Should Anti-Discrimination Laws Apply to Religious Entities?

[Hanafuridake]

I'm of the opinion that so long as religious institutions do not seek to institute discriminatory laws in the secular sphere (marriage, adoption, healthcare, etc.) then they should retain freedom of association and be able to choose who they allow to participate in their establishment. But the temple would need to be an entirely private entity, it's hypocritical to claim benefits from the state and then discriminate against its citizens whose taxpaying are funding the institution.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The temple is literally run by the government. Discrimination by the government is unacceptable. The monastic republic is subject to EU laws as a self-governing territory. If you want to be protected by national and not international laws, best be part of a nation unambiguously. Can't have your cake and eat it too. That being said, I support their right to determine who joins their club and enters their land.

Is it run by the government? The BBC acted as though it were a private entity in their radio report. That makes things different.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

There's a key reason religious institutions don't pay taxes, in that they're charities and often fulfil other work within the community.

As for the actual question, no I don't think so. I don't even think that private organisations should have anti-discrimination law applied to them, if they have a religious objection.

[Conserative Morality]

The temple is literally run by the government. Discrimination by the government is unacceptable. The monastic republic is subject to EU laws as a self-governing territory. If you want to be protected by national and not international laws, best be part of a nation unambiguously. Can't have your cake and eat it too. That being said, I support their right to determine who joins their club and enters their land.

Is it run by the government? The BBC acted as though it were a private entity in their radio report. That makes things different.

I think it's run by the Kerala state government. I might be wrong.

[Galloism]

Is it run by the government? The BBC acted as though it were a private entity in their radio report. That makes things different.

I think it's run by the Kerala state government. I might be wrong.

Wiki sayeth:

Administration and legal duties is managed by Travancore Devasvom Board, an affiliate authority of Government of Kerala. Thazhamon Madom is the traditional priest family who has powers over the religious matters to be decided in Sabarimala Temple. Tantri is the highest priest and is the head of the temple. It's the duty of the family to decide on religious matters relating to Sabarimala shrine. Tantris are to be present in all ceremonial Poojas and functions to be held at temple premises and functions associated with temple. The installation of idols of the temple was also done by Tantri of this family.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Okay, so then I can see why the Indian government did that, though I think the BBC kind of misrepresented that story. They said in their radio report that someone had sued to prevent the case, arguing that the temple was a private entity, but they didn't explain that that argument was fallacious.

What about other examples though?

[Conserative Morality]

Okay, so then I can see why the Indian government did that, though I think the BBC kind of misrepresented that story. They said in their radio report that someone had sued to prevent the case, arguing that the temple was a private entity, but they didn't explain that that argument was fallacious.

What about other examples though?

I think so long as they aren't running a public business (like a wedding chapel), they can pick and choose who they want in their group and property. If they want to be racist or sexist or hate redheads, that's their choice. It's like how the American Legion gets to skirt smoking laws around here because they act as a private club instead of a public business.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Okay, so then I can see why the Indian government did that, though I think the BBC kind of misrepresented that story. They said in their radio report that someone had sued to prevent the case, arguing that the temple was a private entity, but they didn't explain that that argument was fallacious.

What about other examples though?

I think so long as they aren't running a public business (like a wedding chapel), they can pick and choose who they want in their group and property. If they want to be racist or sexist or hate redheads, that's their choice. It's like how the American Legion gets to skirt smoking laws around here because they act as a private club instead of a public business.

That's generally where I lean. An entity like the Catholic Church, for example, is a private club with membership and rules for that membership, as a good example. I would think that would also more or less apply to Mount Athos, even if it is legally it's own autonomous government within Greece.

[Bear Stearns]

I think so long as they aren't running a public business (like a wedding chapel), they can pick and choose who they want in their group and property. If they want to be racist or sexist or hate redheads, that's their choice. It's like how the American Legion gets to skirt smoking laws around here because they act as a private club instead of a public business.

That's generally where I lean. An entity like the Catholic Church, for example, is a private club with membership and rules for that membership, as a good example. I would think that would also more or less apply to Mount Athos, even if it is legally it's own autonomous government within Greece.

That being said, the Catholic Church should be RICO'd for its litany of crimes.

[United Muscovite Nations]

That's generally where I lean. An entity like the Catholic Church, for example, is a private club with membership and rules for that membership, as a good example. I would think that would also more or less apply to Mount Athos, even if it is legally it's own autonomous government within Greece.

That being said, the Catholic Church should be RICO'd for its litany of crimes.

RICO?

[Reedian]

Personally I think all people of all faiths, and for that matter lack of faith, should have equal rights. Which I don’t get that some states in the south don’t allow atheists to run. Or how middle eastern countries can execute atheists and have Sharia law. There of course should be restriction on those who are the extremists, but under one strong secular state every religion should be treated equal on the same basis for the equality of race and sex.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Personally I think all people of all faiths, and for that matter lack of faith, should have equal rights. Which I don’t get that some states in the south don’t allow atheists to run. Or how middle eastern countries can execute atheists and have Sharia law. There of course should be restriction on those who are the extremists, but under one strong secular state every religion should be treated equal on the same basis for the equality of race and sex.

So what do you think of the OP question?

[Great Old South]

This is a thread I've wanted to make for a while, it has nothing to do with any threads recently created, I was inspired by this story: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-indi ... SKCN1OW07Q
...
Moreover, how far could these principles of anti-discrimination go?

I really don't care if this involves 'private' spaces or not; it still perpetuates sexism.
And really, these excuses have been used the world over to treat one group as second-rate citizens. There isn't anything functionally different compared to male temple-goers.

Could the Catholic Church be forced to allow women to become priests, in violation of its ancient teachings?

Oh, I'd wish. I'm happy to see reactionary ideology trampled upon.

[United Muscovite Nations]

This is a thread I've wanted to make for a while, it has nothing to do with any threads recently created, I was inspired by this story: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-indi ... SKCN1OW07Q
...
Moreover, how far could these principles of anti-discrimination go?

I really don't care if this involves 'private' spaces or not; it still perpetuates sexism.
And really, these excuses have been used the world over to treat one group as second-rate citizens. There isn't anything functionally different compared to male temple-goers.

Could the Catholic Church be forced to allow women to become priests, in violation of its ancient teachings?

Oh, I'd wish. I'm happy to see reactionary ideology trampled upon.

So, you're okay with forcing other people to adopt your ideology against your will? That seems like it's stepping over a line. I could understand private businesses, but these are groups with defined membership and beliefs that go back millennia.

[Bear Stearns]

That being said, the Catholic Church should be RICO'd for its litany of crimes.

RICO?

Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act. It is used to arrest people who are part of criminal organizations even if they did not commit crimes themselves. It was historically used to go after the mob and was expanded to go after corporations that flouted the law. It has been used on some Catholic dioceses in the past over sexual abuse scandals.

As more scandals come to light, it is increasingly difficult to believe that these are "isolated incidents" confined to certain parishes, and it is becoming rather obvious that the bishops and archbishops are involved in covering up the crimes committed.

Even if they did not commit crimes themselves, we can use the RICO Act to bring them to justice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act

Barring that, we could logically declare all Catholic diocese to be agents of a foreign power (Vatican City State), and thus require them to register under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (provided we remove the religious exemption). That would severely curtail Catholic activities in the United States and force the clergy to recognize that they are not above the law.

Imagine a Catholic priest in general population. lmao

[United Muscovite Nations]

RICO?

Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act. It is used to arrest people who are part of criminal organizations even if they did not commit crimes themselves. It was historically used to go after the mob and was expanded to go after corporations that flouted the law. It has been used on some Catholic dioceses in the past over sexual abuse scandals.

As more scandals come to light, it is increasingly difficult to believe that these are "isolated incidents" confined to certain parishes, and it is becoming rather obvious that the bishops and archbishops are involved in covering up the crimes committed.

Even if they did not commit crimes themselves, we can use the RICO Act to bring them to justice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act

Barring that, we could logically declare all Catholic diocese to be agents of a foreign power (Vatican City State), and thus require them to register under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (provided we remove the religious exemption). That would severely curtail Catholic activities in the United States and force the clergy to recognize that they are not above the law.

Imagine a Catholic priest in general population. lmao

Most Catholic clergy aren't involved in sex abuse, and even if bishops and archbishops covered stuff up, that's no reason to punish lowly priests and deacons who didn't know anything.

[Unithonia]

Most religions exist only to brainwash and control gullible people, so I feel satisfaction when religions get fucked over in one way or another.

So, let me get this straight
Because you disagree with something, you are ok with it being discriminated against?

[Unithonia]

No. Private entities have the right to maintain their own beliefs and/or practices. You don't have to agree with these, but we need less government intervention, not more. Don't go to these places or support them if you disagree.

[Unithonia]

Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act. It is used to arrest people who are part of criminal organizations even if they did not commit crimes themselves. It was historically used to go after the mob and was expanded to go after corporations that flouted the law. It has been used on some Catholic dioceses in the past over sexual abuse scandals.

As more scandals come to light, it is increasingly difficult to believe that these are "isolated incidents" confined to certain parishes, and it is becoming rather obvious that the bishops and archbishops are involved in covering up the crimes committed.

Even if they did not commit crimes themselves, we can use the RICO Act to bring them to justice.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act

Barring that, we could logically declare all Catholic diocese to be agents of a foreign power (Vatican City State), and thus require them to register under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (provided we remove the religious exemption). That would severely curtail Catholic activities in the United States and force the clergy to recognize that they are not above the law.

Imagine a Catholic priest in general population. lmao

Most Catholic clergy aren't involved in sex abuse, and even if bishops and archbishops covered stuff up, that's no reason to punish lowly priests and deacons who didn't know anything.

Understand who you are talking to here
This is someone who's literally advocating for the complete banishment of the Catholic faith, and the arrest of all members of the church. While I'm not a catholic, that's utterly ridiculous.
Was it Stalin that liked to do things like that? Shut down political parties that he opposed and arrest it's members?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Most Catholic clergy aren't involved in sex abuse, and even if bishops and archbishops covered stuff up, that's no reason to punish lowly priests and deacons who didn't know anything.

Understand who you are talking to here
This is someone who's literally advocating for the complete banishment of the Catholic faith, and the arrest of all members of the church. While I'm not a catholic, that's utterly ridiculous.
Was it Stalin that liked to do things like that? Shut down political parties that he opposed and arrest it's members?

Stalin did that to religious organizations as well.

[Kowani]

Depends. If you receive government funding, or are managed by the government, then yes. Absolutely. Additionally, if you try to influence public policy, then yes. However. If you do none of those things, and keep to yourself, then no.

However, I’m also of the opinion that churches should be taxed out of existence, so...

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I don’t get that some states in the south don’t allow atheists to run.

They can run

Or how middle eastern countries can execute atheists and have Sharia law.

Why a Muslim-majority country has Shari'ah (albeit it's imperfect) should be self-explanatory. Tho yes, atheists shouldn't be executed using Shari'ah.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Depends. If you receive government funding, or are managed by the government, then yes. Absolutely. Additionally, if you try to influence public policy, then yes. However. If you do none of those things, and keep to yourself, then no.

However, I’m also of the opinion that churches should be taxed out of existence, so...

Why do you think they should be taxed out of existence?

[Great Old South]

So, you're okay with forcing other people to adopt your ideology against your will? That seems like it's stepping over a line. I could understand private businesses, but these are groups with defined membership and beliefs that go back millennia.

Yea. I am. Including forcing it upon reactionary sexist Brahmin welfare queens.

All sorts of spooky inane shit has been justified over the centuries in the name of "tradition", including everything from institutionalized (racial) slavery, to (female) genital mutilation, and worse.
No, the intellectual legacy of the enlightenment shouldn't bow before barbarism. Even if it includes trampling upon a 'private' (see earlier posts) space. As long as these practices cannot be justified rationally, they have no place in civilized society.
Now, I could argue that I shouldn't care because religion (though not all religious people) is reactionary to begin with. But I won't. Because this stuff needs to be fought everywhere.

Hence, no exception for "private business". You either oppose racism and sexism on a fundamental level, or you're okay with it.

[Unithonia]

So, you're okay with forcing other people to adopt your ideology against your will? That seems like it's stepping over a line. I could understand private businesses, but these are groups with defined membership and beliefs that go back millennia.

Yea. I am. Including forcing it upon reactionary sexist Brahmin welfare queens.

All sorts of spooky inane shit has been justified over the centuries in the name of "tradition", including everything from institutionalized (racial) slavery, to (female) genital mutilation, and worse.
No, the intellectual legacy of the enlightenment shouldn't bow before barbarism. Even if it includes trampling upon a 'private' (see earlier posts) space. As long as these practices cannot be justified rationally, they have no place in civilized society.
Now, I could argue that I shouldn't care because religion (though not all religious people) is reactionary to begin with. But I won't. Because this stuff needs to be fought everywhere.

Hence, no exception for "private business". You either oppose racism and sexism on a fundamental level, or you're okay with it.

Know who else wanted to make everyone follow his ideology? Hitler
If you truly are advocating for forcing everyone to adhere to your ideology and/or its rules, you have reached a level of authoritarianism that can be only found in ideologies such as Stalinism, Fascism, Maoism, etc. Please, keep your 20th century dictatorial ideas away from me.