>

My pleasure!
/u/JadedToon (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

If religion is not a protected class, landlords can say "no atheists allowed", employers can say "must be Christian", and restaurants can say "no Jews".
I feel like at a time when tensions between religions and between the religious and the non-religious are increasing, the last thing we should do is make it easier to foster division. >

I think there is a difference between between being able to say 'I'm a Muslim/Jew/Christian/etc' without fear of discrimination, and being able to say 'I hate gays as a matter of faith'. Seems to me we can protect the former without allowing for the latter. >


I think there is a difference between between being able to say 'I'm a Muslim/Jew/Christian/etc' without fear of discrimination, and being able to say 'I hate gays as a matter of faith'.   

The former is how a "protected class" works for any other group (race/sex/age/etc), religion has rights above and beyond any other protected class, and that's the problem.   
People may say "I hate x because I'm old", but you've never heard of somebody arguing in court that they're allowed to hate x because being old is a protected class. >

I think the issue is OP's use of protected class in their CMV instead of the more broad freedom of religion concept. People very much do try to say they are allowed to discriminate against others because of freedom of religion. People refusing services for gay weddings is the obvious example. >

I think you need to go back and review what protected classes are and how they work.
The laws are not well written, I think we can agree on that. If you have a position that you can not do or will not do because of your religion you should not take it. But people do and the laws are poorly written so that they are hurting others. 
Businesses should be required to staff so that people can receive the services they need. Fine. Keep your conservative pharmacist. But then you are obligated as a business to provide the required service. 
I have significant doubts if the current political climate can write competent legislation. >

Whqt about workplace discrimination based on religion, or lack thereof? As an atheist I dont want to be fired for being an atheist. >

I guess this all depends on the local conditions where one finds themselves and whether they would be better off one way or another.  
There's also defacto sociopolitical mores.  What bounds of behavior are tolerated or protected and what is outside the bounds.  For example, provision of birth control is generally prioritized over freedom of religion.   Ostensibly a person of religion X should not have to provide such services but we have a defacto recognition that "the demands of the workplace to provide such services is more critical".
The US is pretty unique in that it states absolute rights.  Even when they are in conflict.   And then it becomes culture wars.  And then politics.  And it's a mess.
Eg since 2a, obviously anybody in the process of acquiring or transferring firearms should be allowed to speed.  Like, you wanna pick up a new AR?  Drive 85mph!  Because the government  shall not infringe.  
That's an argument from absurdity, obviously.  But it's an implied result.  And it's funny how priorities are drawn. >

this has nothing whatever to do with what I said >

Do you think it would be reasonable to fire a pastor or priest, what have you, for being an atheist? >

in a government position, certainly. In the private sector clearly there are exceptions to be made.
edit: sorry I misread the question. to clarify I think a person of any religious persuasion should be eligible. but not in the private sector. >

I'm confused.   You got erm mixed up?
You think somebody like a chaplain or something should be fired but a private priest should be protected? >

see my edit >

Well, there's been cases where failure to provide a suitable chaplain has been grounds for complaint and redress.
Eg prisoner on death row is to be provided a religious figure.  Sometimes the person provided was found to be insufficient.  Eg a Christian chaplain for a Muslim, the wrong flavor or Christian chaplain, etc.
Do you think a state chaplain who's sincere personal spiritual conviction is incompatible with the duties of office, they're protected? >


Do you think a state chaplain who's sincere personal spiritual conviction is incompatible with the duties of office, they're protected?

I dont see how they could be. a Pastors ultimate duty is pastoral care, their actual beliefs are neither here nor there. >

Just that I'm clear,  you think state employed religious service providers are not protected then?  Or you do? >


Taking all of this into account, religion comes of as too abstract to get a blanket protection from all consequences.

This isn't what happens though. You can't murder someone and then claim it was a religious act in order to avoid prosecution.
Protected classes aren't a blanket protection from all consequences. >

Fair, I might have gone a bit far on that. But there are extremes that are excused and protected, mainly bigotry, discrimination, domestic abuse and then some. >

Okay, I expected that was hyperbolic, but then it changes your OP a lot.
I mean, what protections does wherever you live extend to religious people that you think is actually problematic? >

I am using the USA as a reference point since it's the best documented.
People are allowed to refuse healthcare on another behalf, example being blood tranfusions. No matter how much the patient might need it. They are unable to act on their own and their next of kin decides that. Beliefs like that should not protected, period. They are objectively dangerous and based on bullshit EVEN from the texts they are drawn from.
Bigotry is an easy one to explain and show. How their beliefs that sexual minorities should burn in hell are protected.
Discrimination, really self explanatory.
and so on. >

I'm a queer Jew, and I have some pretty strong opinions about religious protections.
People should be allowed to believe I'm going to hell for being queer. People should be allowed to believe I'm going to hell for being a Jew. It shouldn't influence any policy or impact my life or medical care in any way, but they should 100% be allowed to believe what their religion tells them.
People also have the right to choose their own medical care. If they believe a blood transfusion will send them to hell, then they should be able to refuse a blood transfusion. If they *would* refuse a blood transfusion if they were conscious, then their next of kin should have the right to refuse on their behalf. This becomes dicey when it comes to children, and that's why the state has taken temporary guardianship of children to get them medical care - they're not old enough to understand the consequences of their choice or think critically about their beliefs.
People deserve the right to live and worship and wear and believe whatever they want, as long as it doesn't materially hurt others. And yes, I'm saying materially because I don't care if someone else's beliefs hurt anyone's feelings. They should not be given any extra rights or privileges, and it shouldn't intersect with politics, but at the end of the day they have the right to believe whatever they want and apply that to their own life however they want.
I agree that religion has no place in public policy, and someone else's beliefs should have no impact on me. I also agree that it shouldn't exempt you from any laws - i.e. harassment is still harassment even if you call it proselytizing, and firing a gay person because you believe their going to hell is still illegal.  
Edit - also, I really cannot change my religion. I could denounce it all I want, but nothing in this world can change the fact that I'm a Jew. >

Regarding your edit, would you say the same thing about someone who converted to Judaism? That after they convert, nothing in the world can change their Jewishness? Would you say that about a Christian or Muslim person? Because there are definitely ex christians and ex Muslims. 
I get what you’re saying specifically as it relates to Judaism. But I think when you say “nothing in this world can change the fact that I’m a Jew”, the characteristic you’re referring to is not your religion, but your ethnicity. You can’t change being ashkenazi (or whatever you specifically are). But you CAN choose your religion. >

I think that's a good question and my answer is pretty simple - yep!
If a person converts to Judaism is just as much of a Jew as I am. Judaism is what's considered an ethnoreligion. If you are a Jew - by birth or by choice - you are part of the Jewish ethnicity. I'm Ashkenazi, but I'd be just as much of a Jew if I was Sephardic or if my mother converted or if I converted.
Jewish conversion isn't a task taken lightly. It requires study and work and convincing a panel of Rabbis that you really, truly want this. The belief is that a person who converts has and always has had a Jewish soul, and are a Jew that was simply born outside of the community.
There are some communities that disagree, but the Talmud states that you're not even *allowed to remind* a convert that they are a convert. Once they've converted they are not considered separate or different. They are a Jew through and through, and can never stop being one. >

This information is new to me. I've always wondered how that worked. Thank you for sharing.