FFRF gets its panties in a twist

[Seth]

Seems the FFRF has it's panties in a twist over "religious discrimination" because a bunch of Rhode Island florists refused to take their money or deliver flowers to Jessica Ahlquist, a teenage atheist who succeeded in having a religious banner removed from her Rhode Island high school.

The Blaze reports on the controversy:

...According to FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor, Twins Florist, one of the businesses that refused to deliver, violated the Civil Rights Act when the business discriminated based on Ahlquist’s atheism. Gaylor released the receipt order from the florist, which reads, “I will not deliver to this person.”...

But wait, atheism is not a religion, right? So, how can anyone engage in unlawful "religious discrimination" against an atheist?

Gaylor goes on to whine:

“We have basic civil rights standards in our society. A business can‘t shun you because you’re an atheist,” the atheist leader said. “You do not have the right to refuse to do business with someone based on categories and that includes religion. It‘s as if they said ’I will not deliver to a black person.’”

Problem is, it's not illegal for a business to discriminate based on POLITICAL (or any other) belief. It's perfectly legal to refuse to serve Democrats, or Progressives or Communists...or atheists.

The Civil Rights Act says that everyone shall be entitled to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin."

Since atheism is not a religion, according to every atheist I've ever debated the subject with, it does not fall under the protection of the Civil Rights Act.

So, Gaylor, you're wrong, and people have every right to discriminate against and shun atheists, just like they can discriminate against and shun Communists or Marxists based on any category they choose OTHER THAN those specifically listed in the Civil Rights Act.

That, my dear, is called "freedom of (dis)association" and it's guaranteed by the First Amendment as a right.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Squirrely logic, finest kind.

[Seth]

Didn't get the edited version posted in time, so here's the final edit:

It seems the FFRF has it’s panties in a twist because a bunch of Rhode Island florists refused to take their money to deliver flowers to Jessica Ahlquist, a teenage Secularist and First Amendment activist who succeeded in having a religious banner removed from her Rhode Island high school.

The Blaze reports on the controversy:

…According to FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor, Twins Florist, one of the businesses that refused to deliver, violated the Civil Rights Act when the business discriminated based on Ahlquist’s atheism. Gaylor released the receipt order from the florist, which reads, “I will not deliver to this person.”…

Gaylor goes on to claim:

“We have basic civil rights standards in our society. A business can‘t shun you because you’re an atheist,” the atheist leader said. “You do not have the right to refuse to do business with someone based on categories and that includes religion. It‘s as if they said ’I will not deliver to a black person.’”

Problem is, Ahlquist is not black, the florists didn’t refuse to deliver to her because she’s black or because she’s an atheist, they refused to trade with the FFRF because it’s an activist Secularist organization and they refused to deliver to Ahlquist because she is a Secularist political activist. It’s not illegal for a business to discriminate based on political categorization. It’s perfectly legal for a business to refuse to serve Democrats, or Progressives or Communists…or Secularists.

The Civil Rights Act says that everyone shall be entitled to “full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.” Nothing is said about political discrimination, however. Moreover, according to the definitions found in 42 U.S.C. §2000, a florist’s shop is not a “place of public accommodation” covered by federal law to begin with.

Ahlquist’s objection to the banner in her high school was based on constitutional First Amendment Establishment Clause legal principles, and therefor her claim was a secular political argument (and a fully-justifiable one) about the appropriateness of the clearly religious banner being displayed in a public school. Since secularism is not a religion and Ahlquist’s political Secularist activism does not fall under the protection of the Civil Rights Act, business owners are free to refuse to serve her, or the FFRF, which is equally a Secularist political activist organization, if they wish.

So, Ms. Gaylor is simply wrong and people have every right to discriminate against and shun Secularists, just like they can discriminate against and shun Progressives, Communists or Marxists based on any category they choose other than those specifically listed in the Civil Rights Act.

Such “category” discrimination is called “freedom of (dis)association” and it’s guaranteed by the First Amendment as a right to each and every individual, including Rhode Island florists.

[Gallstones]

Establishment clause should cover it adequately.

The florists can refuse business. Free market should cover that adequately.

Another florist did deliver.

Harrassment, threats and intimidation are criminal. The law should cover that.



The girl was not only right, she's ballsy and sure as hell does not deserve being threatend or harrased for it.
Society needs more people like her and far less like those florists and others who are being nasty bigots.

[Drewish]

I'd love to live in a society where businesses are free to decide who to do service with. But as long as that damn Civil Rights act stays intact it unfortunately means that this kind of activity is illegal.

[Gallstones]

I'd love to live in a society where businesses are free to decide who to do service with. But as long as that damn Civil Rights act stays intact it unfortunately means that this kind of activity is illegal.

A business does not have to serve drunks, loud foul mouthed boors, the filthy, or those convicted of certain crimes.
I'm not convinced this is a cut a dried civil rights violation. They refused to serve a single individual. Why would that individual want to give them her business anyway when there are others who will gladly take it?

[MrJonno]

Why would that individual want to give them her business anyway when there are others who will gladly take it?

If a business is refusing business illegally its a red rag for everyone else to try and shop there get refused and sue. It's certainly what I would do

[Drewish]

I'd love to live in a society where businesses are free to decide who to do service with. But as long as that damn Civil Rights act stays intact it unfortunately means that this kind of activity is illegal.

A business does not have to serve drunks, loud foul mouthed boors, the filthy, or those convicted of certain crimes.
I'm not convinced this is a cut a dried civil rights violation. They refused to serve a single individual. Why would that individual want to give them her business anyway when there are others who will gladly take it?

One could make the same argument of, "Why would blacks want to give their business to a racist restaurant?" I agree, and think that the notion of forcing private businesses to service people is ridiculous, but so long as you have laws to protect certain racial and religious minorities, I can't see those laws not then applying to all racial and religious groups.

[Gallstones]

Atheism and Secularism are religious groups?

The law says a restaurant has to serve you.
Do you want to eat the food?

[HomerJay]

It's Rhode Island General Law 11-24-2, not the CRA.

Depends wholly on the definition of religion. Not in the stupid pedantic what is or is not a religion sense, atheism for example may be a meta-belief, a belief about religion rather than a religious belief per se, but if the First Amendment and these laws that protect religion are to avoid being discriminatory then 'religion - religious belief' has to mean beliefs about religion as well. The UK has made it explicit by talking about religious belief or lack of it, this covers not just the non-religious but also the religious who could be discriminated against for their perceived lack of a specific religious belief (like not wearing a burka).

[amused]

Time to amend the Civil Rights Act to cover non-belief and to support freedom from religion.

[Gallstones]

Time to amend the Civil Rights Act to cover non-belief and to support freedom from religion.

The banner was removed as proscribed by the Establishment Clause.
That is freedom from religion.

[Seth]

I'd love to live in a society where businesses are free to decide who to do service with. But as long as that damn Civil Rights act stays intact it unfortunately means that this kind of activity is illegal.

No, it doesn't. Again, the Civil Rights Act does not cover political discrimination. If I want to put up a sign at my lunch counter saying "No Democrats, Progressives or Marxists" the law cannot prevent me from so discriminating.

[Seth]

Why would that individual want to give them her business anyway when there are others who will gladly take it?

If a business is refusing business illegally its a red rag for everyone else to try and shop there get refused and sue. It's certainly what I would do

Nothing illegal was done by the businesses. They have a right to discriminate against anyone for any reason other than those listed in the Civil Rights Act, and Secularist political activism is not listed in the Civil Rights Act.

Now, it's fine for people to refuse to patronize those businesses which discriminate based on political affiliation, that is their civil right of freedom of (dis)association, but the businesses are free to refuse to serve anyone of any political stripe that they do not wish to serve as well, because that is their civil right of freedom of (dis)association.

[Seth]

I'd love to live in a society where businesses are free to decide who to do service with. But as long as that damn Civil Rights act stays intact it unfortunately means that this kind of activity is illegal.

A business does not have to serve drunks, loud foul mouthed boors, the filthy, or those convicted of certain crimes.
I'm not convinced this is a cut a dried civil rights violation. They refused to serve a single individual. Why would that individual want to give them her business anyway when there are others who will gladly take it?

One could make the same argument of, "Why would blacks want to give their business to a racist restaurant?" I agree, and think that the notion of forcing private businesses to service people is ridiculous, but so long as you have laws to protect certain racial and religious minorities, I can't see those laws not then applying to all racial and religious groups.

They do, but that's beside the point. This was not a case about religious belief, it was a case about political belief, and political discrimination is completely lawful.