The ruling was for Sikh women, for some reason they can't wear helmets - for religious reasons that I, frankly, don't know about. I should have made that clear.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 871775.cms
Religion and Discrimination
-
axordil
- Pleasantly Twisted
- Posts: 8999
- Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:35 pm
- Location: Black Creek Bottoms
- Contact:
Thanks, V-man. I knew it was an LBJ era law, at least.Voronwë_the_Faithful wrote:The Fair Housing Act, actually.axordil wrote:Rentals are classed as public accommodations, though, and so in the US at least fall under the Civil Rights Act, I believe.
Even if there was a housing shortage, and the renter had to eat eggs because the doctor had said so?Frelga wrote:I don't think I agree. If a person's beliefs require keeping certain food out of their kitchen, then they may, on their private property, make that a condition of rental agreement. The key here is that a vegetarian of any religion is able to rent the apartment. Now, if that person required that such food be banned from a university cafeteria, for instance, or from all restaurants in the city, THAT would be discrimination.One requirement in Southern India is often that the renters do not cook non-vegetarian food. That is discrimination as well...
What if the owner was the one running a cafeteria?
I agree with your points, Frelga, but am curious. Theoretically, where do we draw the line for discrimination?
Of course, when it comes to the law, I think social realities should guide the rulings than theoretical musings. Don't be Rand Paul, in other words.
'You just said "your getting shorter": you've obviously been drinking too much ent-draught and not enough Prim's.' - Jude
Good questions. I think, first, that we can only allow excluding behavior that physically affects the property, and only within the person's private residence. After all if asking tenants not to smoke is allowed so should be not cooking meat, no? I don't know...Mahima wrote: Even if there was a housing shortage, and the renter had to eat eggs because the doctor had said so?
What if the owner was the one running a cafeteria?
I agree with your points, Frelga, but am curious. Theoretically, where do we draw the line for discrimination?
If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
Terry Pratchett, Guards! Guards!
-
axordil
- Pleasantly Twisted
- Posts: 8999
- Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 7:35 pm
- Location: Black Creek Bottoms
- Contact:
I think having an apartment building where renters could not cook meat might be legal, actually. So far as I know, there's no religion that requires eating meat, and being a vegetarian isn't a religion per se, so it's not discriminatory, just weird.
Having an apartment building where you required tenants to do something would be more problematic.
Having an apartment building where you required tenants to do something would be more problematic.
I agree... but asking renters not to cook meat requires them to switch to a vegetarian diet...axordil wrote:I think having an apartment building where renters could not cook meat might be legal, actually. So far as I know, there's no religion that requires eating meat, and being a vegetarian isn't a religion per se, so it's not discriminatory, just weird.
Having an apartment building where you required tenants to do something would be more problematic.
'You just said "your getting shorter": you've obviously been drinking too much ent-draught and not enough Prim's.' - Jude
