Are These Cases of Anti-Atheist Discrimination or Private Businesses Doing What They Want?

I guess it depends.  If the theater can run pro-religious signs, or does do so, then that’s fine to ask about atheist signs.  I’m not sure a private company should have to run one or another.  I would think if a theater was owned, say, by an atheist who wants the atheist ad but not the religious one, that’s fine.  As long as down the street, the theater run by the religious person who has religious ads but doesn’t want atheist ads is fine as well.  I would say consistency with defaulting to it being a free country where private business is concerned.

Maybe the baptists or catholics can just buy out the theater, then they would also have a say in what movies they show and their popcorn makers and ushers can be youth ministers so they can keep out the atheist riffraff.

Why is CFI asking for a jury trial? A bench trial would seem to be more to their benefit in this sort of situation. 

This violation of contract stuff  seems to be common in TX.  I believe Tim Minchin had his piano rental cancelled at the last minute there, causing a mad scramble to find another.  

Some years ago here in VA, a gent with a port-a-potty business tried to pull the plug on a contract with a Solstice festival.  Didn’t get to the lawsuit phase.

Stuff like this is why actual libertarianism would turn the US into a hell-hole.  Imagine trying to drive from D.C. to California with half the businesses demanding to see proof of your religious affiliation before selling you food, gas, or lodging.

 That’s exactly what Mormons do in areas where they have the numbers to pull it off

it seems to me the public accommodation is to attend the theater and watch the movie everyone has the right to watch the movie. I’m not sure the theater has to sell to anyone that wants to buy advertising.

So nobody would have a problem with them rejecting any ad that had a black person in it.

“Stuff like this is why libertarianism would turn the US into a hellhole.”

Thank you. I’ve been saying this for the past two years.

I think we have a case of unsettled law here. Courts do advance certain rights over property rights in some cases, particularly where the property involved is quasi-public (restaurants, theaters, etc). It’s generally illegal for the owner of a private venue that is open to the public to discriminate based on certain protected classes, or to allow smoking, or to fail to provide handicapped access. There has certainly been a trend in the last few decades towards recognizing a public good at the expense of some property rights (for businesses, anyway). The situation with advertising is only somewhat tested (some cases with broadcasting over the public airwaves). So the only way to advance this is to take the matter to the courts. That’s how precedent is created, one way or the other.

You mean like Rand Paul getting on The Rachel Maddow Show and publicly arguing that the Civil Rights Act isn’t necessary because “the market” will just take care of discrimination all by itself?? That enough people will somehow notice the discrimination and boycott the business effectively enough that no government needs to get involved or protect the interests of those who have no place to eat, dress, or take shelter?

Oh, and another thing–libertarians are also notorious for grossly overestimating how “willingly-entered-into” contracts are. To wit, most will argue against the need for discrimination protection or safety standards in the workplace because, well, the worker entered into the contract so it’s their problem.  Completely ignoring, of course, that if unemployment is at 15% in your region and you have rent to pay and kids to feed, how truly “willing” are you to enter into that contract??  Or, moreover, without state-enforced standards, the other people making up that 15% unemployment figure will be so desperate as to accept even worse standards and further undercut our protagonist’s bargaining power in this “willingly-entered-into” contract.

Is Rand Paul a fair representation of libertarians?

The libertarians with which I am personally familiar have more in common with the views of Michael Shermer than Rand Paul.

Again: I’m coming at this from a position of ignorance. I’m thinking of a handful of people I have met and worked with in New Zealand that self-describe as libertarian.

The situation may be very, very different in the US.

You are ignorant of the actual evidence used and arguments made. It’s not as clear cut as you think, and the main mechanism is not boycotts. There has in fact been a history of free markets working against discrimination, and fighting government imposition of discrimination. For example southern movie theaters fought against laws forcing segregation on the basis of costs involved. I disagree that relying purely on the free market is sufficient and many libertarians recognize that fact, so you are judging a broader group by a minority. You probably misunderstand Rand’s position also.

Our current 15% unemployed,pmnt rate is itself the result of stupid government policy. Free markets need a legal system that prevents fraud and the current system is based on a fraudulent monetary system. Things will be getting worse from here because the government is taking all the incorrect steps to resolve the issue. Instead of eliminating the fraudulent practice that causes the business cycle, Fractional Reserve Banking, it has doubled down on the fraud with bank bailouts and monetary stimulus.

No, actually, there really isn’t:

state |stāt|
noun
1 the particular condition that someone or something is in at a specific time : the state of the company’s finances | we’re worried about her state of mind.

trait |trāt|
noun
a distinguishing quality or characteristic, typically one belonging to a person : he was a letter-of-the-law man, a common trait among coaches.
• a genetically determined characteristic.

Thanks for the definitions.

Both these places, the theater and the country club, signed contracts only to renege on them because they were with atheists. Sounds like clear cases of discrimination to me.

Perhaps a better example would be a bartender not serving those under drinking age. Age is a trait, and age-discrimination is a legitimate form of discrimination in some circumstances, but not in others. 

I think that falls under the compelling-public-interest standard, and it is also demonstrable that a person under a given age is not legally or, in most cases, mentally capable to handle certain decisions, which is a different kettle of fish than when traits are discriminated against without basis in fact for a claim of compelling public interest.

So what the hell is your POINT?

Are you trying to claim we’re wrong to criticize the libertarianism as practiced in the US because other people have other definitions? Are we supposed to ignore the fact that people calling themselves libertarian vote for this particularly odious strain and that these policies affect our lives and our political discourse no matter how much history one wants to expound on the internet? Are we supposed to devote time and space in our conversations to muddying terms as they are already appropriately used to describe how people self-identify to satisfy sophistry and to bury our concerns about actual political fallout?

Which he said in response to a discussion of how libertarianism was affecting AMERICAN politics and the implications of its adherents and the problem of this particular philosophy as regards discrimination.

Pardon me if I’m not going to go in for a distracting chorus of “but we’re not all like that!!!” which is used far too often to shift the goalposts away from important discussions of the failures of this political philosophy, especially when this discussion is ABOUT the particulars of that philosophy. Dismissing the people who GET ELECTED to represent an ideology as “just the nutters” is one of the worst No True Scotsmen I’ve seen in quite a while.Moreover, you’ve completely ignored the point that this particular strand of libertarianism–WHICH IS WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT IN THE FIRST PLACE–is what people are voting on and what is influencing policy.  I honestly don’t give a shit how much history you want to obsess over–the fact remains that this definition is the one that is operative in the context that we’re talking about, and that the problem of rampant discrimination MATTERS and you shouldn’t distract the issue by bringing in a lot of tosh about different definitions that aren’t relevant.

So,Daniel was educated about what Nazani was talking about and how this is a problem in the US, and he seems to have let it go…why can’t you?

 I know Republicans who don’t support laws that discriminate against women and gays. But the ones who do are Representative of the Whole Movement.

Rand Paul was discussed before New Zealand. Your arguments are nonsense.

Really? It’s a wonder non religious businesses don’t object. They are at a severe financial disadvantage since they can’t compete on a level playing field when their competitor is exempt from taxes.

I am pretty sure that whether they objected or not wouldn’t be an issue. It is, as far as I know, legal and that’s pretty much all that matters. LU has incredible power here.  One example (and I’ve never, ever heard of another college/Uni doing this–I also have no idea how it’s legal) is that it’s students register LU as their “permanent address,” which gives them the right to vote in local elections. This has gotten all kinds of crap passed here that would almost certainly never have flown otherwise. There has been objection to that, but it’s held for whatever reason. 

As I wrote before, this one is somewhat tougher because the theaters are hoping to keep people entertained, and right after the airing of the ad.  For a billboard company, their sole business is selling ad space; there is no legitimate excuse to turn it down.  For a bus company/public transportation authority, it’s ever-so-slightly dicier because they could conceivably be worried that people won’t get on the bus (and some weirdos have done exactly that, FWIW).  For a theater, though, the possibility of people walking out an demanding a refund, or complaining that their family night was “ruined” (by the existence of people who are different! Scandalous!) is very real, and a potentially credible threat to their revenue.  The “right” thing to do is still to air the ads, I think, but I understand that it’s a tougher call for them than for some other businesses.

As to the legal issue, that’s tricky too.  Certainly if an Christian and an atheist each wanted to run an ad for their bakery, let’s say, they can’t turn down one and accept the other, because that clearly runs afoul of existing anti-discrimination laws.  It’s less clear the extent to which the message itself is protected from discrimination.  Certainly private companies have broad discretion to decide which types of messages they allow, but it’s not clear if that applies in a case like this…
It will be interesting to see how it plays out, in any case.

Well we have 
Torcaso v Watkins, which is admittedly ‘secular humanism’ not ‘atheism’.  And we have Kaufman v. McCaughtry (7th circuit court of appeals) which a bunch of online self-proclaimed experts say declares atheism a religion.

Matt Dillahunty’s opinions: http://www.atheist-community.org/library/articles/read.php?id=742 

Granted, both of those are constitutional issues, not civil rights.

But the civil rights act says

TITLE II–INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION 
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

‘ground of … religion’.  Given how the courts have ruled in constitutional cases, wouldn’t you think it fair to say that discrimination based on lack of religion is discrimination on the ‘ground of religion’?  The reason the ad is being rejected (the group claims, they may have to prove it) is religiously based.To use the oft repeated ‘collector’ analogy, I think it would be silly to say “You can’t discriminate against stamp collectors, or coin collectors, but you can discriminate against people who don’t collect things”. 

 Thank you Rich.  I will look at those cases. 

 Thank you.  I find it interesting that the court in Kaufman says that atheism is a religion for purposes of the First Amendment because atheists take a position on God. If they do that then it is a claim that they adhere to and can get protection under the First Amendment.  It appears that if Kaufman had said he did not take a position on God then it would not be considered a religious stance. 

So it appears to me that this case be used in discussions with atheists who claim that atheism is not a religion or that they are not taking a position on God.

 I agree with you on that point Joshua.  I think it would have been wise to go with the bench trial.  That would seem to provide a better chance of success.

 Good point.  It is not “either-or;” it is “both.”  These are cases of anti-atheist discrimination and private businesses doing what they want.  But what they want to do is unethical and illegal.

 I don’t think atheism is a religion, but it takes a position on a religious question — “Does God exist?” or “Do gods exist?”

The courts might consider atheism a religion for legal purposes even though it is not a religion from a philosophical standpoint.

Well it is used in discussions with atheists, usually to say “Hah! You’re another religion!” which is kind of a schoolyard taunt.  It’s  a silly attempt to win argument points, but it doesn’t change anything about an atheist’s position.  Calling an atheist ‘religious’ doesn’t in and of itself mean anything other than the courts under some circumstances use the word ‘religion’ when trying to describe atheist rights and limitations.

I’m also not surprised that courts full of theists have trouble with the nuances of agnostic/atheist etc.  We can’t even figure it out.  Aside from all the definitions, my opinion is that lack of religion should have equal protection to any particular religion, and from what I’ve read, it seems the courts in general agree with that.  That is only my opinion, and we know what that’s worth on the internets 🙂

I agree there doesn’t seem to be much case law regarding the Civil Rights act and lack of religion.  But based on 1st amendment cases, I’m confident the courts will extent the protection to non-faiths.  Assuming of course that they can prove that their ad was rejected because it professed non-faith.

This and the Dawkins vs. Country Club case, we’ll find out.  It’s not going to go away.

Actually that deregulation story is a lie, but whatever makes you feel good.

Ooooh, now there’s a very trenchant and thoughtful response!!!

ProTip: anyone can just throw around words like “confused” and “ignorant,” but failing to actually make an argument or address anything a person wrote just makes you look like you’re grasping at straws.

Well don’t turn to LeftSidePositive for your education. He’s an ill informed bigot on this subject. I’ll give you an example of this. do you know who Herbert Spencer is and what social Darwinism is?

Who cares? You came out of the starting blocks spewing lies and ignorance.

Anyone can avoid the specific part where I quoted you and showed that you were wrong. If I had more time I would fisk you, because most of what you spew is ignorant nonsense.

So how about it. You going to admit to typing that ignorant quote, or did someone else slip that in? The US government has regulated the economy in various intrusive ways from the very beginning just like all governments.

You are ignorant and because you are ignorant you are not qualified to judge your own ignorance. You don’t know what you don’t know.

Your game is bigoted. There is a wide range of socialists, from the Amish, Social Democrats, volunteerist communist Hutterites, to the Eugenists, Marxists, Stalinists, National Socialists, and Facists. All are socialist ideologies. I don’t think you’d appreciated being called a Nazi because you agreed with them on having a public school system.

Besides, ignoramus that you are, you’ve got Rand’s position wrong. Your comment has him being opposed to the civil rights act in toto, but that is not the case. You’ve demonized him, and used chicken little claims of catastrophe if his policies were enacted, totally ignoring or ignorant of the very real market forces that work against discrimination.

You are also ignorant of history. Parts of the Civil Rights Act and surrounding policies were opposed on the grounds that they set up bad incentives that would harm the black (and white community) in the long run. Those precise effects have come to pass, and it was obvious to anyone who understood.

Really, holding people accountable for the positions of those they choose to elect is “bigoted” now?! Criticizing those libertarians who ACTUALLY ADVOCATE AND VOTE for these odious policies on the merits of these policies is the same as lumping all possible uses of a label together?  Careful–it’s beginning to sound like you are throwing around accusations of bigotry to shut down legitimate debate.

Rand Paul explicitly stated on The Rachel Maddow Show that businesses should be free to discriminate on the basis of race and that the government should not interfere with such intentional discrimination. No amount of spinning on your part is going to change that.

To what harms of the Civil Rights Act are you even referring?  It looks to me like you’re trying to shift blame away from your discomfort with protections for minorities…

For one thing, SHE.  Don’t go off on how “bigoted” you think someone is and then express a presumption of default masculine normativity.

And I sincerely hope you’re bringing up social Darwinism as a COUNTEREXAMPLE of appropriate economic philosophies, because it is one of the most reprehensible ideologies ever devised in the economic realm and seeks to provide cover for an extraordinary degree of suffering, unfairness, and lack of access to the education and worker protections that confer social mobility, and is likely second only to Marxism in its dismal failure and its callous disregard for human well-being.

See my comment on socialists. Hitler self identified as one.

Note: I’m stating my view on what Social Darwinism and Libertarianism are.

I’m trying to be concise, so as much as I can I’m stripping out the “I think” and “In my opinion” and “My understanding is” style of hedging. I’m also oversimplifying to an extreme degree – both of the systems in question and of my opinions thereof.

But rest assured that I know that I’m coming at this from a position of ignorance. So if I seem strong or over-sure in a given sentence, that’s only for the purpose of brevity.  Everything that follows this paragraph is submitted tentatively and with the humble desire for correction wherever needed.

—

I think I understand Social Darwinism. My opinion there is a dim one: A false analogy is forced between reproductive fitness under natural selection with an extreme preferential treatment of those that meet an arbitrary standard of ‘fitness’ that suits the ideological needs of the Social Darwinist in question. The naturalistic fallacy is then deployed to justify that preferential treatment as inherently good, because it (allegedly) mirrors nature.
—

As for Herbert Spencer? Not really, no. 

The name rings a bell, so I’ve at the very least heard it before. But that’s it.

—

If I were to oversimplify my view of Libertarianism similarly to how I have done for Social Darwinism, it would be something like: Liberty of the individual is the highest ideal. Forming and maintaining collective organizations (government) is only justifiable if the purpose and consequence serves to preserve the liberty of the individual against violation. As such the scope of government action should be limited to preventing the encroachment of the liberty of individuals, be it from without (military protection against invasion) or between citizens (police action against infringement of property rights, etc).

I have some things about this (oversimiplified) libertarianism that I like, and some other things that I don’t like.

I like the idea that government should be as small as possible, and that taxes should be as low as possible, for government to perform the most minimal level of social functions in order to ensure the smooth functioning of society.

However, I have three main objections: Firstly, that libertarianism doesn’t provide effective means for compensating those harmed by sufficiently distanced externalised costs (although it should be granted that democratic capitalism arguably hasn’t been doing a very good job of that either in recent decades). Secondly, libertarianism imposes a very very high opportunity cost due to the tragedy of the commons preventing the benefits to efficiency and capacity that come from successful large-scale projects that cannot be rationed (or would have their usefulness greatly impaired if rationed), and this is too often ignored when libertarians speculate as to the alleged economic gains of libertarianism. Thirdly, I think that there is an underlying required assumption of libertarianism that in the absence of government intervention, power relationships between individuals (and corporations) will be close to symmetrical – something that I consider to be transparently false.

Here’s a hint for you. European countries, Canada, China, Australia, etc did not all “deregulate” and yet they all are now in, or have experienced a housing bubble, which if not yet popped soon will. They all share certain characteristics and it isn’t “deregulation”. Those characteristics are a fiat monetary system, fractional reserve banking, and a loose monetary policy (like Japan did too except they are ahead in this game), along with governmental loan subsidies, and deficit spending. The business cycle has happened many times in the past and has always had asset bubbles which were driven by loose moneitary policy using such monetary mischief.

Even leftist Idiots like Paul Krugman admit such when their guard is down, as when he on several occasions advocated that Greenspan follow loose monetary policy with the specific goal of causing a housing bubble. At the time Libertaians and various other right wing groups were warning against Greenspan’s actions it was Krugman arguing that Greenspan was not loose enough.

Full disclosure: I’m a lawyer, a Christian and a Dallasite.   The humanist organization should absolutely be allowed to show their advertisement.  It embarrasses me that they have been treated this way. 

But (you knew that word was coming), I don’t have much hope that they are going to win.  First, Bill Burgess appears to be very inexperienced.  If I am the Angelika’s general counsel, I would scoff at Burgess’ stylistic faux paus and not be intimidated by his very poor choice in case law.  (A 1960s Mississippi district court case dealing with racial segregation in movie theaters that has no binding effect on Texas law).   

There are a couple cases from the Supreme Court that might go the Humanists’ way.  And there a few that pretty strongly go against the Humanists.  If Burgess would have cited these cases and argued that US Supreme Court precedent held his way, then he would have a much better chance of persuading the theater or a court that he should win. 

First, he must prove that under Title II, atheism is a religion.  This is already true for the employment discrimination context.  But it hasn’t been defined in the public accommodation context of Title II. Next, he must show that speech equals public accommodation.   There is Supreme Court precedent that goes both ways on this.  A private place can be forced to allow speech, and disclaim any approval of the speech.  But at the same time, a private place is free to refuse to associate with ideas that it does not agree with.  Hurley v. Irish-American Gay and Lesbian, 515 U.S. 557 (1995).

On the other hand, in Turner Broadcasting v FCC, the Supreme Court held that a cable
operator had to accommodate channels that it disagreed with because viewers would not believe that a cable operator’s hosting of a channel
was an endorsement of the speech on that channel. Turner, 512 US 622
(1995). The Humanists could argue that the movie theater is a conduit
for speech, much like a cable operator. Also, the US Supreme Court held
that it did not violate the free speech rights of a shopping mall to be
required to allow people to distribute handbills on their property when
there was a state law that permitted it.  Pruneyard Shopping v. Robbins,
447 US 74 (1980).  The shopping mall could also have signs that said
they did not approve of the messages in those signs.  So in this
situation, the movie theater could have signs that say they don’t
approve of the speech. I think these are the Humanists’ best cases. 

But I have little faith that Burgess is going to get this done based on the letter he wrote.  I hope he puts more research into his application for injunctive relief.   I think he should win.  But he has a steep uphill battle to win.  

The law isn’t fair…

Fellow Christian lawyer here.  I think that most likely the  relief requested would be for specific performance and attorneys’ fees. I would imagine however, that the contract allowed for a termination provision that allowed for termination under certain reasons which may prohibit a breach of contract claim.    

“So if he wants to put up a “No Blacks Allowed” sign, he has that right”

Unless I’m mistaken, he can put up a sign like that if he wants but is breaking the law if he tries to enforce it.

As for this question of “the law vs a business owner’s private property,” if you want to do business with the public on your private property, you follow the public’s laws.

libertarianism and communism are opposite sides of the same coin.  both are “great” in theory but when faced with how the real world works, including both human behavior and the environment, they fail miserably and cause much human suffering.  

libertarians in the US hate the “big bully” federal government because it prevents local bullies and corporations from running roughshod.  they love local, bullies because they can get in on that action.