[Draft] Limiting Religious Discrimination Exemptions

[Tinfect]

OOC:
So are you all deliberately misinterpreting the draft, or did you just not read it?

[THX1138]

OOC: I read the motivation behind Clause 5 as the author knowing that any discrimination legislation that included religion would be incredibly hard to pass through. I think a resubmitted version that does not include the fifth clause would be stone walled or implicitly include an exemption on grounds of religion.

OOC: I understand that entirely. The clause was included to get it passed. The author gamed the system. Unfortunately, it ended up undermining charter rights to equality under the law and human rights to not be discriminated against, across the board.
Most of the legit objection I've heard to the repeal is 'hey, it's advanced some rights, and a repeal would be a step backwards'. What most don't want to acknowledge is that that step backwards in their civil rights took place the moment it passed, because of clause 5. Everyone had their eyes on the trees, and didn't see the forest.
Whereas before, religious groups had no legal exemption from their discrimination, now they do.
My draft proposal trying to address that has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that these sort of ideological exemptions can't be made illegal, and has also proved, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that nations can't make amending laws around these types of ideological exemptions when they're included in legislation, de facto or otherwise.
If your approach fails, and this legisaltion can't pass, and I doubt it will, then that ground in human rights has been lost forever. It was a Faustian bargain.

[Marxist Germany]

Against

[Borinsa]

Religious institutions are discriminatory in nature, to make them not discriminatory is to make them not religious.
If you want to stamp out their homophobic tendencies, discourage practice of that religion.

In Borinsa we decided to tolerate catholic intolerance within their institutions so long as they don't encourage extending their intolerant power outside of the boundaries we set for them and that they don't go killing people. We only took this stance because catholics still make up the majority of our population.
If catholicism was a minority faith like protestantism or sunni islam, we'ed crack down on it entirely and only allow its members to pray in their own homes.

It is projected that atheism will be the majority ''faith'' in our country by 2150, until then we can't put the Catholicism under house arrest.
Even after this transition we'll probably keep the cathedrals themselves around purely in the name of culture and heritage, probably as museums of some sort.

[Kenmoria]

I'm pretty sure that the OP wants us to infer that the Catholic Church (largest sect of Christianity, which is the largest religion in the world) would be illegal in member state... as well as most major sects of Islam (which is the fastest growing religion in the world). To say nothing about Judaism.

I must say that although I am disinclined to Vote in favor of this legislation, curiosity compels me to ask if the Ambassador takes a stance on removal. Shall I merely ban immigration of holders of offensive religions, feed offenders to lions, or just chuck'em into ovens?

(OOC: I can’t see that anywhere in the draft, as it deals with discrimination by organisations, not individuals, so I can’t see a valid was for any individual to be prosecuted under this, nor for an entire religion to be banned.

OOC: I think that closing the loophole is legal because the clarifies clause of the Freedom of Religion resolution allows for action against "groups whose religious beliefs manifest themselves in violence or coercive action," and Clause 3 allows for legislation establishing "means by which to advance a compelling, practical public interest in the maintenance of safety, health, or good order." It can be argued that discrimination is an act of violence or coercion, and therefore exempted from the rules established in the rest of the resolution. Clause 4 is the operative clause here because this draft is about limiting religious institutions, and it carries the Clause 3 exemption, and it could be argued that adding class protection based on sexuality/gender identity "advance[s] a compelling, practical public interest." I'd be interested to see other resolutions that you think would cause contradictions.

Maybe, but what about every other civil rights law? They all "clarify" that the rules don't all apply to religious organizations, a right undeniably taken away in this proposal. I highly doubt the legality of this plan, and would oppose it anyway even if the proposal was ruled legal.

It makes sense to oppose this proposal, though I don’t, but it does not appear to be illegal. There is no contradiction of extant GA resolutions, nor any duplication. A possible argument might be for the House of Cards rule, but this can be easily fixed.)

[Wallenburg]

IC: This plan is a blatant violation of freedom of religion. Even if this is upheld as legal(which I highly doubt, as there as a lot of precedent involving the rights of religious organizations) it would be overwhelmingly rejected. The whole point of religious exemptions is allowing people to follow their beliefs. The taking away of that right would be the last straw of efforts to keep the WA from become a secular, socialist mess.

OOC: There's been a lot of really bad proposals going around lately.

What rule does it contradict and how?

By your lack on an answer, I will pretty confidently call bullshit on it being illegal beyond a tenuous and easily remedied HoC issue.

[Hatzisland]

What rule does it contradict and how?

By your lack on an answer, I will pretty confidently call bullshit on it being illegal beyond a tenuous and easily remedied HoC issue.

Not true. I just read it now. It violates every single civil rights resolution that has a clause clarifying and exemption for religious organizations(which is the vast majority of them). How is that not true?

[Wallenburg]

By your lack on an answer, I will pretty confidently call bullshit on it being illegal beyond a tenuous and easily remedied HoC issue.

Not true. I just read it now. It violates every single civil rights resolution that has a clause clarifying and exemption for religious organizations(which is the vast majority of them). How is that not true?

Give me an example.

[Kenmoria]

By your lack on an answer, I will pretty confidently call bullshit on it being illegal beyond a tenuous and easily remedied HoC issue.

Not true. I just read it now. It violates every single civil rights resolution that has a clause clarifying and exemption for religious organizations(which is the vast majority of them). How is that not true?

(OOC: If resolution A has an exception for religions, and proposal B wants to close that loophole, it probably can do, depending on the content of the clause. If A said something along the lines of ‘clarifies that this resolution doesn’t apply to religions’, which is essentially what DRSGM did, then B is free to legislate on religions, since A has been explicitly stated not to affect then. If, however, A said ‘reserves the right of religions to act freely with regards to this matter’, then B could not affect religions due to the contradiction rule.

As it stands, there is no scenario based on extant GA law where the second option could exist. Your arguement only makes sense in the context of resolutions that don’t exist.)

[American Pere Housh]

"We oppose this law on grounds that is a violation of the Freedom of religion which is enshrined in our country's Constitution."

[Arasi Luvasa]

"Opposed, vehemently so. This would not help Arasi-Luvasa's gay community at all if we were to accept such legislation, likely just inciting a civil war instead. The dragons, in particular, tend to fall more to traditionalism within the church. Aside from that, the basis of this is undermining religious individuals rights to their religion by essentially destroying the institution in question. Many of our citizens do not view a priest who has married a homosexual couple as any longer being a priest. Frankly I am appaled that one would attempt to uproot an entire culture for a group that likely is not even affiliated with it, perhaps you believe that a group non-existent within a sect should dictate what that sect believes or is able to act upon. Do not forget that doing wrong is against Christian faith, and if Christians believe that marrying homosexuals is wrong then you are forcing said individuals to sin."

[Galway-Dublin]

The Ambassador takes his lollipop out of his mouth to speak "It's a nice tone, darling, seeing DRSGM already so cemented in precedent and law. If there's going to be follow-up legislation set in stone, even if its first draft was denoted by a potential HoC situation. 'gardless of that, I hope legislation focusing on Clause 5 is increasingly denoted, for or 'gainst; even something that protects Religious institutions the right to be dumbbells to however they seek, it'd just further grant DRSGM denoted legitimacy as law and precedent." Mapplethrope takes a single large bite of his sucker and starts chewing on it. "On that note, I'd equally detest a law turning Clause 5 into a means to provide said prayin' institutions a means to be such a detriment to their own fabulous congregation"

[Imperium Anglorum]

Let's be clear. There is no House of Cards violation unless there is a substantive reliance of a proposal's operative clauses on a past resolution such that the proposal does not work or make sense if that past resolution were repealed.

[Tinfect]

OOC:
Don't listen to these people. They'll take any excuse to benefit homophobes/transphobes ect. The excuse of religion is a shield for nothing more.

[Hatzisland]

Not true. I just read it now. It violates every single civil rights resolution that has a clause clarifying and exemption for religious organizations(which is the vast majority of them). How is that not true?

Give me an example.

Sure. GAR #457, clause 5:"CLARIFIES that religious organizations and their internal discrimination do not fall under this resolution..." and
GAR #35, which allows discrimination when there is a clear compelling and practical reason to do so.
There are probably many more, those are just the first things that I could find.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Those are not blockers. They are scope limiters. They do not permit that action, they merely restrict the resolution from prohibiting those actions. There is a severe difference.

[Kenmoria]

Give me an example.

Sure. GAR #457, clause 5:"CLARIFIES that religious organizations and their internal discrimination do not fall under this resolution..." and
GAR #35, which allows discrimination when there is a clear compelling and practical reason to do so.
There are probably many more, those are just the first things that I could find.

(OOC: GA #457 says that religious organisations don’t fall over ‘this resolution’, not any future ones. Likewise, GA #035, limits its own clauses to have the compelling practical purposes, but does not restrict any possible resolutions that may exist from not having that exception. Think of this proposal what you will, but it clearly isn’t illegal.)

“May I suggest that you clarify clause 3, to show exactly how member nations are supposed to put these mechanisms in place in private buildings. For example, would solely having a support line in place be acceptable?”

[Marxist Germany]

OOC:
Don't listen to these people. They'll take any excuse to benefit homophobes/transphobes ect. The excuse of religion is a shield for nothing more.

So let's force churches to marry transgender lesbian couples. OK.

[Tinfect]

So let's force churches to marry transgender lesbian couples. OK.

OOC:
Yes, let's! If my future wife wants to get married in a church I damn well expect to be able to go to one like any-damn-body else.

[Arasi Luvasa]

There is a difference between forcing the church to marry the couple and forcing the church to permit the use of their buildings. Aside from that, this may be far more expensive for the churches involved than the sanctions. Each time a church allows such a marriage, it will likely need to pay for the bishop or archbishop to unsanctify the holy grounds for secular use (as this will not change the church's values and will likely strengthen those values) and then pay for the archbishop to sanctify the church again after the marriage. My nation certainly would have to do this.

Regardless I still believe it would be better to start a slow process of changing the culture of religious institutions, begin a dialogue and promote churches that allow said practice. Help individuals start new denominations that are LGBT friendly rather than force religious institutions to effectively become secular institutions with pretty names.

[Tinfect]

There is a difference between forcing the church to marry the couple and forcing the church to permit the use of their buildings. Aside from that, this may be far more expensive for the churches involved than the sanctions. Each time a church allows such a marriage, it will likely need to pay for the bishop or archbishop to unsanctify the holy grounds for secular use (as this will not change the church's values and will likely strengthen those values) and then pay for the archbishop to sanctify the church again after the marriage. My nation certainly would have to do this.

OOC:
If they want to go to all the trouble of whatever that is, that's their prerogative. They could also do the much simpler thing of uh, not being discriminatory.

[Arasi Luvasa]

Just because you don't share the same values doesn't mean that religious groups will. They follow said rules because they believe it is important to properly serve God, neglecting said actions leading to eternal consequences instead of mere worldly consequences.

[Tinfect]

Just because you don't share the same values doesn't mean that religious groups will. They follow said rules because they believe it is important to properly serve God, neglecting said actions leading to eternal consequences instead of mere worldly consequences.

OOC:
Too bad for them. The rest of us have lives here on earth to live, and we should not be required to put up with discrimination. Just because white supremacists think that God says Black people should be slaves or extinct, we don't let them enslave or murder black people.

[DACOROMANIA]

I oppose.

This may be something like "Hey, religious people, it's a discrimination that you reject me just because I eat pork while you don't. Eat pork, it's not so bad. (aka Let's export pork to Middle East)"

[Arasi Luvasa]

Just because you don't share the same values doesn't mean that religious groups will. They follow said rules because they believe it is important to properly serve God, neglecting said actions leading to eternal consequences instead of mere worldly consequences.

OOC:
Too bad for them. The rest of us have lives here on earth to live, and we should not be required to put up with discrimination. Just because white supremacists think that God says Black people should be slaves or extinct, we don't let them enslave or murder black people.

I believe that is fair, but a group should be allowed to chose who they allow into their membership. You don't need to be Christian and as long as Christians aren't actually enforcing their will upon other groups then everything should be dandy. Now you are insisting that Christians be forced to become involved LGBT individuals. Should LGBT groups be forced to allow blatant homophobes and transphobes within their groups? Churches are predicated upon their value system. Another likely outcome is simply the fanes being shut down or abandoned by religious institutions simply because they cannot maintain funds (there is religious debate arguing that should a priest betray their religious principles, they can no longer be considered a valid priest).