Support NeoGAF

[Phoenix RISING]

From The Hill:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced Monday that the Department of Justice is creating a "religious liberty task force."

The guidance was a byproduct of President Trump’s executive order directing agencies to respect and protect religious liberty and political speech.

Sessions said on Monday that the task force will “ensure all Justice Department components are upholding that guidance in the cases they bring and defend, the arguments they make in court, the policies and regulations they adopt, and how we conduct our operations.”

The announcement came during the department’s religious liberty summit.

Sessions said the cultural climate in this country — and in the West more generally — has become less hospitable to people of faith in recent years, and as a result many Americans have felt their freedom to practice their faith has been under attack.

“We’ve seen nuns ordered to buy contraceptives. We’ve seen U.S. senators ask judicial and executive branch nominees about dogma—even though the Constitution explicitly forbids a religious test for public office. We’ve all seen the ordeal faced so bravely by Jack Phillips,” he said, referring to the Colorado baker who took his case to the Supreme Court after he was found to have violated the state’s anti-discrimination laws for refusing to make a cake for a same-sex wedding.

Sessions said the guidance he issued in October lays out 20 fundamental principles for the executive branch to follow, including the principles that free exercise means a right to act — or to abstain from action — and that government shouldn’t impugn people’s motives or beliefs.

“In short, we have not only the freedom to worship—but the right to exercise our faith. The Constitution’s protections don’t end at the parish parking lot nor can our freedoms be confined to our basements,” he said, according to his prepared remarks.

Sessions said the federal government under the Trump administration is not just reacting but is actively seeking to accommodate people of faith.

“Religious Americans are no longer an afterthought,” he said.

I don't have a problem with the idea; I have a problem with how it will roll out.

For example, you'll probably never get a fixed number of denominations in Christianity alone, but there are at least 35. To extrapolate the case Sessions references, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a Pentecostal business owner or employee could argue that female employees and/or patrons must wear dresses as part of the dress code, much like a grocery store requires a shirt and shoes. A Baptist or 7th Day Adventist business owner or employee could refuse to sell alcohol from certain hours from Friday evenings-Sunday afternoons.

A Muslim claim to not have to interact with women at all who are not properly garbed lest he defile himself. A Google search yields 73 sects of Islam.

Like, I know that a lot of evangelicals want to talk about freedom, but then secretly or outwardly through voting, seek to establish a theocracy. I mean, that's all fine and dandy if that's what you want, but then we might get into some Constitutional shenanigans with the first clause of the First Amendment,
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, in regards to enforcing whatever this "Religious Task Force" is to oversee.

Folks in the US about to learn how many practicing Pagans and Satanists and Bahá'í there are, too....

 

[Lister]

HAHAHAHAHA!

You think this about anything other than making sure white protestant/evangelicals can discriminate? You actually think these guys are interested in helping protect Muslim's freedom of religion? Hell, I don't think they'll do anything about their harassment, nevermind worrying about some of them wanting to discriminate against women.

 

[Ulysses 31]

As long as they don't start enforcing blaspheme laws..

 

[iconmaster]

To me it all sounds great, but we'll see what it means.

 

[Forthefuture]

Yeah because religious right is so oppressed right now. Cant let those gays get too uppity now. Today the cake tommorrow the world.

 

[mustardman]

Staunch constitutional free speech conservatives, what say you as the evangelical Mullah integrates religion with the state? I'm sure we'll hear endless videos and think-pieces from the freedom and liberty blogosphere any minute now.

 

[iconmaster]

It's correct to acknowledge that "there is possible tension between a requirement of governmental neutrality derived from the Establishment Clause and a Free-Exercise-derived requirement that government accommodate some religious practices."

(from https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/annotation05.html)

That's not an easy balance to strike, but both are important. You don't want to be forced by the government to do things against sincere convictions -- and no, you can't just come up with a silly "conviction" and expect the government to allow an exemption for it. That doesn't fly, so let's be careful about ridiculous examples.

 

[Yoshi]

A Baptist or 7th Day Adventist business owner (...) could refuse to sell alcohol from certain hours from Friday evenings-Sunday afternoons.

He could do so either way, no? It's his shop afterall, if he decides not to sell alcohol at certain times, for whatever reason (but not discriminating the buyers, but not selling at all), this should absolutely be his thing to decide?

 

[n0razi]

How about lets not waste federal money on stupid shit... I thought that was the whole conservative mantra.

 

[Gander]

It sounds like this being put in place to attack gay marriages and everything surrounding it. I can't see any other reason they would bother. We have never needed a task force before now.

They are going to use this task force to limit the rights of the LGBTQ community.

 

[Liberty4all]

I think it's fabulous that the government is taking its duty to respect freedom of religion seriously.

 

[Somebody_Special]

This isn't a task force to protect religious liberty.

It's a task force to put Christian beliefs before equal protection under the law.

 

[LegendOfKage]

This isn't a task force to protect religious liberty.

It's a task force to put Christian beliefs before equal protection under the law.

You actually think these guys are interested in helping protect Muslim's freedom of religion?

No, but you can't have one without the other. The government can protect all religious freedom of business owners, or none. If they try otherwise, and it goes before the supreme court, they will fail. Both liberals and constitutional conservatives won't let that happen, just like the rulings on desecrating the flag before it. You can't go against the constitution.

a Pentecostal business owner or employee could argue that female employees and/or patrons must wear dresses as part of the dress code, much like a grocery store requires a shirt and shoes.

A Baptist or 7th Day Adventist business owner or employee could refuse to sell alcohol from certain hours from Friday evenings-Sunday afternoons.

A Muslim claim to not have to interact with women at all who are not properly garbed lest he defile himself. A Google search yields 73 sects of Islam.

I don't see anything wrong with legally allowing any of these. Why limit business owners from self-harm or bad PR that would come with some of these actions? Also, if I object to the idea of a store not making cakes for gay weddings, or a not wanting to do business with women who they consider not properly garbed, it benefits me to know that when considering where I want to take my business.

I do only feel this way for the owners of a business, though. If you as an employee feel you are required to violate your religious principles for your job (such as not wanting to issue marriage licenses for gay couples) you should just leave.

 

[Dude Abides]

I think it's fabulous that the government is taking its duty to respect freedom of religion seriously.

*Muslims not included.

 

[Bolivar687]

The United States was largely founded as a sanctuary for religious freedom. Unfortunately, there's been too many efforts in recent years, at every level of government, to compel believers to publicly disavow their religion. You need only look at the end of the Supreme Court term to see how high the stakes have gotten.

I'm glad our Justice Department is starting to take our Constitutional safeguards more seriously.

 

[LegendOfKage]

I think it's fabulous that the government is taking its duty to respect freedom of religion seriously.

*Muslims not included.

No, they're included. I can't see how they wouldn't be, given that Muslims have also denied requests to design cakes for gay weddings.

 

[Liberty4all]

*Muslims not included.

Of course they are included. At the heart of it, this is about protecting religious freedom regardless of religion. This is a victory for all believers regardless of faith. The knowledge that one won’t be persecuted for religious convictions — the government is taking steps to ensure religious beliefs are respected in regards to prosecuting law.

 

[Dude Abides]

No, they're included. I can't see how they wouldn't be, given that Muslims have also denied requests to design cakes for gay weddings.

Of course they are included. At the heart of it, this is about protecting religious freedom regardless of religion. This is a victory for all believers regardless of faith. The knowledge that one won’t be persecuted for religious convictions — the government is taking steps to ensure religious beliefs are respected in regards to prosecuting law.

Haha, no. Nobody’s been persecuted for their religious convictions. This is transparent base-pandering culture war bullshit. Muslims are on the wrong side.

 

[Sub_Level]

Yeah because religious right is so oppressed right now. Cant let those gays get too uppity now. Today the cake tommorrow the world.

The war on christmas....the war on christmas never changes.

 

[ChuckeRearmed]

Will there be some kind of enforcers? Like "religion police"...Well Sharia patrols existed in Britain though.
I wonder what uniform they might have

I guess liberals would be happy if it were pro-Islam idea and against Christianity.

 

[LegendOfKage]

Haha, no. Nobody’s been persecuted for their religious convictions. This is transparent base-pandering culture war bullshit. Muslims are on the wrong side.

If this is transparent base-pandering culture war bullshit, it's a direct result of...

Then: What do you care if gay people can get married, it doesn't affect you!
Now: Oh, you WILL decorate a gay wedding cake, I don't care what your stupid religion says about marriage.

I'm pro gay marriage, but not everyone is, and I'm okay with that. Gay marriage needs to be legal, not required by law to support.

And sorry, you might not like it, but traditional Muslims and Christians are frequently on the same side concerning this issue.

 

[Dude Abides]

If this is transparent base-pandering culture war bullshit, it's a direct result of...

Then: What do you care if gay people can get married, it doesn't affect you!
Now: Oh, you WILL decorate a gay wedding cake, I don't care what your stupid religion says about marriage.

I'm pro gay marriage, but not everyone is, and I'm okay with that. Gay marriage needs to be legal, not required by law to support.

And sorry, you might not like it, but traditional Muslims and Christians are frequently on the same side concerning this issue.

I’m aware that fundamentalist Christians, like Muslims, don’t think they should have to play by the same rules as everyone else, and believe that it’s oppression to require them to. I don’t have to share their delusion, though.

If you think this administration, which repeatedly tried to ban Muslims from coming to the US, is going to go to bat for a Muslim who, for example, gets fired because his boss says he can’t accommodate multiple prayer breaks per shift, I have some lakefront property in Mecca to sell you.

 

[ZehDon]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here, but does this need a task force? Shouldn't this type of freedom just be protected by the courts whenever such freedom is believed to have been violated? Because all I'm seeing here is a potential for the ever-more contorted and increasingly disconnected "American Christianity" to make a power play. And, coming from a generic discounted off-brand Christian, I don't think good things are going to come from this.

 

[Harksteed]

Will there be some kind of enforcers? Like "religion police"...Well Sharia patrols existed in Britain though.
I wonder what uniform they might have

I guess liberals would be happy if it were pro-Islam idea and against Christianity.

Can someone explain the 'liberals are pro-Islam' meme to me?

 

[LOLCats]

ill probably get some hate for this. Govt Institutions and private employers should not be responsible for "accommodating" peoples religion. If people want to be religious they need to do it on their own time and keep it out of any workplace.

 

[Marshmallow]

No, but you can't have one without the other.

lol, do people actually believe this? It's just a bunch old catholics doing what they have doing for years. Did everyone forget the '90s?

But I guess "identity politic" and "panderign" are fine when they pander to you. :^

 

[LegendOfKage]

If you think this administration, which repeatedly tried to ban Muslims from coming to the US, is going to go to bat for a Muslim who, for example, gets fired because his boss says he can’t accommodate multiple prayer breaks per shift, I have some lakefront property in Mecca to sell you.

As I stated earlier, if we're not talking about the religious freedom of business owners, I don't care. If your faith is at odds with you issuing a gay marriage license, or you need multiple prayer breaks per shift, go find a job that will accommodate you.

My main concern is that people who have a massive investment in owning their own business should not be required by law to support something that their religion is opposed to. Employees can just find another job.

lol, do people actually believe this? It's just a bunch old catholics doing what they have doing for years. Did everyone forget the '90s?

But I guess "identity politic" and "panderign" are fine when they pander to you. :^

My statement was that Muslims have also denied requests to design cakes for gay weddings. That would suggest Muslims would benefit from this sort of thing, no matter if they were the intended party or not.

My other point was that if somehow Muslims were not included in this policy, it would go before the Supreme court and the policy creators would lose. I don't think anyone has argued either point beyond repeating a variation of "they don't care about Muslims! That's not why they're doing this!" which I never suggested was the case.

But if you can think of a religious discrimination case that went before the supreme court and the ruling benefited only Christians and Catholics, while not being allowed to benefit Muslims, then you might have an argument I'd agree with.

 

[Cauliflower of Love]

Found what this is about

Citing 20 points of guidance his department had released in October(which were put together after Trump issued an executive order in May 2017 ordering the federal government to protect religious liberty), Sessions said his task force would "ensure all Justice Department components are upholding that guidance in the cases they bring and defend, the arguments they make in court, the policies and regulations they adopt, and how we conduct our operations."

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-r...nload?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery

3.The freedom of religion extends to persons and organizations.


16.Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, prohibits covered employers from discriminating against individuals on the basis of their religion. Employers covered by Title VII may not fail or refuse to hire, discharge, or discriminate against any individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment because of that individual's religion. Such employers also may not classify their employees or applicants in a way that would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities because of the individual's religion. This protection applies regardless of whether the individual is a member of a religious majority or minority. But the protection does not apply in the same way to religious employers, who have certain constitutional and statutory protections for religious hiring decisions.

19. Religious employers are entitled to employ only persons whose beliefs and conduct are consistent with the employers' religious precepts.

Remind me again, isn't it forboden for the state to be governing religious institutes?

oh

Much like administrative agencies engaged in rulemaking, agencies considering potential enforcement actions should consider whether such actions are consistent with federal protections for religious liberty.

Agencies should remember that discriminatory enforcement of an otherwise nondiscriminatory law can also violate the Constitution. Thus, agencies may not target or single out religious organizations or religious conduct for disadvantageous treatment in enforcement priorities or actions. The President identified one area where this could be a problem in Executive Order 13798, when he directed the Secretary of the Treasury, to the extent permitted by law, not to take any "adverse action against any individual, house of worship, or other religious organization on the basis that such individual or organization speaks or has spoken about moral or political issues from a religious perspective, where speech of similar character" from a nonreligious perspective has not been treated as participation or intervention in a political campaign. Exec. Order No. 13798, § 2, 82 Fed. Reg. at 21675. But the requirement of nondiscrimination toward religious organizations and conduct applies across the enforcement activities of the Executive Branch, including within the enforcement components of the Department of Justice.

https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...4/promoting-free-speech-and-religious-liberty

Sec. 4. Religious Liberty Guidance. In order to guide all agencies in complying with relevant Federal law, the Attorney General shall, as appropriate, issue guidance interpreting religious liberty protections in Federal law.

Are they looping into themselves from the DOJ to executive orders?

 

[Bolivar687]

^ this post doesn't make any sense.

 

[TheShadowLord]

But if you can think of a religious discrimination case that went before the supreme court and the ruling benefited only Christians and Catholics, while not being allowed to benefit Muslims, then you might have an argument I'd agree with.

the only thing I could think of was a gun shop refuse to serve to Muslims but the Court ruled in favor of the Store owner. I can also think of the refusal of Muslims having food stands in New York recently. And here in Massachusetts, they were refuse to have their own cemetery. I vaguely remember this one. My point is I do believe any of these are religious discrimination towards Muslims.

There is also the US stance of an International Religious freedom. However, the US has not (at least publicly) condemned Myanmar for its attack on the Rohingya Muslims. It is being called as an ethnic cleansing of them.