SHould the courts allow you to use religious or personal beliefs to discriminate?

[independentusa]

SCOTUS made a decision that allows you to use your religious beliefs to discriminate and there seems to be no end to that discrimination. I mean, you can actually discriminate against anything and anyone and base it on your particular religious belief. What is next, allowing people who are not religious to use their personal beliefs to discriminate. It would seem that the courts would be discriminating themselves it they did not allow those who were not religious to use their personal beliefs to discriminate against those they do not like. I do not believe that the founding fathers would allow discrimination against people for religious or personal beliefs as the did not want government deciding that we should have a national religion.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Argument for SCOTUS term limits.

 

[AmNat]

I do not believe that the founding fathers would allow discrimination against people for religious or personal beliefs as the did not want government deciding that we should have a national religion.

The founding fathers allowed private individuals to discriminate against anyone they wanted to for any reason.

 

[Felis Leo]

SCOTUS made a decision that allows you to use your religious beliefs to discriminate and there seems to be no end to that discrimination. I mean, you can actually discriminate against anything and anyone and base it on your particular religious belief. What is next, allowing people who are not religious to use their personal beliefs to discriminate. It would seem that the courts would be discriminating themselves it they did not allow those who were not religious to use their personal beliefs to discriminate against those they do not like. I do not believe that the founding fathers would allow discrimination against people for religious or personal beliefs as the did not want government deciding that we should have a national religion.

When you say "discriminate" what exactly do you mean? Do you mean not paying for certain medical procedures to be covered by particular insurance plans? Not marrying certain individuals under the auspices of their religious institutions? No acting as places of public accommodation to non-members of the religion? All of the foregoing? Something else?

Because from my perspective: As long as no one is killing or torturing each other like the various Christian Churches and their adherents did in Europe during the early 1600s...or what Muslims are doing to each other in the Middle East in the present day, warring amongst each other and ruling over the lives of individuals with overbearing theocracy, I am not particularly upset by "discrimination" in vague terms.

 

[Lisa]

SCOTUS made a decision that allows you to use your religious beliefs to discriminate and there seems to be no end to that discrimination. I mean, you can actually discriminate against anything and anyone and base it on your particular religious belief. What is next, allowing people who are not religious to use their personal beliefs to discriminate. It would seem that the courts would be discriminating themselves it they did not allow those who were not religious to use their personal beliefs to discriminate against those they do not like. I do not believe that the founding fathers would allow discrimination against people for religious or personal beliefs as the did not want the government to decide that we should have a national religion.

What supposed decision are you referring to that a person can cite their religious beliefs and superseded the rights of other people by doing so? Our religious rights, as determined by the 1sty Amdnement are very limited and are only the right to believe or not to believe and the right to worship or not to worship. Believers do not have the right to force others to obey their religious dogma nor do they have the right to deny other people their equal secular or religious rights because of their own religious beliefs.

Newman v. Piggie Park, that was about the right of a bigoted BBQ joint owner's attempt to deny equal service to black or interracial customers because of his religious bigotry, says that this question has already been decided by a very resounding vote of 9-0.

The founding fathers allowed private individuals to discriminate against anyone they wanted to for any reason.

Where do you get this nonsense? Do you have any case law that supports this outrageous claim?

 

[Crovax]

Where do you get this nonsense? Do you have any case law that supports this outrageous claim?

What was so outrageous about the claim? Until 1925 the bill of rights was only a limit on what the federal government could do, so there was little protection of what we see now as personal rights