emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
Religious Discrimination
Religious discrimination involves treating a person (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of his or her religious beliefs. The law protects not only people who belong to traditional, organized religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism, but also others who have sincerely held religious, ethical or moral beliefs.
Religious discrimination can also involve treating someone differently because that person is married to (or associated with) an individual of a particular religion or because of his or her connection with a religious organization or group.
========================
I was looking up discrimination by creed and the Civil Rights Act,and found this under EEOC.
========================
I have been arguing with Luddly Neddite Dante C_Clayton_Jones JakeStarkey and others that it is a form of "discrimination by creed" to abuse govt, Courts, Congress and Party to endorse and enforce ACA mandates against the beliefs of Constitutionalists (whose principle beliefs are violated by federally imposed taxes to fund govt health care programs instead of recognizing free choice of people and states).
How would argue either for or against these points
1. that ACA mandates to fund federally regulated exchanges violate Constitutional beliefs in one or more of the following:
states' rights, no taxation without representation, no involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime, no depriving citizens of liberty without due process of law, religious freedom, freedom of choice in health care including but not limited to reproductive health, equal protection of the laws from discrimination by creed.
2. abusing the party system, election campaign system, and media to promote the "right to health care as the law of the land" and to declare Constitutionalist opposition to be "racists" and "bigots" is a form of religious harassment on the basis of creed; and using this to collect monetary resources and political support to EXCLUDE Constitutional beliefs from equal representation and defense constitutes "conspiracy to violate equal civil rights" by abusing govt to undermine the equal legal protection of other beliefs.
It is "treating citizens" differently or unequally due to association or membership with groups,
thus discriminating on the basis of religious belief or political creed.
3. Note: if you want to argue parties on both sides are doing this, do two wrongs make it right to discriminate and harass? You are welcome to debate this point.
Are political beliefs only defensible by law if they respect all other beliefs?
If so, are ALL beliefs that don't respect others to be barred from imposition through govt?
Why isn't this enforced consistently? What criteria is proper for determining which beliefs
are enforceable and can be established by govt, and which should be kept out of govt?
4. Dante and JakeStarkey seem to argue that the laws would have to be changed to specify that political creeds are included in the laws, where currently only the term "religion" is used in Constitutional laws. And this has not been interpreted officially to mean political beliefs. Does this mean it cannot be used that way until the law is changed?
Is your point of debate that the Constitution "would have to be amended first" to include "political religions or creeds" under the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
Religious discrimination involves treating a person (an applicant or employee) unfavorably because of his or her religious beliefs. The law protects not only people who belong to traditional, organized religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism, but also others who have sincerely held religious, ethical or moral beliefs.
Religious discrimination can also involve treating someone differently because that person is married to (or associated with) an individual of a particular religion or because of his or her connection with a religious organization or group.
========================
I was looking up discrimination by creed and the Civil Rights Act,and found this under EEOC.
========================
I have been arguing with Luddly Neddite Dante C_Clayton_Jones JakeStarkey and others that it is a form of "discrimination by creed" to abuse govt, Courts, Congress and Party to endorse and enforce ACA mandates against the beliefs of Constitutionalists (whose principle beliefs are violated by federally imposed taxes to fund govt health care programs instead of recognizing free choice of people and states).
How would argue either for or against these points
1. that ACA mandates to fund federally regulated exchanges violate Constitutional beliefs in one or more of the following:
states' rights, no taxation without representation, no involuntary servitude except as punishment for a crime, no depriving citizens of liberty without due process of law, religious freedom, freedom of choice in health care including but not limited to reproductive health, equal protection of the laws from discrimination by creed.
2. abusing the party system, election campaign system, and media to promote the "right to health care as the law of the land" and to declare Constitutionalist opposition to be "racists" and "bigots" is a form of religious harassment on the basis of creed; and using this to collect monetary resources and political support to EXCLUDE Constitutional beliefs from equal representation and defense constitutes "conspiracy to violate equal civil rights" by abusing govt to undermine the equal legal protection of other beliefs.
It is "treating citizens" differently or unequally due to association or membership with groups,
thus discriminating on the basis of religious belief or political creed.
3. Note: if you want to argue parties on both sides are doing this, do two wrongs make it right to discriminate and harass? You are welcome to debate this point.
Are political beliefs only defensible by law if they respect all other beliefs?
If so, are ALL beliefs that don't respect others to be barred from imposition through govt?
Why isn't this enforced consistently? What criteria is proper for determining which beliefs
are enforceable and can be established by govt, and which should be kept out of govt?
4. Dante and JakeStarkey seem to argue that the laws would have to be changed to specify that political creeds are included in the laws, where currently only the term "religion" is used in Constitutional laws. And this has not been interpreted officially to mean political beliefs. Does this mean it cannot be used that way until the law is changed?
Is your point of debate that the Constitution "would have to be amended first" to include "political religions or creeds" under the First and Fourteenth Amendments?