Oklahoma Joes Fundraiser Kerfuffle

[Conan71]

There are a number of other issues at hand with the legalities of this action, but yes, this kind of situation has been tested in court as discrimination and has been upheld as being so. 

Geez, could you at least speak in more general terms?  How about citing some cases?

There are plenty of examples of employment and religious discrimination, I don't recall hearing about vast amounts of case law as it relates to retailers and doing fund raisers.

[Hoss]

Geez, could you at least speak in more general terms?  How about citing some cases?

There are plenty of examples of employment and religious discrimination, I don't recall hearing about vast amounts of case law as it relates to retailers and doing fund raisers.

I'm not cust, but here are the specifics regarding the law (part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, believe it or not.  It would fall under the part about 'public accomodation'):

http://www.citizensource.com/History/20thCen/CRA1964/CRA2.htm

Here's a cited case...well, at least in the media.

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2012/04/center_for_inquiry_michigan_at.html

[cannon_fodder]

Conan, I do not know of any cases regarding fund raisers specifically.  However, there are many cases that are closely on point.  Without going to cases - the Oklahoma Constitution and Federal Civil Rights Act are directly on point.  A restaurant cannot treat groups differently because of their religious beliefs.  This post is not directed at you (I started it over lunch and just got around to finish it and saw your post), but your post made a good lead in. . .

I feel the need to clear up what appears to be a common confusion:  NO, HE CANNOT REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE HE WANTS.

He runs a public business.  He can refuse service without giving a reason, but if he gives a reason, or through a pattern, a statement, or some other evidence it is understood that he is refusing service for a particular reason or reasons – that reason cannot be one that is protected.  This fight was fought during the civil rights movement.  In short, it was determined that a private shop keeper refusing service to black people was a violation of their civil rights.  Similarly, you cannot refuse service because you are Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Mexican, female, or because you are NOT one of those things.  Assuming, for the sake of argument, that this group wanted to convert as many children to atheism as possible; that right is just as protected as a Baptist trying to convert people to their beliefs.

To the point that no one was asked to leave (a point which some that were there have not acknowledged) – it was made clear to them they were not welcome there.  That the owner did not approve of their camp.  That he was not going to honor his obligation.  And that all of this was because their religious beliefs did not align with that of the owner.  Even if they were not asked to leave and were explicitly told they were welcome there, it remains that they were treated differently by this institution because of their beliefs.  Not only should that be frowned upon by society, it is against the law of the State and the law of the Country.

Oklahoma Constitution §2, Religious Liberty:
"Perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of the State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship; and no religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights."

The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." That includes such rights in "(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station."

A business cannot treat one group different than another group on the basis of their religious beliefs.  Each protected group is entitled to equal enjoyment of services, advantages, and accommodations. A business cannot treat an atheist group different than Christian group.  If a Christian group would have been allowed to continue their organized and approved gathering and a group with different religious beliefs can not simply because of those beliefs... that is against the law. 

By definition, that is religious discrimination.  It is not different than the Catholic analogy I laid out above.  "I reserve the right to refuse service" has been utilized against Catholics, Irish, Poles, Chinese, blacks (African, islander, or other), gays. . .  It is THEIR fault I am discriminating against them and it is MY RIGHT to treat them different because of their [insert whatever here].  Historically, those arguments have failed and been mocked a couple decades later.

Many in this discussion are just showing interest in the situation and asking what the actual law is/would be.  Others are not really being honest. The argument that they are not protected or that they did something wrong is weak. At least have the courage to say you don't think this group SHOULD be protected.  "I don't like non-Christians and I don't care if they are treated different because of their religious beliefs."  At lease that statement has conviction and would be an honest statement.

quod erat demonstrandum

[Conan71]

Ahhh, but can you cite religious discrimination when a group of people espouses NO religious beliefs?

An athiest is someone who has no belief in a diety, deities, or religion correct? 

Sorry, can't resist.

[cannon_fodder]

No problem, a common point.

To retort, most people are atheists as it pertains to all gods but their own.  They have no belief in any other god.  An atheist merely strikes the remaining god from the list.

Seriously though, religious freedom is also interpreted as the freedom to be free FROM religion.  The alternative is a system in which parties are required by the State to pick a religion or face discrimination.  The matter of agnostic/atheist/or seemingly crazy religions being protected is well settled.  What is a bizarre sect today may be an established religion soon enough (see, e.g., protestants, Mormons, and... dare I say it, Scientologists). What is a minority today calling for protection may be a majority soon whining about the protection of everyone else... 

And that's the beauty of the system.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Ahhh, but can you cite religious discrimination when a group of people espouses NO religious beliefs?

An athiest is someone who has no belief in a diety, deities, or religion correct? 

Sorry, can't resist.

cannon said it...

I would submit that being atheist is a religion of its own.  A belief based on faith that something is so, with no verifiable scientific background or evidence to prove or disprove one way or the other....



I heard that comment one time that the Buddhist's God is so powerful, he doesn't even have to exist!

[custosnox]

Thanks CF and Hoss, I didn't have the time at posting to find the relevant information. 

Heir, no, atheism is not a religion, it does not require believing in something, it only lacks the belief in supernatural deities.  That's it.  A person can claim that even the scientifically verifiable is non-existent and still be an atheist.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Thanks CF and Hoss, I didn't have the time at posting to find the relevant information. 

Heir, no, atheism is not a religion, it does not require believing in something, it only lacks the belief in supernatural deities.  That's it.  A person can claim that even the scientifically verifiable is non-existent and still be an atheist.

So, lack of belief in supernatural deities would be different from believing that supernatural deities do not exist...?

(The atheists I have known have all expressed to me that they believed that God - all supernatural deities - do not exist.  But I have only known a few true atheists...most the rest were really agnostic.)

As for part two, "a person can claim scientifically verifiable is non-existent...."  That happens all the time - it is an article of faith with many religions.  I suppose an atheist could believe that, too.  My limited sample didn't show that, though...they were all scientific believers.

[custosnox]

So, lack of belief in supernatural deities would be different from believing that supernatural deities do not exist...?

(The atheists I have known have all expressed to me that they believed that God - all supernatural deities - do not exist.  But I have only known a few true atheists...most the rest were really agnostic.)

And that is the difference between a gnostic atheist and an agnostic atheist.  But then you start getting into philosophy in ways that even the atheist community cannot agree on (trust me, I've seen discussions last for hours on this subject). 

[heironymouspasparagus]

And that is the difference between a gnostic atheist and an agnostic atheist.  But then you start getting into philosophy in ways that even the atheist community cannot agree on (trust me, I've seen discussions last for hours on this subject). 

Parsing it into things like agnostic atheism or is it really atheistic agnosticism.... too much, too much.  Well, just let some of them have a couple of good ole fashion, down home Biblical visions and clarification may ensue....  As an engineer, there is way too much "wiggle room" in convoluted logic.... it's like pushing a chain... lots of energy expended, but nothing accomplished.

[Gaspar]

This has sparked a great discussion.   

Religion is belief system (it matters not what specific religion), based on the the acknowledgement that there exists something greater than the individual human mind. Individual religions incorporate cultural systems, fables, and rituals designed to enforce that belief in a way that all members can comprehend even though it is accepted that they are by nature incapable of comprehensive religious knowledge (just as an ant in your kitchen is incapable of understanding your mind).  Religion is typically the basis for society, because it establishes a world view and cultural rules that allow humans to share similar ethical and moral positions including but not limited to family, sexuality, law, and life itself.  Basically, religion is the acceptance that we are all children of something greater.

Atheism is simply an individual choice NOT to adopt the belief that anything exists greater than the individual human mind or the collective human experience.  It is an existential and purely materialistic, in that "if a thing cannot be proven through observation or scientific evidence, it does not exist."  In atheism, belief is fluid, in that the atheists of the 1500s are very different than the atheists of today, because the science and understanding of the universe has changed.  Atheists are free to define their own ethics and morality, and common moral positions, and are not bound to any cultural standard. 

Personally I know many atheists. Spending a great deal of my youth in the Unitarian church, I watched many of my friends come to adopt a position of existential materialism as they grew up.  Their lives tend to follow similar themes.  Many are not happy that others would accept the concept of something greater than what experience or empirical evidence can show.  This pushes them to evangelize (or educate as they call it) just as other religions do, and fosters the concept (as Heron mentioned) that they may indeed be a religion.  It would be a struggle to be a real atheist, in that our wishes, hopes and dreams are based on a sense of spirit.  I find that religion IS human nature.  From the time we are children, until the day we die, it is necessary to have the faith that there is something more, something beyond what we can see, read, taste, touch, feel or smell.  Our fantasies are our way of reaching for that.  Otherwise life has little value beyond pleasure or pain, and the sensations from acquisition or loss of the material.

No offense Custosnox, but it is my experience that atheists have very sad lives filled with loss and tragedy, not because of any cosmic or supernatural karma, but because society provides very litte space for them.

[Hoss]

This has sparked a great discussion.  

Religion is belief system (it matters not what specific religion), based on the the acknowledgement that there exists something greater than the individual human mind. Individual religions incorporate cultural systems, fables, and rituals designed to enforce that belief in a way that all members can comprehend even though it is accepted that they are by nature incapable of comprehensive religious knowledge (just as an ant in your kitchen is incapable of understanding your mind).  Religion is typically the basis for society, because it establishes a world view and cultural rules that allow humans to share similar ethical and moral positions including but not limited to family, sexuality, law, and life itself.  Basically, religion is the acceptance that we are all children of something greater.

Atheism is simply an individual choice NOT to adopt the belief that anything exists greater than the individual human mind or the collective human experience.  It is an existential and purely materialistic, in that "if a thing cannot be proven through observation or scientific evidence, it does not exist."  In atheism, belief is fluid, in that the atheists of the 1500s are very different than the atheists of today, because the science and understanding of the universe has changed.  Atheists are free to define their own ethics and morality, and common moral positions, and are not bound to any cultural standard.  

Personally I know many atheists. Spending a great deal of my youth in the Unitarian church, I watched many of my friends come to adopt a position of existential materialism as they grew up.  Their lives tend to follow similar themes.  Many are not happy that others would accept the concept of something greater than what experience or empirical evidence can show.  This pushes them to evangelize (or educate as they call it) just as other religions do, and fosters the concept (as Heron mentioned) that they may indeed be a religion.  It would be a struggle to be a real atheist, in that our wishes, hopes and dreams are based on a sense of spirit.  I find that religion IS human nature.  From the time we are children, until the day we die, it is necessary to have the faith that there is something more, something beyond what we can see, read, taste, touch, feel or smell.  Our fantasies are our way of reaching for that.  Otherwise life has little value beyond pleasure or pain, and the sensations from acquisition or loss of the material.

No offense Custosnox, but it is my experience that atheists have very sad lives filled with loss and tragedy, not because of any cosmic or supernatural karma, but because society provides very litte space for them.

And yet, many Christians and people of faith blame the atheists for their pain, instead of looking in the mirror.

[Red Arrow]

(just as an ant in your kitchen is incapable of understanding your mind). 

I'm sure most of us believe that but do we really know for a fact that is true?

[Gaspar]

And yet, many Christians and people of faith blame the atheists for their pain, instead of looking in the mirror.

Weak minds feel content to blame others for their failures.  That is not unique to any particular group, religion or political affiliation.

[Townsend]

Once a kid understands religion and how it works, the kid will stop praying for the bike.


The kid will steal the bike and pray for forgiveness.