Trump passes executive order on Religion

[Vassenor]

How is anything that's not the Bible valid? I'll answer that, it's not. It's just said to be valid by humans, which hardly makes it so, even assuming God is real in the first place.

So if it's not written down how do you prove that it's an honestly held belief and not just you using your religion as a shield?

You seem to be under the impression that all religions work like Protestant Christianity or Islam - i.e. they have a single book or collection of books that their beliefs are supposed to be based on, and every belief is supported by some quote from this book.

That is not how most religions work. That's not even how most of Christianity works, let alone Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.

Most religions have a set of beliefs that are not necessarily listed neatly together in any single document, but are easy to find if you research the religion in question. There is no single book that can tell you precisely what Buddhists believe, for example, but if you read enough Buddhist books (and books about Buddhism) you'll get a very good idea of what their beliefs are.

For legal purposes, to demonstrate that something is an "honestly held belief", you have to prove that this belief is widespread among members of your religious community. For example, Hindus do not eat beef. Is there a specific Hindu holy text that says "Thou shalt not eat beef"? No. But cows are held in special regard in Hinduism, and it's common knowledge that this means that Hindus refuse to eat beef or to participate in anything that involves killing cows. So Hindus could also legitimately claim to be opposed to the beef industry in general based on their religion - so for example, if a hotel owned by a Hindu family refused to rent a room to a beef industry executive, then that may count as exercising their religious freedom and (IMO) should be protected.

So where does the honestly held belief that serving homosexuals is icky and wrong come from then?

[The Alma Mater]

How is anything that's not the Bible valid? I'll answer that, it's not. It's just said to be valid by humans, which hardly makes it so, even assuming God is real in the first place.

So if it's not written down how do you prove that it's an honestly held belief and not just you using your religion as a shield?

You seem to be under the impression that all religions work like Protestant Christianity or Islam - i.e. they have a single book or collection of books that their beliefs are supposed to be based on, and every belief is supported by some quote from this book.

That is not how most religions work. That's not even how most of Christianity works, let alone Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.

Most religions have a set of beliefs that are not necessarily listed neatly together in any single document, but are easy to find if you research the religion in question. There is no single book that can tell you precisely what Buddhists believe, for example, but if you read enough Buddhist books (and books about Buddhism) you'll get a very good idea of what their beliefs are.

For legal purposes, to demonstrate that something is an "honestly held belief", you have to prove that this belief is widespread among members of your religious community. For example, Hindus do not eat beef. Is there a specific Hindu holy text that says "Thou shalt not eat beef"? No. But cows are held in special regard in Hinduism, and it's common knowledge that this means that Hindus refuse to eat beef or to participate in anything that involves killing cows. So Hindus could also legitimately claim to be opposed to the beef industry in general based on their religion - so for example, if a hotel owned by a Hindu family refused to rent a room to a beef industry executive, then that may count as exercising their religious freedom and (IMO) should be protected.

How big does a community need to be for this? A religion with a single adherent would be an easy loophole to be a racist if considered valid after all.

Then again, American judges have in the past accepted things like "the church of bodymodification" as a real religion despite having less than 4000 adherents, while the vastly more numerous pastafarians are generally not allowed to wear their special headgear on passport photos.

So what is the line or determining factor ?

[Kekonistan]

Does this act mean that the state employees can discriminate freely towards people on religious grounds?
Or does this act mean that private entities can discriminate freely towards people on religious grounds?

If it is the former - I disagree. If it is the latter, I agree.

[Constantinopolis]

So where does the honestly held belief that serving homosexuals is icky and wrong come from then?

It's an extension of the Christian belief that homosexuality is sinful. Of course it's a very debatable extension. That's why I brought up a hypothetical Hindu family that refuses to serve a beef company boss. That would be a similar case. Christianity believes that homosexuality is sinful. Hinduism believes that killing cows is evil. So does that mean that Christians can refuse to serve gay people, and Hindus can refuse to serve people who kill cows? Possibly. I'd be inclined to say yes. But of course it's a bit of a gray area.

How big does a community need to be for this? A religion with a single adherent would be an easy loophole to be a racist if considered valid after all.

Then again, American judges have in the past accepted things like "the church of bodymodification" as a real religion despite having less than 4000 adherents, while the vastly more numerous pastafarians are generally not allowed to wear their special headgear on passport photos.

So what is the line or determining factor ?

*shrug* That's for the courts to decide. Obviously one single adherent is not enough. But 4000 may be enough. Of course other factors need to be taken into account as well, such as whether the religion in question was blatantly made up just to exploit a legal loophole or not. If it were up to me, I wouldn't accept any religion that is less than 50 years old, for example - to ensure that anyone wanting to make up a religion in order to gain some privileges has to really work at it by keeping up the pretense for a very long time.

[Calladan]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05 ... eedom.html

The federal register disagrees with you. Maybe you should check them first before believing everything? https://www.federalregister.gov/executi ... trump/2017

Hold on - does that mean that Trump has signed more EOs in 100 days than Obama did (on average) in each of his eight years in office?

That's quite impressive.

[Khalisako]

Sounds like a redundant american thing. Exciting..? No.

I thought they already had freedom of religion...? Yes.

[Gallia-]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05 ... eedom.html

The federal register disagrees with you. Maybe you should check them first before believing everything? https://www.federalregister.gov/executi ... trump/2017

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-of ... us-liberty

Oh look. An executive order.

[Outer Sparta]

Then why is there still a Muslim ban with a couple of Middle Eastern countries still in place?

[Gallia-]

The federal register disagrees with you. Maybe you should check them first before believing everything? https://www.federalregister.gov/executi ... trump/2017

Then why is every major new sight reporting on this? Also, these orders take time to be actually implemented and websites take time to be updated

Most news sites take their news straight from the horse's mouth.

The Federal Register, being the very epitome of bureaucratic sluggishness, is about a week behind the news. More than likely it will be on the disposition table today or tomorrow, because there's a lag of about 5-7 days depending on how lazy the people who update the FR's site are feeling. I doubt the people responsible are even really awake right now, it's barely 7 AM so they're probably showering or something. The White House is usually on point with publishing EOs on or within a day or two of their signature, with the latest that I can see after not even scrolling down the list being three days after signature (EO 13794 was signed on Apr 28 but posted on the White House on May 1; FR posted theirs on May 3).

[Vassenor]

Then why is there still a Muslim ban with a couple of Middle Eastern countries still in place?

Because it would seem that religious freedom is only a right if you're white, christian, heterosexual and preferably male.

[Shrilland]

Good, now I can refuse to serve religious people as I believe that religion is a mental illness. Thanks Trump!

[Socialist Nordia]

Remember back when executive orders were considered tyrannical and unconstitutional? Yeah, I'm talking about like a year ago. I guess now they're totally acceptable in unprecedented numbers.

Anyway, this is not a good thing. Legalised discrimination. The government wouldn't tolerate not letting black people into a place of business, same should go for LGBT people. If the Christians need a safe space to get away from the evil gays, then don't go into a business where you have to serve people of varying backgrounds.

Also, we shouldn't be promoting superstition and prejudice on the federal level, but I guess it's what to expect with a theocratic AG.

[Kekonistan]

Remember back when executive orders were considered tyrannical and unconstitutional? Yeah, I'm talking about like a year ago. I guess now they're totally acceptable in unprecedented numbers.

Anyway, this is not a good thing. Legalised discrimination. The government wouldn't tolerate not letting black people into a place of business, same should go for LGBT people. If the Christians need a safe space to get away from the evil gays, then don't go into a business where you have to serve people of varying backgrounds.

Also, we shouldn't be promoting superstition and prejudice on the federal level, but I guess it's what to expect with a theocratic AG.

But the public sphere should not go into private property.

If a person does not want to serve because he sees that as not a good thing then he has all right to do so.

The free market will fix it, I mean, if it turns out to be a bad idea he will go bankrupt anyway.

[Frank Zipper]

Perhaps a few gay men will be drawn into the macho world of cake decorating, and start their own businesses.

[Socialist Nordia]

Remember back when executive orders were considered tyrannical and unconstitutional? Yeah, I'm talking about like a year ago. I guess now they're totally acceptable in unprecedented numbers.

Anyway, this is not a good thing. Legalised discrimination. The government wouldn't tolerate not letting black people into a place of business, same should go for LGBT people. If the Christians need a safe space to get away from the evil gays, then don't go into a business where you have to serve people of varying backgrounds.

Also, we shouldn't be promoting superstition and prejudice on the federal level, but I guess it's what to expect with a theocratic AG.

But the public sphere should not go into private property.

If a person does not want to serve because he sees that as not a good thing then he has all right to do so.

The free market will fix it, I mean, if it turns out to be a bad idea he will go bankrupt anyway.

But you see, protecting private property isn't among my priorities so that's not really a deal breaker for me.

The problem is the free market has been around for this nation's entire history, and the whole discrimination against LGBT people thing hasn't been solved. That's because they area small section of society, so denying them service won't hurt a business too much. If an LGBT person lives in a small town, there might only be a couple of available bakeries, so it makes getting everyday services extremely inconvenient.

[Ifreann]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/05 ... eedom.html

The federal register disagrees with you. Maybe you should check them first before believing everything? https://www.federalregister.gov/executi ... trump/2017

EO 13798: Promoting Free Speech and Religious Liberty

Signed: 05/04/2017
Published: 05/09/2017
FR Citation: 82 FR 21675
FR Doc. Number: 2017-09574

Signed the 4th of May, published the 9th.

[Dylar]

But the public sphere should not go into private property.

If a person does not want to serve because he sees that as not a good thing then he has all right to do so.

The free market will fix it, I mean, if it turns out to be a bad idea he will go bankrupt anyway.

But you see, protecting private property isn't among my priorities so that's not really a deal breaker for me.

The problem is the free market has been around for this nation's entire history, and the whole discrimination against LGBT people thing hasn't been solved. That's because they area small section of society, so denying them service won't hurt a business too much. If an LGBT person lives in a small town, there might only be a couple of available bakeries, so it makes getting everyday services extremely inconvenient.

The RFRA was not made for justifiable discrimination

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Have posted this before, still think it'd be a decent compromise in that it'd sort out the problem clearly, and leave everyone just a little pissed off they didn't get their way as much as they'd like.

Here's the example:

The Problem--
You own a business. You have a religion. You have issues with certain persons due to your religious beliefs. You would prefer not to serve in certain functions on account.

What You Need To Do--
File with the city or whatever council oversight happens to be in charge of licensing etc in your town. You put your limitations up on your front door, clearly, where everyone who goes to enter can see who you will or will not serve in what capacity, due to your religious beliefs. This then offers potential customers the opportunity to make a choice to support, or not support, before they even walk in the door, and you are covered from any legal actions, and thus, your religious beliefs are protected under the law.

But What if There Isn't an Alternative Business?--
There are always people looking to open a business. There is plenty of money out there to support such things. No competition, thus no fair alternative choice for those who feel they're discriminated against? Put it out there to the public. Check applications. And then do one of the following and/or combination thereof - Loan assistance, reduced rates, grants, what have you, and help get someone up and running who can provide. The caveat? Anyone who uses this program MUST serve everyone, regardless, so long as it is within the law - you know the usual, unruly awful people don't have to be served (keep your sec cams on, folks, cover your ass), but no discrimination for any reason. People now have a choice, and we've helped build some healthy competition.

But What if That Damages the First Business?--
Your shop can't stand on its own, that isn't anyone's problem but yours. Don't limit your customer base, perhaps. No one is discriminating, they're simply choosing where to shop - as is their right. Someone harassing you? There would be avenues in place to address that. Fair is fair is fair.

But...But--
Look. You can't have it all one way or another. You want protection for religion and to cut the issue there, you gotta put it out there and let people choose. You don't want to do that? Maybe you should re-examine those religious beliefs. You're fine with it? Well and good, carry on, and post those statements loud and proud, and let the customers vote with their money, and feet. Obviously anyone caught gaming the system wouldn't be covered by any protection, and there'd probably be some extra fines or what not involved. Be honest - that's a religious thing too, right? Goes both ways, too. Don't try to set those sorts of businesses up for a fall on account of you not agreeing with them. They're in compliance? Leave 'em be. They aren't? Let folks know. Everyone shop where they want, leave one another well enough alone, and be civil ffs. Shouldn't be that hard.

Sure there could be expansions and alterations to any of this basic idea, whatever worked for any given area. Need more spread? Generate more competition. Go a problem with an area not operating within the law, such as either putting undue pressure on any given business or owner, or not assisting with permits, or the loan program or what not? Higher up the ladder, give 'em a smack for it or some such. Dunno - have the SBA check it out or some such.

Oversimplified? Perhaps, but half our problem anymore is over-complicating things to a ridiculous degree, so simplifying seems to be a more logical way to go.

[Pope Joan]

You seem to be under the impression that all religions work like Protestant Christianity or Islam - i.e. they have a single book or collection of books that their beliefs are supposed to be based on, and every belief is supported by some quote from this book.

That is not how most religions work. That's not even how most of Christianity works, let alone Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.

Most religions have a set of beliefs that are not necessarily listed neatly together in any single document, but are easy to find if you research the religion in question. There is no single book that can tell you precisely what Buddhists believe, for example, but if you read enough Buddhist books (and books about Buddhism) you'll get a very good idea of what their beliefs are.

For legal purposes, to demonstrate that something is an "honestly held belief", you have to prove that this belief is widespread among members of your religious community. For example, Hindus do not eat beef. Is there a specific Hindu holy text that says "Thou shalt not eat beef"? No. But cows are held in special regard in Hinduism, and it's common knowledge that this means that Hindus refuse to eat beef or to participate in anything that involves killing cows. So Hindus could also legitimately claim to be opposed to the beef industry in general based on their religion - so for example, if a hotel owned by a Hindu family refused to rent a room to a beef industry executive, then that may count as exercising their religious freedom and (IMO) should be protected.

How big does a community need to be for this? A religion with a single adherent would be an easy loophole to be a racist if considered valid after all.

Then again, American judges have in the past accepted things like "the church of bodymodification" as a real religion despite having less than 4000 adherents, while the vastly more numerous pastafarians are generally not allowed to wear their special headgear on passport photos.

So what is the line or determining factor ?

Justice Scalia said, while appropriating Native American sacred lands in the Northwest in order to install an air strip: "Little religions don't matter."
Of course he was famously pro-Church when it came to Roman Catholicism.

[Calladan]

Remember back when executive orders were considered tyrannical and unconstitutional? Yeah, I'm talking about like a year ago. I guess now they're totally acceptable in unprecedented numbers.

Anyway, this is not a good thing. Legalised discrimination. The government wouldn't tolerate not letting black people into a place of business, same should go for LGBT people. If the Christians need a safe space to get away from the evil gays, then don't go into a business where you have to serve people of varying backgrounds.

Also, we shouldn't be promoting superstition and prejudice on the federal level, but I guess it's what to expect with a theocratic AG.

But the public sphere should not go into private property.

If a person does not want to serve because he sees that as not a good thing then he has all right to do so.

The free market will fix it, I mean, if it turns out to be a bad idea he will go bankrupt anyway.

A business is NOT private property. If you open your doors to the public, then it is, by definition, public property.

A house is private property. A business is not.

[The East Marches II]

But the public sphere should not go into private property.

If a person does not want to serve because he sees that as not a good thing then he has all right to do so.

The free market will fix it, I mean, if it turns out to be a bad idea he will go bankrupt anyway.

A business is NOT private property. If you open your doors to the public, then it is, by definition, public property.

A house is private property. A business is not.

So the state owns my property? I wasn't aware that the business managed by them, the taxes paid and property management theirs.

[Calladan]

A business is NOT private property. If you open your doors to the public, then it is, by definition, public property.

A house is private property. A business is not.

So the state owns my property? I wasn't aware that the business managed by them, the taxes paid and property management theirs.

Maybe public isn't the word I was looking for. Commercial vs domestic?

My point, as it always was, is that if you open a restaurant, a bar, a sauna, a brothel that is open to the public then you should serve the public without discriminating against them.

Yes, if a member of the public causes a disruption, or punches you in the face, or sets fire to your establishment, you should have the right to throw them out and bar them for good measure.

But banning someone because there is something about them that offends you? Didn't the USA go through that already? And weren't most people relatively appalled by the notion?

Or are we now going to be able to use the phrase "gay is the new black"?

[Socialist Nordia]

So the state owns my property? I wasn't aware that the business managed by them, the taxes paid and property management theirs.

Maybe public isn't the word I was looking for. Commercial vs domestic?

My point, as it always was, is that if you open a restaurant, a bar, a sauna, a brothel that is open to the public then you should serve the public without discriminating against them.

Yes, if a member of the public causes a disruption, or punches you in the face, or sets fire to your establishment, you should have the right to throw them out and bar them for good measure.

But banning someone because there is something about them that offends you? Didn't the USA go through that already? And weren't most people relatively appalled by the notion?

Or are we now going to be able to use the phrase "gay is the new black"?

The term you're looking for I think is personal property. A business is private property but not personal property.

[Neutraligon]

Maybe public isn't the word I was looking for. Commercial vs domestic?

My point, as it always was, is that if you open a restaurant, a bar, a sauna, a brothel that is open to the public then you should serve the public without discriminating against them.

Yes, if a member of the public causes a disruption, or punches you in the face, or sets fire to your establishment, you should have the right to throw them out and bar them for good measure.

But banning someone because there is something about them that offends you? Didn't the USA go through that already? And weren't most people relatively appalled by the notion?

Or are we now going to be able to use the phrase "gay is the new black"?

The term you're looking for I think is personal property. A business is private property but not personal property.

So what does a private club get called. Unlike stores and the such they do get to discriminate.

[United Muscovite Nations]

But the public sphere should not go into private property.

If a person does not want to serve because he sees that as not a good thing then he has all right to do so.

The free market will fix it, I mean, if it turns out to be a bad idea he will go bankrupt anyway.

But you see, protecting private property isn't among my priorities so that's not really a deal breaker for me.

The problem is the free market has been around for this nation's entire history, and the whole discrimination against LGBT people thing hasn't been solved. That's because they area small section of society, so denying them service won't hurt a business too much. If an LGBT person lives in a small town, there might only be a couple of available bakeries, so it makes getting everyday services extremely inconvenient.

Why should it be solved? Why should the government force businesses to serve people that they do not wish to be associated with? Businesses are allowed to ban people who commit all kinds of actions from doing business with them, why should it be any different for sodomy?