>

Why are the other protected classes less worthy of being protected than religion?
/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. >

My pleasure! >


Which dovetails into religiously motivated discrimination. People dragging cases to the supreme court about the hypothetical of a gay client asking them to make something. Using the idea that "Religion being protected" means "My hatred is protected"

That's unrelated to religion being a protected class.  Religion being a protected class means I cannot kick someone out of my restaurant for being Muslim, cannot refuse to employ Jews, cannot say that my apartment building is Catholic-only, stuff like that.
You are thinking of the First Amendment (freedom of religion) not protected classes.  If religion stopped being a protected class it wouldn't change the question of whether pharmacists can refuse to sell birth control one bit. >

There are practical reasons for this that have nothing to do with some kind of abstract "ideological" reason to have or not have religion be a protected class. 
The world is full of history of wars, violence, discrimination, and general nastiness due to differences of religious opinion... even tiny differences of religious opinion. 
The founders of the US saw that religious strife had torn apart Europe, particularly due to various restrictions on what people could believe. They wanted to avoid at least what part of this could be avoided by a democratic government, so they decided that freedom to practice religion was not to be interfered with. It's a case of "live and let live when it comes to religion". 
That was, practically speaking a good decision. It doesn't matter whether it fits someone's view of an ideal rule. Humans aren't ideal, and so the rules that govern them can't be ideal.
Not being able to fire someone purely for their religion is a good thing. If we had a better social support system maybe we could get away with allowing that, but until that happens, workplaces could force people to act in accordance with the bosses'/owners' religious beliefs or starve. And history tells us this would actually happen. 
It's not a blanket protection, though. It only requires reasonable accommodations. >

Do you think a religious majority should be allowed to marginalize atheists and compel the expression of religious belief for participation in major spheres of society? >

No, I don't think religion should play a role in governance at all. Every time it did, it has ended horribly. I am explicitly against anyone forcing their beliefs on to others. >


am explicitly against anyone forcing their beliefs on to others.

That's what protected classes are for!
If religion isn't a protected class, then the only gas station in town and the only grocery store in town is entirely allowed to decide to only serve customers who proclaim belief in Jesus as savior. >

Yeah but you can do that with other things that are a choice. If I own a business I can decide not to serve people from a certain political party or people who dress a certain way or who have tattoos etc
So why is choosing a religion any different? Shouldn't protected classes only be for things you can't choose, gender, sex, skin colour, etc? >


Yeah but you can do that with other things that are a choice.

You can also do it for things that people can't choose. If you own a business you can choose to only hire people who were born in the same town, or fire employees for having a grating voice, or  only serve customers who are at least six feet tall. 
"Things you can choose"/"things you can't choose" has never been the dividing line, the difference is that protected classes are for countering historical society-wide marginalization and persecution. >

No, you can't. Remember the lawsuit about the gay couple suing because they couldn't get a cake? Or the wedding website?  
How about racism? Could you deny me service for being Asian?
(Yes, you could just not give a reason. But if your shop has ONLY white people in it, people will catch on) >

The point was not that you can do it for all things that people can't choose, but rather that there exist things that people can't choose that you can legally discriminate on. >

You cannot LEGALLY do it. You can do it and not get caught, but it is illegal for many aspects. 
Sure, you can do it for someone's voice or whatever. But at that point, you can make that argument for any job. NASA only hires smart people! I can't control that >

So ... for certain things you definitely can do it legally. >

... that's a stupid argument tho. That's like saying, why can't blind people be video editors? There are preferences for every job. >

Religion may change throughout someone's life but do they really choose it? Could you choose, right this instant, to believe something else? To believe that a different religion than your own (if you have one) is right? >


Could you choose, right this instant, to believe something else?

Sure. You can't? 
Beliefs are a choice. If you didn't pick your own, then someone else picked for you. >

No? How does that even work? You can just say "yeah the evidence for gravity is overwhelming but I can actually just completely ignore that and assert that gravity doesn't actually exist" >


No?

I'm sorry for you. 

How does that even work?

Simple: 
We make assumptions that inform our views. We can choose to make different assumptions. 

You can just say "yeah the evidence for gravity is overwhelming but I can actually just completely ignore that and assert that gravity doesn't actually exist"

Obviously that's not what I mean. 
What's the point of this extreme example? You didn't say ANYTHING is a choice. 
But choice certainly factors into beliefs. As previously mentioned: if you didn't choose your own beliefs, then someone has chosen for you. 
Secondly, our current understanding of gravity is flawed; we know it is flawed. A new, improved theory of gravity is not inconceivable; plausible, even. You should certainly not accept the current models as if they're absolute truth. >

New evidence changing your view isn't choosing new views. I can't freely choose to change my views outside of new information. It's an extreme example because what's the fundamental difference? If you can freely choose to change minor views why not extreme ones? >


New evidence changing your view isn't choosing new views. 

Correct. 
I'm not talking about that. That's something else entirely. 

I can't freely choose to change my views outside of new information.

You can choose to change the assumptions you make, that inform these views. I already mentioned that. >

Like what kind of assumptions? >

Axioms. 
The kind of fundamental assumptions we all make. >

And what are those assumptions? And why is the belief in these axioms different from other beliefs? >


And what are those assumptions?

It depends on the person. We all have different ones, that's the point. 

And why is the belief in these axioms different from other beliefs?

I don't understand the question. 
What does *belief in axioms" mean? >

On the gay wedding cake case I think you are vaguely mentioning, artistic creations are speech. This is an entirely different case. An artist should be able to deny a custom commission for any reason.
The baker in question was willing to sell them anything in the shop, just not take a commission for a wedding cake. If the baker had refused to sell a stock cake or cookies which are not a custom commission, he would have lost the case. >

Religion not being a protected class would just cause people of the majority religion to discriminate against all other religions (and atheists). There'd be a lot more hatred if religious protections didn't exist. >


We don't control where we are born, what sex we are born as, what race we are, who we are attracted to.
But we do control what religion we are. 

I mean, statistically speaking, we don't really seem to control what religion we are either given that very few people ever switch out of the one their born and raised into. Hell, I'd wager for most people it literally never even occurs to them that they should consider switching. If we really did, then we'd expect to see much greater degrees of religious change. It's certainly possible to change religion, but it's also possible to change gender, so I don't think this should be the dividing line. >

Religion is an element that's most important to devout people, it's their most valuable set of values and beliefs. To not respect means to discriminate against this person, if widespread discrimination becomes popular in the population, this can end very badly. Discrimination and non-acceptance can easily transform into hate.  In my country Germany, this kind of behavior resulted in the Holocaust. >

Yeah, OP feels like an idiot for not thinking this through, because I don't want to bring in Nazis into it... but like.... Nazis are the most extreme result... And it was fucking ugly. >

Religion should be a protected class for the same reason as race, sex, etc. should be protected classes. There are minority or disadvantaged groups denoted by religion that can be marginalized and excluded based on religion. These people mostly are NOT Christians in the US, despite what fox news tells you. This does not mean that protecting people from being discriminated on the basis of their religion means that they have the right to impose their religion on others, which is the idea that your post is built around. It means that people can't be excluded from opportunities and equal treatment under the law on the basis of religion. Basically, your post is based on a disingenuous argument put forward by the conservative right of what religious protection is actually supposed to mean. >

Do you want another holocaust? Cuz this is how we get another holocaust. >


Effectively imposing their beliefs on to another person, but that is beside the point.

It didn't though. She worked there for years and simply had other employees ring up the customers who wanted birth control. A totally reasonable accommodation that CVS could have continued to make.   
They also denied her transfer to a virtual position, lab position, or positions that dealt only with COVID-19 and vaccines. CVS had a vast number of different options to accommodate her without causing any undue hardship to the company. In fact, firing her caused CVS more undue hardship, now they have to fill her spot and still fill the other spots she was willing to transfer to.   
This is exactly why we have protected classes. There are people who would discriminate against and refuse to accommodate different people even if making simple accommodations would be best for everyone. >

There's a clear conflict between equality under the law and the concept of protected classes. If one group sees another getting perks, they're going to try to get the same. I read this as the groups I associate with or prefer DESERVE extra legal protection, the ones I dislike and don't associate with don't. Way I see it, if you're down with the protected class game, you're going to have to accept that people you don't like are going to learn the rules and do it too. >

TLDR: religion should be a protected class. But religion should not triumph over other rights and obligations. American founders thought that the people who came after them would actually be smarter than them, so didn’t feel the need to spell out something so obvious. Other constitutions (Canada) now do, cause yes, people are that stupid. America is special and the problems are less to do with actual law. Rather an issue of absolutist rights culture and politically motivated, selective interpretations of law**.
**(I understand interpreting law is inherently a political act, but from a legal standpoint, there is/ought to be an attempt at impartiality, which is severely lacking in the US - where I assume OP is from). 
<><><><><><><><>
I agree to an extent but freedom of religion and thought, as a protected class does not always mean “religion” religion either. I am not exactly sure about how the legal definition in America differs from the Canadian rules, but in Canada it is something like a sincere and deeply held belief. However, even in those cases most courts balance those beliefs with other rights and obligations (whether political or professional). 
In America though, there is a push to not have ANY limits on rights, and infer that the founders listed the rights in the order of priority. I think this is where the idea that freedom of religion trumps all comes from. However, in law, there is a recognition that rights come into conflict each other and at that point one has to triumph over the other, with the least possible infringement on the one that is secondary. 
This principle is applied less so in America, cause it’s constitution is about a 100-200 years too early to realize that that was something that needed to spelled out in the constitution. If you could raise the founders from the grave and asked them if they believed that was the case, I assume all of them would go “WELL DUH” and ask, “did we really have to spell out something so simple for you idiots?” and then go back to being dead in disbelief. 
A lot of countries have what in Canada is referred to as the “reasonable limits” clause in their constitutions because, yes, apparently it has to be spelled out. Some countries have developed a tradition through common law even if it isn’t written down. So in reality, a lot of the world accepts the fact that rights aren’t absolute.
America is a special case not necessarily because of laws, but because of culture. I agree with you on the part of your argument that someone should not be denied the sale of birth control at the pharmacy. Professional obligation vs. Freedom of religion, in these circumstances, professional obligation should win. Stop being a pharmacist if your god doesn’t want you to dole out birth control. If their religious belief was so sincere, they would quit. Religion should not TRUMP (ewww, sorry) other rights. 
However, I do not agree with you that religion should not be a protected class. It should be a protected class and right, just not given priority over other rights, but have equal weight. I think there is a nuance in the argument that you may have missed, because religion as a protected class does not only mean “religion” religion. And you don’t want the government telling you that your sincerely held beliefs are wrong.
Edit/Addition: it is the very fact that religion/belief IS so diverse and abstract that it needs to be a protected class (legally). >

Couple of issues with your view here.
First, your example is neither relevant to your point, nor does it have much meaning in its own.
Anyone can sue anyone else over anything. You don't even need a lawyer.  You just basically say what happened and how you were damaged by it.  Poof, lawsuit started.  
That's where the suit in your example is.  The only  reason you see it on the news because that subject matter gets clicks.
A protected class does not even come into play here.  She wasn't fired for her religion, she was fired for not doing her job and being obstinate enough to just tell the customer no instead of "That goes against my beliefs, let me find someone else to help you."
Antidiscrimination laws only come into play if you can show that you were either not hired, terminated, or otherwise treated badly by an employer because of your protected class.  That employee made a choice that renders this lawsuit cable news fodder and nothing more.
Also, you bring up religion as a choice.  Is it a choice when a kid is born into that religion adopts it?  A lot of people lack the critical thinking skills to even realize they have a choice well into adulthood.
Even if it is a choice, does it matter? Should an Atheist get fired from Hobby Lobby or Chick-Fil-A just because the owners believe differently? >

Let me suggest an alternative solution to the problem you mentioned up top.
People living with physical disabilities are protected in this way, right?  The idea being that a job cannot discriminate in their hiring based on disability... UNLESS that disability prevents them from being able to complete the necessary tasks, essential to the job.
It's not hard to imagine such a scenario.  If a linemen job requires climbing telephone poles... deliverers have to be strong enough to move what they deliver... 
Religious protestations should be filed under the same concern.  If the person discloses during an interview that they won't hand out birth control at the pharmacy, they cannot complete the necessary tasks, so they don't get hired.  If their ability to complete the tasks changes during employment, handle as appropriate (try to find them a new position and fire them if you have to). >


What evidence do you have that we don't control some things and we do control others? Are you claiming that all these things are purely genetic?

I mean for some elements it is fairly obvious.
I don't have control what colour I am or was born as. I don't control where I was born and so on.
From the link I gather that you can be more religious when it comes to genes. But that just means having A belief, not a specific one. Which one depends how you are indoctrinated by your parents. Meaning it can be changed. >

Your belief can be changed, that means that if your belief is not protected the government can try to change your beliefs which I would say it's not a good thing. That's what protected means, the government has no business to change your religious or lack of religious ideas. >

I'm an atheist. I don't believe that people control what religion they are any more than I control being an atheist.
People become convinced of things that deeply become a part of their identity and culture. These beliefs generally lead to personal obligations, either to one's self, family, or community.
This leaves us with a choice: are we going to have a free society where people can be free to believe what they believe, and practice whatever faith their convinced of even if we don't agree with it so long as it does not violate other rights?
This is where the idea of a reasonable accommodation comes in. There is no good reason why we shouldn't reasonable accommodate for the honest religious convictions of people.
This leaves the word "reasonable" up for debate, and the cases you brought up in your post may not meet the requirements of being reasonable. But as a general statement? Why can't Muslims have sufficient breaks to pray during the day as required by their faith, and a quiet meeting room from which to do so? Why can't Jews ask for a reasonable accommodation to not work Friday evenings and Saturday when not absolutely required by the job? If abortion is considered a horrific sin by a Christian, can they reasonably be exempted from being forced to assist in some way in the procedure at a hospital without disruption to patients? >


If abortion is considered a horrific sin by a Christian, can they reasonably be exempted from being forced to assist in some way in the procedure at a hospital without disruption to patients?

You had me agreeing until there.
Then they shouldn't be taking that job, period. A job comes with certain duties, if you can't do them. The job is not for you. 
It's one thing to work around schedules and elements like that. It's another for it to impact other people. What you previously stated just applies to the individual.
Imagine someone coming into a pharmacy needing emergency medication, but are denied based on the cashiers religious beliefs. There is nobody to replace the cashier or do it instead. Would that be acceptable? >

See, now you're getting to the crux of it. What does reasonable mean? What hospital job was I referring to?
Imagine a hospital that requires X doctors to be able to perform abortions in order to meet patient requirements. They currently have X+Y doctors available to perform abortions.
What is unreasonable about leaving the Christian doctor out of the rotation of doctors whose job involves giving abortions? Why shouldn't the hospital hire someone available and qualified to perform all other procedures?
Obviously, if the hospital needed to specifically hire someone to perform abortions, then yes, you would be correct that they shouldn't be hired for that job.
But reasonable accommodation means that in the absense of something necessary (or I'd extend this to mean without a large burden) for the position, not accommodating such views eliminates a fundamental freedom.
Edit: I'll extend this to pharmacies for your example. A place like CVS should always have staff on hand to fulfill prescriptions. If someone is against a certain medication, they cannot have that job unless their business is still able to fulfill the requirements of fulfilling the prescription for that medication, or so long as they're willing to do it if no other staff are available.
That's what reasonable accommodation means.
One more edit: And actually, I think you've already agreed with my core point here. What we're debating now is where that reasonable line is. But I think that you even admitted that something clearly reasonable should be accommodated for. >


What is unreasonable about leaving the Christian doctor out of the rotation of doctors whose job involves giving abortions? 

It is unreasonable, because doctors should do what is needed to save the patient. Imagine the on call doctor is anti abortion, a patient comes in. She is pregnant and in distress, the safest option is termination. She wants it. The doctor refuses, nobody else is on call. So they have to wait and risk the patients life.
Reasonable means being able to do all aspects of the job without your personal (non medical in the doctors case) influencing you. >

See my edit on my previous point. I think you actually agree with the core point I was making.
Right now we're debating what constitutes a reasonable line, but it kind of implies that you agree that obviously reasonable accommodations should be protected if it doesn't significantly inconvenience the customers or business, and thus it's fine to be protected.
The debate had now shifted to a different topic about where the reasonable line sits. >

Religious protections are mainly for people who aren’t religious.
The western world is filled with bosses who are very religious and would fire people who aren’t as religious, believe in a different religion or who just don’t care. >

Well religion doesn’t get a blanket protection from all consequences. I couldn’t murder someone or steal something and use religion as a defense, that just doesn’t happen. 
Also we do need religious protection laws because without them it would be possible to fire someone solely because they follow Judaism or are Muslim and we know from past history these groups have faced discrimination. So these laws in fact protect them and everyone else who is apart of a religion.
Also the example you provided about the pharmaceutical worker refusing to serve birth control is not an example of someone forcing their beliefs on others. It’s an example of someone not allowing a company to force them to compromise their own beliefs. A different worker could’ve easily sold the customer the birth control and boom: the customer gets what they want and the religious person gets to go home not feeling like they’ve betrayed themselves and their beliefs >

At one point you say that religion or religious people are  imposing their beliefs on others.  The irony of this post is that it’s a whole post based off assumptions and contradictions which is trying to impose its own “belief” on others. Lol.
The concept of lgbtq(think about the ever growing list of pronouns or the “lgtbq, acronym every growing so they add a plus) or other liberal ideas are infinitely abstract, as most religions (whether the person in that religion follows it or not) adhere to strict guidelines given to them by a supreme authority.  While people without religion follow their desires and personal beliefs that have been curated by their environments and or other experiences that they might have had. 
I’m not here to argue religion to you but saying that religious people do not deserve to be a protected class is dangerous territory and sounds more like retaliation against them for those personal beliefs?  
I am a so called person that follows a religion.  I believe drinking is a sin , gambling is a sin, lgbtq is a sin.  Should “religious” people say that people who gamble are not protected class? Or gay people , or someone who drinks? No.  All humans are protected in some way. 
Most people who somewhat correctly follow a religion might “preach” once but if you don’t care we will just say “hey I tried to tell ‘em but it’s ultimately up to that person.”  People have been drinking, gambling and being gay for so long now we aren’t going to impose our beliefs on you.  Do what you want you’re an adult we’re all adults.  Be gay or whatever gender I don’t care.  Your rights and anyone in any protected class stop the moment they impose on someone else’s.  
You can NOT say “it’s my religion” and kidnap someone or un alive  someone. But you can’t force someone to drink alcohol if they are religious force them to gamble or participate in lgtbq customs as this would be imposing on the religious persons belief.  
You might say “you’re imposing on an lgbtq person by not calling them by certain thing or not letting them in a bathroom of the opposite or not doing business.” No religious person is doing that.  If someone doesn’t believe in the concept of pronouns they don’t have to participate . You can’t force someone into your belief system(like you said). You can’t make a business make a gay cake but you CAN make a business respect that person asking to make the gay cake and give them basic human decency.  Something simple as “hey this gay thing you’re doing, you do you but I can’t participate as it goes against my moral beliefs as a Christian, or Muslims or other religion.” 
The whole trans bathroom thing is a joke.  If they really don’t wanna be by other men and women don’t wanna be by them, why not just have a third bathroom for trans or other lgbt people instead of imposing on normal women?  No women should have to let go of her right to safely use that bathroom.  Yes there have been many cases where a man says he’s trans and has hurt or raped women.  Schools have went the length of even hiding.
Isn’t that imposing your beliefs in others now? We’ve been having third bathrooms for years now for handicapped people or family’s, it’s no different. 
The problem here is what your pretty much saying is that you hate religion and their beliefs so you want them gone.  That’s not how that works.  If the “other side” said the same things there would be uproar.  This is hypocrisy at best with serious cognitive dissonance and a serious case of “playing the victim.” >

I'm not entirely convinced that religious belief is a personal choice. Religion is often deeply intertwined with culture. The biggest predictors of a person's religious beliefs are arbitrary factors like the faith of their family, their community and geography. And, if I'm an atheist who find the idea of a god absurd, I can't just decide to believe that Allah is the one God and Muhammed is his prophet. I could behave and present myself as if I was a Muslim, but I wouldn't actually believe in Islam. And if that constitutes choosing a religion, then I could also choose my gender, sexuality, ethnicity,  race and decide to become disabled.
There are lots races, lots of ethnicities, lots and genders and lots sexualities. I don't see why the fact that religious belief is a broad and complex category renders it undeserving of protection. >

I think the real consideration here is what is the lesser evil: 

having a law that e.g. prevents people from using religion to fire someone, even knowing that a small number of nutjobs will use the same law not to bake a queer person a cake
OR
having no law to prevent people from using religion as a justification to fire someone, knowing that it also means you could force a bigot to bake a queer person a cake 

Quite frankly I'd rather find another baker, but keep my job.
I say this as someone who has been outright asked in an interview about my marital status, whether or not I had children and whether or not I intended to have any in the future, if I had any leanings towards what they called "liberal views", and whether or not I drink alcohol in social settings... for an accounting job. 
There will always been SOMEONE who will twist the law to their advantage, no matter how well intentioned the law is. But I would argue that the law (in this case anyways) is still better to have than not. >


if I had any leanings towards what they called "liberal views", and whether or not I drink alcohol in social settings... for an accounting job.

That is a massive red flag for a company that should be avoided. Nutjobs like those exist, but they are not the majority. You are at a job interview, not a political debate. I understand that the job market is hell, but considering the outright hostility of that interviewer, the prospects didn't look good in the long run.
When it comes to laws, you most often have to look at the worst actors and the worst consequences. The current worst consequence is happening, a case going up to the supreme court to embolden people to use their religious protection to discriminate. >

Oh for sure, I did not take the job despite getting an offer because of exactly those questions lol. It was beyond ridiculous. 
I agree, you definitely have to consider the worst actors and worst consequences, and one would hope that we learn from them and respond accordingly (obviously not always the case, but this is the certainly the intention). I just think that, even in a severe case such as the pharmacist not wanting to provide birth control, there is usually an option to go to another pharmacy (not always, I concede, but usually). However without the protected class, it could very well stop someone from making a living at all (which could mean they can't afford birth control PERIOD). 
.... Ultimately I hate that it's even a possibility to work in a public-facing job and be able to discriminate based on anything other than how much of an a**hole someone is 😆 >

Jews used to face severe workplace discrimination in the US until the mid 20th century. This isn’t and abstraction, we’re taking real prejudices that result in real discrimination based on untrue stereotypes. 
Getting rid of protected classes isn’t going to hurt those who use religion for bigotry (the laws don’t even protect that). It’s going to hurt religious minorities, who will be targeted because they’re considered an outgroup. >


But we do control what religion we are

Change your core worldviews right now.  Don't just pretend, actually change it.  I'm willing to bet you can't.  It's not a choice, it's a journey and most people are born into an environment which places them at specific starting points.  The only choice we have is how far we travel from those starting points and in one direction. >

100%. 
And if it is a protected class then there should also be a protected class for people that want nothing to do with religion. Why are the secular people the ones that always have to be the respectful ones? What about our beliefs? >

Correct >

Christianity is not the only religion, but many want it to be. If religion wasn't protected, non-Christians would be getting fired or not hired. >

That’s not how protected classes work. There’s nothing wrong with having religion be a protected class, there IS something wrong with imposing your religion onto others. >

Would you be OK with a Christian supermarket or restaurant not allowing Jews, Muslims or atheists? What if every supermarket, restaurant and business in an area did this? This is why religion should be a protected class. >

The supreme court of the us doesn’t hear hypotheticals. It hears specific cases with standing that have come up through the court circuits >

Are you saying that because your religion is your choice it shouldn’t be protected? >

instead of taking protection from religion, we should lift sexual orientation and gender identity up to protected classes.  and make clear that one can not be played against another.  so homophobia becomes superstition by law.  just like racism already is superstition by law. >

By “religion” you seem to mean “the majority religion in this country” or “Christianity in the US”. Religion as a protected could also mean protecting religious minorities, and allowing them to practice their religion without being discriminated or persecuted. >

Religion shouldn't be taught in schools. And neither should sexual orientation, blm, or racist ideologies. Kids are there to learn not be lectured as to why they should be gay, or trans or how their "oppressed" because of color or gender. >

Is the blanket protection of free expression a problem? The way in which the United States government provides accommodations for certain religious groups might be excessive, but just as any political group, no matter how divisive, is protected by law, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion. What are the downsides to this approach? >

freedom of religion is one of the corner stones of america. it's one of the primary reasons puritans even established a colony in america in the first place. it will never not be be a protected class. >

Disabilities such as mental disorders should always be a protected class. They shouldn't have special privileges or be allowed to use their disability to gain advantage at the cost of others, but they should still be protected from discrimination. It's not their fault the delusions and brainwashing runs so deep it would be classified as a mental disorder if it wasn't so normalized. >

It should be a protected class in the sense that it is part of cultural diversity as well. You are free to practice and believe what you believe but you are not allowed to impose those beliefs onto others during working hours. If you are refusing to sell birth control to someone because of your personal beliefs, then that infringes upon the privately owned business entities profit and customer service. That’s not your business you just work there. Unless the business is imposing a policy on you yourself that conflicts with your beliefs then you have no right to put that on others who aren’t even affiliated. >


Effectively imposing their beliefs on to another person, but that is beside the point.

Is it though? All it seems to me that they're doing is refusing to support something that goes against their beliefs, but they're not forcing anyone else to adopt them, so I wouldn't say they're "imposing" their beliefs. >


But we do control what religion we are.

Not a whole lot.  Controlling your religious identity is like deciding what country you live in -- you can move to another country, but it's very hard, involves leaving your friends and family behind, they might not even accept you anyway, and besides, why should you have to leave your country that you were born in and love?
It's important to remember that religious freedom was the reason why America exists in the first place.  People in England (mostly) were being told to just be the state religion, and they didn't want to for one reason or another, so they came here to be free in their own religion. >

So protection dosen't mean from all consequences. 
Speech is protected and fairly abstract. It allows one to discuss the follies of their government, but also allow hate groups like the KKK to march through predominantly black areas with police escort. 
Thats the issue with living in a relatively free society. With the good comes the bad. 
Also, another reason why that's even a thing is to protect people from having to be one or possibly no religion at all. It's so all different types can have a place to exist without fear of prosecution from the other or the non believers or the government for that matter. >

So to be clear, religious freedom, in America at least, was MEANT to be a freedom from, not a freedom for.
Which is an annoying way of saying it so I'll clarify.
The right as outlined in the first amendment was made to impose a freedom from the state mandating you act based on their religion.
The right WASN'T meant for people to impose their religious beliefs onto others.
The first means that a state controlling religion, couldn't compel the second.
However, because of a certain group they're currently trying to do the second by way of implementing the first. Coincidentally, this pattern was seen multiple times in the rise of fascism.
So it's not the religious freedom that's the issue, but how it was corrupted by those who want to implement their religion as a cudgel against others. >

Usually when people voice opinions like yours, they only think about things they disagree with. I think the moment you find the lack of freedom of religion impacting your own life in a negative way, you start to appreciate what freedom of religion actually is. >

You're talking about "religion", and I just don't think that is necessarily the same as belief or faith. For example, I believe in the One True God, "who is and was and will come". To me that is not religion, that is belief and faith, that is being spiritual. I am an ordained minister, ordained by 2 Evangelical churches, but I myself am not an evangelical, I'm a woman called by God to teach his ministry. 
Religion to me is a building, a church or a temple or even a mega-church, where ppl go once a week to make nice for God and Prase Jesus with all their might, only to go out the next day and damage as many people as they can. Mohammed taught peace, yet his followers murder and maim their own people every day. That, to me, is religion. I do not practice religion, I believe, and I have faith. That is being Spiritual.
I agree with many of the things you've said, I just would be happier if I could agree with your definition of "religion". >

We don't all control our religion. If you were raised to genuinely believe that converting or not following your religion will result in eternal, fiery torture, you don't have a real choice in your religion.
Religion as a protected class has no bearing on whether an employee should have to perform the duties they were hired for. Overzealous lawmakers are just trying to get their religious base worked up over these things by making laws catering to individual religious people.
If religion isn't protected, oppression follows, and ultimately a theocracy of the one approved religion is likely. >

Religion should be protected to an extend. For example, my old high school had an empty classroom dedicated for quite, private, and personal religious purposes. This meant that anyone of any religion could go into that room and quietly practice their religion to themselves, so long as other students were not affected. 
That’s the level of protection that a job should take with it as well. Someone’s religion should not interfere with their job, but they should be allowed to have it in some sense. Religion is very important to people. It’s not a good idea to take away it’s protection altogether. There must be balance in order to keep the peace. >

Hello, do you belong to a religion and live in a country where that religion was legally discriminated against by the State? Where people were denied rights, employment and housing due to their religion? Where people were attacked and murdered according to their religion? >

We don't create protected classes out of some rational course of thought like you're supposing.  We create protected classes because historically some group has been marginalized or their civil rights have been wrongly abridged and we are attempting to correct that problem or prevent it from getting worse.  Religious affiliation has historically been used to marginalize people.  That's all the justification necessary. >

Religion is the root of ethics. Everyone believes in something, but most importantly, each culture has it's own set of moral rules, which are as abstract as the "law of god".
If you want to be coherent, you should as well desire to destroy all laws and ethics, given their abstract and uncertain features >


healthcare, discrimination, bigotry

You talk about religion being too abstract, yet you use these terms that you strictly defined according to your secular definition.
I'm going to approach this from my own Catholic perspective.
When one gets pressed about these issues  from both sides of the isle, the debate, once again, turns to abstract concepts, like human rights. And when one is supposed to rationally ground those, one gets even more abstract, and sooner rather than later, one gets into the sort of debate that necessarily includes religion and worldview. Those are, after all, bases of some of the concepts we are arguing about, including the terms mentioned above. It would be doing a disservice to the disciplines of social sciences and humanities to call these in any way intuitive or self-evident.
Birth control is no healthcare to a Catholic. Neither is abortion. Similarly, there is nothing bigoted about withholding a sacrament intended for a man and a woman to someone who doesn't live according to that principle. There is nothing discriminating about refusing to administer communion to someone not living the life a faith is requiring you to. 
If you were to overrule these and say that the law of the land is above these is above these doctrines, you are basically saying that the philosophy of a government and thus the current ruling party is more authoritative than the philosophy of a church, which is in and of itself anti-pluralistic, not to mention the fact that it means that the correct worldview is not determined by a reasonable discussion, but by public opinion (and it completely dismisses the possibility that the religious worldview is the one closest to reality, doing a disservice to any semblance of intellectual thought). It is a first step to mob rule. >

Religion is a disease that needs to be eradicated. I consider all religious people to be mentally ill and avoid them like the Covid. >

Religion is the original protected class.  If religion is not protected, certainly none of the others should be.