# Why should religion be free to discriminate? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 15, 2016, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-religion-be-free-to-discriminate/762964 "2016-08-15T23:49:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-religion-be-free-to-discriminate/762964/81 "2016-08-17T12:40:30Z")
> [@Omar\_Little](#): > > The OP had nothing to do with religious people attempting to bring their beliefs into the workplace. It was specifically about the Church itself discriminating. Someone else noticed. Or else we are both missing some important subtext. But like I said it did use the workplace nondiscrimination rule as an example of a differential treatment. > [@](#): > > This debate is about nothing. Actually there is a debate here – where is the line drawn as to what activities should come under the aegis of “religious freedom”. But it looks like most of us are satisfied to have it apply inside the house of worship and to sacramental rites, and to the private lives of the congregants, and if so see no need to erase the line altogether. Meanwhile it is true that some religious leaders want it drawn wide and use a “religion card” to not have to abide by the law (abiding by social convention is up to the individual anyway) and other posters have decided to take the opportunity to once again debate _ **that** _. ---
**Author:** ![dreamregent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/6f9a4e/32.png) [@dreamregent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dreamregent)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-religion-be-free-to-discriminate/762964/82 "2016-08-17T13:06:20Z")
I’m not sure if anyone has mentioned this (I didn’t read every post) but SCOTUS came very close to explicitly ruling on an analogous case in 1968. The ruling was made explicitly by a U.S. District Court and the case did make it to the Supreme Court but SCOTUS accepted the merits of the previous rulings and only actually made their own ruling on a technicality, the extent of attorney fees which would be awarded to the plaintiffs who were discriminated against. However, in a footnote of the SCOTUS decision, the defendant’s religious objections to serving black people were deemed “patently frivolous”. From **[Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. (1966 district court ruling)](http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/256/941/2349546/)**: > [@](#): > > The gravamen of plaintiffs’ complaint is that corporate defendant operates several restaurants in Columbia and elsewhere in South Carolina which are places of public accommodation within the purview of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and that defendant violated said Act by denying service to plaintiffs at certain of its restaurants on July 3rd and August 12th, 1964 solely upon the ground that they were Negroes. > [@](#): > > Defendant Bessinger further contends that the Act violates his freedom of religion under the First Amendment “since his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever.” > [@](#): > > Neither is the court impressed by defendant Bessinger’s contention that the judicial enforcement of the public accommodations provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 upon which this suit is predicated violates the free exercise of his religious beliefs in contravention of the First Amendment to the Constitution. It is unquestioned that the First Amendment prohibits compulsion by law of any creed or the practice of any form of religion, but it also safeguards the free exercise of one’s chosen religion. Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 82 S. Ct. 1261, 8 L. Ed. 2d 601 (1962). The free exercise of one’s beliefs, however, as distinguished from the absolute right to a belief, is subject to regulation when religious acts require accommodation to society. United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 64 S. Ct. 882, 88 L. Ed. 1148 (1944) (Mails to defraud); Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 25 L. Ed. 244 (1878) (polygamy conviction); Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 64 S. Ct. 438, 88 L. Ed. 645 (1943) (minor in company of ward distributing religious literature in violation of statute). Undoubtedly defendant Bessinger has a constitutional right to espouse the religious beliefs of his own choosing, however, he does not have the absolute right to exercise and practice such beliefs in utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens. This court refuses to lend credence or support to his position that he has a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of the Negro race in his business establishments upon the ground that to do so would violate his sacred religious beliefs. While the district court rejected the defendant’s religious claims as nonsensical and barred by precedent, the court actually ruled that only the defendant’s “sit-down” restaurants were covered by the Civil Rights Act and that the defendant’s other set of restaurants, which were “drive-in” style, were not covered by the act. The case then went to the **[federal appeals court](http://openjurist.org/377/f2d/433)**. In a unanimous decision, this court sustained the district judge’s opinion except for reversing the the point about “drive-in” restaurants by deciding they were covered by the Civil Rights Act. The appellate court remanded the case back to the district judge to decide the attorney fees but there was a dispute between the appellate judges about what factors the district judge should consider in deciding how much to award in fees. The governing opinion states a distinction should be made between defenses made “for purposes of delay and not in good faith” and those which the defendant “honestly believes-- however lacking in merit that position may be.” A Judge Winter, joined by one other judge on the panel, wrote a concurring opinion with further thoughts on this point: > [@](#): > > **In this case, defendants interposed defenses patently frivolous,** and I would not permit them to avoid the costs of overcoming such defenses on a purely subjective test of good faith. > [@](#): > > While the threat of an award of counsel fees ought not to be used to discourage non-frivolous defenses asserted in good faith, the district court should be instructed to make an allowance in regard to some of defendants’ defenses and, in its discretion, to consider an allowance for the remainder of defendants’ defenses depending upon its determination of defendants’ good faith and honest belief. Those clearly compensable are defendants’ assertion that their ‘Little Joe’s Sandwich Shop,’ a sit-down facility shown overwhelmingly by the proof to be a place where service was refused to Negro citizens, was not subject to the Act. The fact that the defendants had discriminated both at Piggie Park’s drive-ins and at Little Joe’s Sndwich Shop was of course known to them, yet they denied the fact and made it necessary for the plaintiffs to offer proof, and the defendants could not and did not undertake at the trial to support their denials. **Includable in the same category are** defendants’ contention, twice pleaded after the decision in Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294, 85 S.Ct. 6 (1964), that the Act was unconstitutional on the very grounds foreclosed by McClung; and **defendants’ contention that the Act was invalid because it ‘contravenes the will of God’ and constitutes an interference with the ‘free exercise of the Defendant’s religion.’** The district judge should be told that, in awarding counsel fees, he should include an amount which fully compensates plaintiffs for the time, effort and expenses of counsel in overcoming these elements of expense needlessly imposed on them. [emphasis mine] SCOTUS accepted the case only to rule on the issue of the attorney fees. They ruled that no consideration should be made for whether the defendants acted in good faith or honestly believed their defenses and that, in all cases under Title II of the Civil Rights Act, attorney fees are to be awarded to successful plaintiffs. However, in a foot note, the court also noted that the defendants asserted “defenses so patently frivolous” and specifically \*\* [quoted Judge Winter’s characterization of the religious arguments] ([Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. :: 390 U.S. 400 (1968) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/390/400/case.html#T5))\*\* as being frivolous. > [@](#): > > [Footnote 5] > > Indeed, this is not even a borderline case, for the respondents interposed defenses so patently frivolous that a denial of counsel fees to the petitioners would be manifestly inequitable. Thus, for example, the > > “fact that the defendants had discriminated both at [the] drive-ins and at [the sandwich shop] was . . . denied . . . [although] the defendants could not and did not undertake at the trial to support their denials. Includable in the same category are defendants’ contention, twice pleaded after the decision in Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U. S. 294, . . . that the Act was unconstitutional on the very grounds foreclosed by McClung, and defendants’ contention that the Act was invalid because it ‘contravenes the will of God’ and constitutes an interference with the ‘free exercise of the Defendant’s religion.’” > > 377 F.2d 433, 437-438 (separate opinion of Judge Winter). ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-religion-be-free-to-discriminate/762964/83 "2016-08-17T13:13:23Z")
I work in a store owned by Jewish people. We sell the same gift bag, one labelled “For the Bride and Groom” the other one “To The Happy Couple.” One person actually objected to the second one, saying it promoted homosexuality. My Jewish boss told him to leave the store and do not come back. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-religion-be-free-to-discriminate/762964/84 "2016-08-17T13:27:11Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > I work in a store owned by Jewish people. We sell the same gift bag, one labelled “For the Bride and Groom” the other one “To The Happy Couple.” > > One person actually objected to the second one, saying it promoted homosexuality. My Jewish boss told him to leave the store and do not come back. 😕 Not sure what this has to do with this thread. ---
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-religion-be-free-to-discriminate/762964/85 "2016-08-17T14:32:58Z")
An example of intolerant customers objecting to inclusive businesses, to show there are those who want “the line to be drawn” around them anywhere they go even in businesses not their own. But by now ISTM the People Have Spoken about what they want the thread to be about, **Omar**. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-religion-be-free-to-discriminate/762964/86 "2016-08-17T14:52:20Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > Sure, the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion but that freedom has many restrictions. I couldn’t sacrifice babies to Baal, for instance. I’d be in breach of the law and my pleas of religious freedom would fall on deaf ears. > > But there are other laws which protect individual rights. I can’t refuse to sell my house to a black man because of his color. I can’t refuse to bake a cake for a gay couple because they’re gay. And yet churches are allowed to refuse their gay parishioners a church marriage? What happened to equality there? The law jumps fiercely on the baking of cakes but turns a blind eye to one of the most important ceremonies in a person’s life? > > Oh, but a gay couple can marry in a secular ceremony or change their religion to one that is more accepting. But if they are devout Roman Catholics why the hell should they be forced to repudiate their faith? > > Isn’t it about time we forced religions to obey the same laws as the rest of us? And people said that no one would try to get priests to perform gay marriages. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-religion-be-free-to-discriminate/762964/87 "2016-08-17T18:03:08Z")
> [@YogSothoth](#): > > Either make the damn cake, or don’t have a business. That’s the only fair outcome As I understand it, they don’t have to shut down the business - they only have to stop baking wedding cakes of any sort. If they aren’t making cakes for any weddings, then they aren’t discriminating against gays by not baking gay-wedding cakes. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-religion-be-free-to-discriminate/762964/88 "2016-08-17T18:38:11Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > the People Have Spoken about what they want the thread to be about, **Omar**. When threads get hijacked and the rest of us aren’t even sure what the hell people are talking about… ---
**Author:** ![DtypeJag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e480ec/32.png) [@DtypeJag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DtypeJag)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-religion-be-free-to-discriminate/762964/89 "2016-08-17T21:27:09Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > It’s called the separation of church and state, and it’s a fairly fundamental plank of the American constitutional dispensation. You really want to dump it? > > The law cannot compel you to pray over the conjugal union of a same-sex couple unless the law can compel you to pray. You may want that; I don’t. No, I certainly would not want to dump it but religious groups should be compelled to pay the same rate on property taxes that the rest of us do. I really don’t know the size of the aggregate property taxes they would owe but I can guess it would be a very large chunk of total property taxes collected. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-religion-be-free-to-discriminate/762964/90 "2016-08-17T21:37:08Z")
> [@Omar\_Little](#): > > 😕 Not sure what this has to do with this thread. It was an example of someone who has the courage to discriminate against bigotry itself. Hooray for him. “No bigots need apply.” Not all discrimination is bad. If a customer comes in to a fast-food restaurant, and happens to be engulfed in flames, the management has the right to ask him to go back outside. We are not obliged to be tolerant of people on fire. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-religion-be-free-to-discriminate/762964/91 "2016-08-17T21:52:44Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > It was an example of someone who has the courage to discriminate against bigotry itself. Hooray for him. “No bigots need apply.” > > Not all discrimination is bad. If a customer comes in to a fast-food restaurant, and happens to be engulfed in flames, the management has the right to ask him to go back outside. We are not obliged to be tolerant of people on fire. Sure great…but what does that have to do with a church being permitted to discriminate? ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-religion-be-free-to-discriminate/762964/92 "2016-08-17T21:56:20Z")
> [@DtypeJag](#): > > No, I certainly would not want to dump it but religious groups should be compelled to pay the same rate on property taxes that the rest of us do. > > I really don’t know the size of the aggregate property taxes they would owe but I can guess it would be a very large chunk of total property taxes collected. All non-profits should pay property tax, or just the religious ones? ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2016, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-religion-be-free-to-discriminate/762964/93 "2016-08-17T21:59:14Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > All non-profits should pay property tax, or just the religious ones? Religious ones are required to pay property tax on investment property. They are only exempt on property used in the fulfillment of their chartered purpose. ---
**Author:** ![DtypeJag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e480ec/32.png) [@DtypeJag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DtypeJag)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2016, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-religion-be-free-to-discriminate/762964/94 "2016-08-18T19:33:28Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > All non-profits should pay property tax, or just the religious ones? To be fair, it would have to be all non-profits, although religious groups would certainly make up the bulk of it. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2016, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-religion-be-free-to-discriminate/762964/95 "2016-08-18T19:47:46Z")
I think property taxes are determined at least by state and maybe even county by county. In which case you have to get rule changes through at least 50 and possibly thousands of little fiefdoms. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2016, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-religion-be-free-to-discriminate/762964/96 "2016-08-18T21:04:21Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > If the church is charging a fee for conducting wedding ceremonies, then it is a business and cannot discriminate, but if it is not charging a fee, then it is not and is perfectly free to conduct or not conduct weddings for whomever it pleases, regardless of sexual orientation. It’s been a long time since I was married and I honestly forget but I _think_ we were encouraged to make a donation to the church and there was a “suggested” donation (e.g. you can give more but not less). While I am sure in some fashion this was technically optional I am pretty sure it was not optional at all. Maybe the fee part covers the cost of cleaning, electricity and the organist and those things just happen to be expensive. I am not sure how they claim it is not an outright charge for services but they seem to be able to keep up the pretense of a donation. I think it is fair to pay the church for the use of their premises but not sure how that doesn’t make them a business. For instance, back in the mists of time I was downtown Chicago with friends. As high schoolers we did not have much money. Bored we decided to go to the Art Institute which asked for a donation of $5 (or whatever it was at the time). We did not have enough to cover the cost so declined the donation (it said “donation” right at the turnstyle). The person guarding the turnstyle said it was not optional. I told her it was a donation, not an entrance fee. She disagreed and we did not get in. (These days they just outright charge money and make no pretense about donations.) ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2016, 1:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-religion-be-free-to-discriminate/762964/97 "2016-08-23T01:20:50Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > It’s been a long time since I was married and I honestly forget but I _think_ we were encouraged to make a donation to the church and there was a “suggested” donation (e.g. you can give more but not less). While I am sure in some fashion this was technically optional I am pretty sure it was not optional at all. Maybe the fee part covers the cost of cleaning, electricity and the organist and those things just happen to be expensive. I am not sure how they claim it is not an outright charge for services but they seem to be able to keep up the pretense of a donation. I think it is fair to pay the church for the use of their premises but not sure how that doesn’t make them a business. I think they call it a “donation” in part because it sounds better, but also in part because it allows them some flexibility for people who cannot afford the “suggested donation” but whom the church doesn’t wish to turn away. But the “how that doesn’t make them a business” is probably a little more complicated. Do they rent the church/auditorium/parish hall to basically anyone who asks and generally only refuse based on availability? Can the people getting married bring in the officiant of their choice? Seems no different than catering hall with a chapel and it is unquestionably a business. Is use of the church/auditorium/parish hall restricted to those who are members of the congregation (or at least the denomination) who want to have a ceremony recognized by the denomination , performed by an officiant authorized by that denomination and who are willing to complete the congregation’s pre-marriage preparation? Definitely _not_ a business. There are a whole lot of cases in the middle that probably need to be determined on a case by case basis - is a Lutheran congregation that allows its pastor to perform a wedding for a Roman Catholic couple who can’t marry in the RC church a business or a simply a church performing a religious ceremony for two baptized Christians of a different denomination? What about a Unitarian congregation that allows its minister to perform an interfaith wedding where neither partner is a member of the congregation? ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2016, 1:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-religion-be-free-to-discriminate/762964/98 "2016-08-23T13:41:03Z")
[This](http://www.northjersey.com/news/battle-lines-of-church-and-state-fired-over-same-sex-marriage-educator-sues-paramus-catholic-1.1647427) is happening in my neck of the wood. > [@](#): > > At 33, Kate Drumgoole had landed her dream job. By 2015, she had risen through the ranks e had been serving as head coach of the elite Lady Paladins basketball team since the retirement of the longtime coach, Al Roth, the year before. > > But in January, she lost it all. > > Drumgoole, of Bogota, says the school fired her from both of her jobs after administrators learned that she was married to a woman. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [August 23, 2016, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-religion-be-free-to-discriminate/762964/99 "2016-08-23T14:43:04Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > [This](http://www.northjersey.com/news/battle-lines-of-church-and-state-fired-over-same-sex-marriage-educator-sues-paramus-catholic-1.1647427) is happening in my neck of the wood. The only thing new about that is that it involves a same sex marriage- teachers and guidance counselors have lost jobs at Catholic schools for living with someone outside of marriage, for being divorced and remarried without an annulment , for undergoing certain fertility treatments and for being unwed parents for as long as I can remember. Does everyone in these situations get fired? Of course not. But most of them keep it quiet \* because they know they _could_ be fired and most don’t have a sister-in-law looking to cause trouble. - if it’s possible. It’s difficult for an unmarried woman to keep her pregnancy a secret , but it’s not so hard for a married teacher not to tell anyone she got pregnant through artificial insemination or IVF. ---
**Author:** ![ZoeRPM](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/f14d63/32.png) [@ZoeRPM](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZoeRPM)\ **Post date:** [August 25, 2016, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-religion-be-free-to-discriminate/762964/100 "2016-08-25T15:22:47Z")
I think the best way to deal with this issue is to refuse public contracts to religious organisations (including schools) that practise discrimination and to refuse to provide such organisaitons with public sector grants. That way the state does not interfere with religious views but neither does it pay people to discriminate against others. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-religion-be-free-to-discriminate/762964.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-should-religion-be-free-to-discriminate/762964.md?page=6)