• BuzzingWithElectrolytes@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    So you’re arguing in favour of discriminating against the non-religious then. That’s the logical conclusion of what you said and precisely what’s happening with this court case.

    • Landrin201
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m literally not, did you read what I wrote? I think this ruling is also bad, because I can easily see it leading to discrimination for all kinds of things, religious minorities included. This ruling doesn’t actually increase “religious freedom” or “religious protections,” it specifically allows for religious people to discriminate in business, which actually makes all religious people LESS protected, because it opens the door for Christians to discriminate against other religions and vice-versa.

      The OP was questioning why religion is a protected class AT ALL, and I’m arguing that it should be. Just like sex, race, and gender should be protected classes. It shouldn’t be legal to discriminate against people based on those traits.

      I dont think that the constitution actually protects religious people from having to serve people in commerce who their religious beliefs disagree with. But what the OP said goes beyond that, they questioned why religious people get any protections at all.