad latitude in which employees are considered “religious” employees (and to which they can subject a faith-orthodoxy standard for employment) vs “secular” employees. It used to be essentially only truly religious functionaries like pastors/priests could be subjected to such an employment requirement, but in the last few years it was expanded more broadly to things like principals and teachers of non-religious subjects at Catholic schools, and things of that nature.
This is the one area where I might have the most direct fear of my personal life being impacted by future judicial rulings. I volunteer to coach for sports teams tied to local churches and am active in Scouts BSA. Both have some vague “religious” requirements, but nothing too explicit, because the courts have pretty consistently told them you can’t ban a Scout leader for not being a Christian, for example. So now it’s pretty much a “don’t ask don’t tell” situation. I would hate to see the day where those organizations could backslide and lock us out again.
Other than that is more an issue of her religion informing her political opinions, which in turn inform her legal opinions. As an atheist I have an issue with that chain of reasoning, but ACB is certainly not unique here.
Right, and frankly given the direction in terms of “religious liberty” (to discriminate) with Republican appointees since Thomas, there has already been a working conservative majority to let businesses discriminate more based on religious reasons that predates ACB, as seen by a number of rulings even before Kavanaugh was appointed (when the conservative majority was Thomas / Alito / Roberts / Gorsuch / Kennedy.)
Give and continue to give religious views privilege under the laws of the USA.
– others have cited laws saying that atheists can’t hold office. How about a state or organizational standard saying that atheists can’t adopt? that atheists’ marriages don’t confer visiting privileges in hospitals run by religious groups? that access to food, housing, and/or medical aid requires avowing a belief in God? that atheists can be fired for refusing to go to church? that religious proselytizing courses can, indeed, be required in public schools?
I don’t know about such cases imminently expected to be before the Court. But, if given the chance, I have no confidence whatsoever that some of those who want the USA to be a “Christian nation” won’t get around to them eventually.
(and include a particularly disfavored religion or so to start with, and then eventually work up, bit by bit, to including everybody not in one particular sect, which then schisms . . . believers are also better off in a secular society.)
Perhaps finding that the Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act is unconstitutional because it violates the religion of the business owners. Sort of a mashing together of the Hobby Lobby and church employee cases. The end result being that it’s legal to discriminate in employment on religious grounds. I don’t know there is anything pending at all like that.
What about school prayer? I also don’t know that there is any pending case on that topic. An expansion of when public schools are allowed to lead prayers, and how compulsory it is for the students would be unwelcome by atheists.
Of course, both of those hypotheticals would be bad for any unfavored religion (and religious people that value religious freedom) as well as atheists. The only way it would be special for atheists is if they were singled out. For example, if students were required to participate in some religious practice, but not no-religious practice.
This is something I haven’t heard about. OP, do you have an example or a cite or something? Because, I think this question is practically meaningless.
Atheists are as far from a coherent group as can be. It’s a group defined by something they don’t do. For example, I want to know what effect ACB will have on people who don’t collect stamps.
I too would like to know where you got the idea that atheists were among the first to worry about her appointment.
BTW, that assumption you made is rather glaring- Even IF atheists were among the first to worry about her appointment, why jump to the conclusion that it was only (or even primarily) because she could make life harder for atheists? I provided a link that showed a group of atheists that were concerned about her appointment because of the effect it might have on others.
Empathy.
It is illegal to drive a car in most states, without first entering into a civil contract acknowledging a belief in God, the Acts of whom may relieve the insurance company friom liability to indemnify you for certain perils. That affects me as a premium-paying driver