Atheists & Agnostics

Panich52

(5,829 posts) Thu Apr 2, 2015, 11:15 AM Apr 2015

1st law to ban discrimination against atheists

ThinkProgress
In This City It's Now Illegal To Discriminate Against Atheists

On Tuesday, the city of Madison, Wisconsin announced that it is now against the law to discriminate against atheists, making it the first city in the country to grant explicit legal protection to people who do not believe in a God.

According to Hemant Mehta of the Friendly Atheist blog, last night the Madison city council voted unanimously to add atheists to a list of protected groups in the city’s equal opportunity ordinance, an anti-discrimination law. The move, which inserts the phrase “religion or nonreligion” into the legal code, prevents atheists from being denied equal opportunity in employment, housing, and public accommodations.

“This is important because I believe it is only fair that if we protect religion, in all its varieties, we should also protect non-religion from discrimination,” Anita Weier, an Alderwoman in Madison and sponsor of the ordinance, told local news affiliate Channel 3000.

The ordinance also outlaws discrimination based on a number of other factors such as sex, race, citizenship status, arrest record, sexual orientation, gender identity, or anyone who declines to disclose their social security number, among many others. Reportedly, no one at the council meeting voiced disagreement with the proposal to include atheists.

More
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/04/01/3641692/now-illegal-discriminate-atheists-madison-wisconsin/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tptop3

6 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

1st law to ban discrimination against atheists (Original Post) Panich52 Apr 2015 OP

A wisp of fresh air out of Wisconsin. Curmudgeoness Apr 2015 #1

slowly, but slowly edgineered Apr 2015 #2

Maybe the first to do so explicitly, but very far from the first Jim Lane Apr 2015 #3

this religious exemption is bullshit RussBLib Apr 2015 #4

I don't think it's that simple. Jim Lane Apr 2015 #5

ah yes, the "free exercise of religion" clause RussBLib Apr 2015 #6

Curmudgeoness

(18,219 posts)

1. A wisp of fresh air out of Wisconsin.

Reply to Panich52 (Original post)

Thu Apr 2, 2015, 11:55 AM

Apr 2015

I salute Madison for taking this step. It can't be easy.

edgineered

(2,101 posts)

2. slowly, but slowly

Reply to Panich52 (Original post)

Thu Apr 2, 2015, 12:18 PM

Apr 2015

on dog tags atheism is shown as a number for religious code,74 if memory is correct. there were some religions that were also shown as digits. its not as if we were the only ones, but maybe it is best to leave it as digits. guantanamo is a good example of how tolerance is for the god fearing people and the rest be damned.

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)

3. Maybe the first to do so explicitly, but very far from the first

Reply to Panich52 (Original post)

Thu Apr 2, 2015, 01:35 PM

Apr 2015

For example, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited employment discrimination based on any of several factors, including religion. That includes discrimination for or against any particular religion, but it also includes discrimination in favor of religion over nonreligion. The Freedom from Religion Foundation has provided this informative summary:

I was fired/not hired because I am an atheist/agnostic/freethinker. Is this legal?
Generally, religious status (including lack of religious affiliation or lack of belief in a god) is a protected class under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This means that when an employer chooses who to hire/fire/promote/demote, the employer may not use religious affiliation as a factor in making that decision. The EEOC does make a limited exception to this general rule for employers at expressly religious places of business, at least when it comes to hiring/firing decisions. The Supreme Court held that this exemption was constitutional in Corp. of Presiding Bishop of Church of LDS v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327 (1987) (upholding exemption for nonprofit activities run by the LDS church). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently applied this exception in Spencer v. World Vision, — F.3d —, 2010 WL 3293706 (9th Cir. 2010) where it held that a non-profit, faith-based Christian organization fell within the Title VII religious exemption and could therefore fire non-Christian employees. Still, this remains a very narrow exception. See, e.g., EEOC v. Kamehameha Schs., 990 F.2d 458, 461 (9th Cir. 1993) (finding no exception for a religiously affiliated school); EEOC v. Townley, 859 F.2d 610, 619 (9th Cir. 1988) (finding no exemption for a “Christian, faith-operated” commercial company). If the company at issue is not run by a church or other expressly religious, nonprofit organization, chances are that a non-religious person cannot be legally denied a position, fired, demoted or denied a promotion based on religious criteria. If you believe you have experienced such an injustice, contact the EEOC or an attorney specializing in employment law as described in the opening paragraph of this FAQ.

Incidentally, it cuts both ways. An atheist or agnostic employer can't refuse to hire religious people.

RussBLib

(9,019 posts)

4. this religious exemption is bullshit

Reply to Jim Lane (Reply #3)

Thu Apr 2, 2015, 03:06 PM

Apr 2015

What justification is there, really, for a religious organization to NOT hire someone because they are of the wrong, or no, faith?

Are we still afraid of hurting their feelings? Are we trying to protect the poor faith-heads from hearing something other than their straightjacket dogma?

I don't see what is so special about them that they deserve to be exempt from many laws that the rest of us must abide by.

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)

5. I don't think it's that simple.

Reply to RussBLib (Reply #4)

Thu Apr 2, 2015, 03:34 PM

Apr 2015

I don't believe in God, so the Roman Catholic Church won't let me be a priest or even teach Sunday school. I think that's legitimate.

There are difficult cases where there's a conflict, or at least a tension, between the two provisions of the First Amendment that implement the separation of church and state. For the government to require a Catholic church to hire me as a priest, or even to hire a devout Catholic woman as a priest, would violate the Free Exercise Clause, because Catholic religious doctrine incorporates misogyny. The alternative is to say that there is something "so special about them that they deserve to be exempt from many laws that the rest of us must abide by." That violates the Establishment Clause by giving a religious institution a special privilege not afforded to secular counterparts.

To me it's clear that a religious institution should have absolute free rein in hiring clergy, even if it means exempting them from the Civil Rights Act. As you move away from core positions like clergy, though, it gets murkier. The excerpt from the FfRF illustrates that claimed exemptions are sometimes allowed and sometimes rejected. There will be gray areas where reasonable people can differ. The nice, simple solution of saying that religious institutions must always abide by all laws of general applicability eliminates these gray areas but is nevertheless not a sensible approach.

RussBLib

(9,019 posts)

6. ah yes, the "free exercise of religion" clause

Reply to Jim Lane (Reply #5)

Thu Apr 2, 2015, 04:49 PM

Apr 2015

I often overlook that one

...which can allow them to get away with all sorts of nasties. Fortunately we are whittling away at that "free exercise" clause here and there. I suppose I can understand the RCC not wanting to hire an atheist as clergy, but it's rather doubtful that any atheist would actually want to be in the RCC clergy, unless they're just cranky and wanting to raise hell.

Fortunately the free exercise clause does not extend to things like child abuse or murder or .....

Reply to this discussion