Originally Posted by Cole33 View Post
" try certain religions in jail dee troitd, I advise against post in general to that. Also its a little trollish question that’s fuckin lame because you want an answer, make up your own mind. Your religion gives no fucks to anyone on this board. find a place to post your lame question. "
Cole- Where the fuck did that come from?
I made up my mind on religion a long time ago. And I sure wasn’t asking you to help me.
Perhaps I should have explained my question further in the OP.
I’ve been searching for this answer ever since Indiana first made the news. As any one whose been on the planet these last few weeks knows, there has been an overload of perspective, news, and commentary on RFRA. Every piece includes a reference to the GLBT community, as well it should. But I could not find anything about atheists.
Goggling produced a few court decisions, and the Madison Wisconsin decree.
As for – Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits employers with at least **15 **employees,…
Thanks for the replies every body, but I’m still not seeing where RFRA could not be used as a defense to discriminate against atheists. Or where atheists (one of the most distrusted/disliked groups in the US) are a fully protected class in the US.
RFRAs are a relatively new phenomenon, and their limits have not yet been firmly resolved by the courts. However, religious freedom must always yield to “compelling interests” of the government, which have been held to include prohibiting discrimination based on suspect classifications and free exercise for 50+ years.
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.
Interesting decision. I do think it’s pretty clear that the decisions are not binding in the technical sense, but maybe there is room for argument over whether they are stare decisis as to other DJs in that district. I know I have read many opinions in which DJs disagree with other DJs on a legal principle without doing a stare decisis analysis, but maybe they are doing it wrong. I imagine it doesn’t get litigated much since the COA is obviously just answering the legal question de novo.
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.
I don’t think my tone needs reconsidering. My post didn’t consist of opinion or obscure fact, it contained easily verifiable definitions that anyone could look up on google with a minimum of effort. This isn’t the first time the information in my post has been seen on this board, nor do I think it will be the last. You asked me to prove word definitions, and since ‘Seriously?’ was already covered I felt the need to expand on it a bit.
No, “believing there is not any god” is the definition of atheist. It has nothing to do with whether or not you have a religion.
There are religions that do not require a belief in a god.
There are persons who believe in a god but do not subscribe to any religion.
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.
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.
