points by amanaplanacanal 1 day ago | 0 comments
This whole argument rubs me the wrong way. It requires the state to determine what a real religion is and isn't. And it removes equal protection, different people have the law applied to them in different ways depending on their religion.
Both of these seen to go against the first amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
I'd be fine if you argued that Title VII is unconstitutional for this reason. I like Title VII, but I see why it might be argued against on these grounds.
I get that "no religion" is a "religion" for the purposes of not discriminating based on which religion someone is. And if you want to distinguish humanism from "no religion", that's fine. But humanism doesn't bind anybody to believe anything. It's merely a descriptor of a set of beliefs. That's wholly unlike the major and minor religions of the world. If you're a humanist but are ok with AI, nobody and no thing has the authority to tell you you are wrong. Some people may have opinions to share to persuade you, but there is no authoritative answer from a person, text, tradition, or deity. That's the difference.
Courts don't like to wade into religious matters, precisely because of their deference to religious authorities, owing to the 1A. If your church declares you a "minister" be because you help lead kids' Sunday school lessons, SCOTUS is not going to debate that; they just take it as given.
But if you go to court and say, "well I'm a minister in my religion because I said so," that's not going to fly. You're free to exercise religion, not make things up and pretend like your private opinions are religiously imposed on you.
For exactly this reason, there are plenty of people from traditional religions who claim exemptions to things that I think are bad faith uses of Title VII.