# Are Atheists a protected group? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 10, 2015, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-atheists-a-protected-group/717281 "2015-04-10T00:43:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![get\_lives](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ecb155/32.png) [@get\_lives](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/get_lives)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2015, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-atheists-a-protected-group/717281/41 "2015-04-10T20:59:45Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > Well, that is what the words mean technically. In common lingo, I find that “agnostic” generally refers to people who don’t believe in god but either don’t care or leave the possibility open because, well, as humans we can never really know for sure. You can really get into splitting hairs here. I consider myself both atheist and agnostic. I don’t believe in a higher power, but I don’t know for sure there isn’t one. I can be wrong about that. For most people, in my experience, “agnostic” covers that position. But you can be agnostic and believe in a god, too. See: agnostic theism. I know what all the words mean. I’m interested in indirectly pointing out the utter stupidity of both extremes, religion and pure (as I named it) atheism. Leaving no room for the possibility that you’re wrong is extraordinarily dangerous. Stalin’s Russia saw millions killed. So have religous wars. Leaving plenty of room for being wrong makes that sort of thing less likely, I would guess. Wouldn’t anyone, who has time to reflect? ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2015, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-atheists-a-protected-group/717281/42 "2015-04-10T21:07:54Z")
> [@suranyi](#): > > But consider that in this case the issue is whether atheists are a protected type of religion. So an analogy would be a hypothetical law that says that you cannot discriminate among hair colors. It wouldn’t be unreasonable to consider baldness a hair color for the purpose of this law. The link above from the EEOC clearly states the case, my emphasis added: > [@](#): > > treating applicants or employees differently based on their religious beliefs or practices –\*\* or lack thereof \*\*– in any aspect of employment, including recruitment, hiring, assignments, discipline, promotion, and benefits (disparate treatment); So in the case of employment law it is very clear and the interpretation doesn’t appear to rely on calling atheism a religion. I would like to see the corresponding rules in regards to other aspects of the law where one’s religious beliefs could come into play, such as housing, medical care, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2015, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-atheists-a-protected-group/717281/43 "2015-04-10T21:12:53Z")
> [@Dee\_Troit](#): > > Actually, my question has nothing to do about religion. > It’s about how laws affect a particular class of people (atheists). > A class that I’m having difficulty finding proof of their protected status. > It does not seem universal, not unlike gay folk. Except atheists are not a protected class. Religious belief is a protected class. Atheism isn’t a religion, but it is a religious belief–the belief that religion is incorrect. If we make a rule that you can’t fire someone because of their religion, then Mormons aren’t protected because they’re Mormons, Catholics aren’t protected because they’re Catholics, atheists aren’t protected because they’re atheists. Similarly, if we make a rule that you can’t fire someone because of their race, that doesn’t make “black” a protected class, it makes “race” a protected class. The same law that protects a black guy from getting fired by his racist boss who doesn’t like black guys protects a white guy from getting fired by his racist boss who doesn’t like white guys. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2015, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-atheists-a-protected-group/717281/44 "2015-04-10T21:13:13Z")
> [@get\_lives](#): > > I know what all the words mean. I’m interested in indirectly pointing out the utter stupidity of both extremes, religion and pure (as I named it) atheism. Leaving no room for the possibility that you’re wrong is extraordinarily dangerous. Stalin’s Russia saw millions killed. So have religous wars. Leaving plenty of room for being wrong makes that sort of thing less likely, I would guess. Wouldn’t anyone, who has time to reflect? One term for what you call “pure atheism” is “positive atheism” or even just “strong atheism.” ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2015, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-atheists-a-protected-group/717281/45 "2015-04-10T21:25:04Z")
> [@get\_lives](#): > > I know what all the words mean. I’m interested in indirectly pointing out the utter stupidity of both extremes, religion and pure (as I named it) atheism. Go and do that somewhere else, please. ---
**Author:** ![get\_lives](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ecb155/32.png) [@get\_lives](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/get_lives)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2015, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-atheists-a-protected-group/717281/46 "2015-04-10T21:28:53Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Go and do that somewhere else, please. Why? ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2015, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-atheists-a-protected-group/717281/47 "2015-04-10T21:31:28Z")
Because this is a discussion about whether laws against religious discrimination include atheists, not whether atheism is or is not a sensible idea. Mormons are protected against discrimination, that doesn’t make Mormonism sensible or nonsensible. ---
**Author:** ![samclem](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@samclem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/samclem)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2015, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-atheists-a-protected-group/717281/48 "2015-04-10T21:38:34Z")
> [@get\_lives](#): > > I know what all the words mean. I’m interested in indirectly pointing out the utter stupidity of both extremes, religion and pure (as I named it) atheism. Leaving no room for the possibility that you’re wrong is extraordinarily dangerous. Stalin’s Russia saw millions killed. So have religous wars. Leaving plenty of room for being wrong makes that sort of thing less likely, I would guess. Wouldn’t anyone, who has time to reflect? > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Go and do that somewhere else, please. > [@get\_lives](#): > > Why? > [@Lemur866](#): > > Because this is a discussion about whether laws against religious discrimination include atheists, not whether atheism is or is not a sensible idea. Mormons are protected against discrimination, that doesn’t make Mormonism sensible or nonsensible. MODERATOR NOTE—NOT A WARNING(YET) **get lives** --No warning , but take your hijack somewhere else. **samclem** , moderator ---
**Author:** ![Dee\_Troit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b2d939/32.png) [@Dee\_Troit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dee_Troit)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2015, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-atheists-a-protected-group/717281/49 "2015-04-10T21:56:51Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > The link above from the EEOC clearly states the case, my emphasis added: > So in the case of employment law it is very clear and the interpretation doesn’t appear to rely on calling atheism a religion. > > I would like to see the corresponding rules in regards to other aspects of the law where one’s religious beliefs could come into play, such as housing, medical care, etc. The EEOC document linked seems to limit those rules to “employers with at least 15 employees” ---
**Author:** ![get\_lives](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/ecb155/32.png) [@get\_lives](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/get_lives)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2015, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-atheists-a-protected-group/717281/50 "2015-04-10T21:57:55Z")
This is no hijack, and I can prove it. But whatever. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2015, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-atheists-a-protected-group/717281/51 "2015-04-10T22:26:34Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > Except atheists are not a protected class. Religious belief is a protected class. Atheism isn’t a religion, but it is a religious belief–the belief that religion is incorrect. That was my original doubt. To call atheism the belief that religion is incorrect is problematic from many directions. That’s not the normal definition of atheism; people have rejected it here in this thread. And it’s close to the slur that some believers put on atheists - that they just have a variety of belief, of faith, that is equivalent to a religion. The question I’d still like somebody to address is whether atheism has a positive definition in law - saying what it is as opposed to a negative definition like the one linked to in Title VII. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2015, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-atheists-a-protected-group/717281/52 "2015-04-10T23:22:20Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > That was my original doubt. To call atheism the belief that religion is incorrect is problematic from many directions. That’s not the normal definition of atheism; people have rejected it here in this thread. And it’s close to the slur that some believers put on atheists - that they just have a variety of belief, of faith, that is equivalent to a religion. Sure, but in the context of discrimination, it’s not about the properties of the discriminated person, it’s about the treatment and the motive for that treatment (for example, religious discrimination also includes unfair treatment on the basis that someone mistakenly thinks you are a member of some religion). ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2015, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-atheists-a-protected-group/717281/53 "2015-04-10T23:36:09Z")
> [@Dee\_Troit](#): > > The EEOC document linked seems to limit those rules to “employers with at least 15 employees” Yes, it does, but that has nothing to do with religion or atheists. That is true for most forms of discrimination under employment law. Also true for health care benefits and other similar requirements under federal law. ---
**Author:** ![Derleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Derleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Derleth)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2015, 8:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-atheists-a-protected-group/717281/54 "2015-04-11T08:49:05Z")
> [@hotflungwok](#): > > Theism/Atheism is about belief. A theist believes there is a god, an atheist lacks this belief. > > Gnosticism/Agnosticism is about knowledge. A gnostic believes they can know for sure that god exists, an agnostic lacks this belief. Actually, I’m an atheist, and I lack the belief that I can know whether a deity exists; for one thing, I don’t take my existence on faith, but merely as a convenient supposition which can be refuted by evidence that I am, perhaps, a computer program. An agnostic believes that we cannot know whether a deity exists, which is a faith claim. ---
**Author:** ![glowacks](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/glowacks/32/5548_2.png) [@glowacks](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glowacks)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2015, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-atheists-a-protected-group/717281/55 "2015-04-12T04:20:53Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I don’t think that’s correct. > > They are certainly not binding, even as to the judge who made them. “Binding” usually means that the court is obligated to follow the stated legal rule in new cases or be categorically reversed for not doing so. In this sense, a court of appeals judgment is binding on its inferior district courts–there is no room for discretion if the higher court has spoken on the legal issue. > > District court decisions are _stare decisis_ for the judge who made them, meaning various rule of law principles counsel for sticking to that rule in future cases, but the judge is free to decide that her previous decision was erroneous and chart a new course in new cases. And they aren’t even _stare decisis_ as to other judges in that district. Other judges in the district are free to disagree with that district judge. The reason for this is that the district court is a trial court and therefore the primary fact-finder. They make their decision based on a set of facts particular to one circumstance. You can’t say for sure whether any other situation is going to be exactly the same as the one that was tried previously. Appeals courts rule on matters of law (at least in general, I’m not sure but I think they always remand cases back to district court for more fact-finding if such is needed), and as such are much more straightforward as to whether they apply in other cases. I only have knowledge of the legal system in terms of tax cases, and as such offer a basic example that non-cosmetic medical expenses are deductible, and there was a tax case about whether gender reassignment surgery was deductible. The court ruled that everything except the breast enhancement procedures were deductible due to the records indicating that the client clearly was unhappy with their gender and suffered psychological problems due to it, but was happy with their breast size after just undergoing hormone replacement therapy. In a different case, the person transitioning to female may not feel as though they are truly a female without getting breast enhancement, and a court may rule that such a procedure would be tax deductible in their case since the facts are different even though the procedure is the same. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-atheists-a-protected-group/717281.md?page=2)