In 2015, Raja'ee Fatihah decided to go to "Save Yourself Survival and Tactical", a gun range in Oktaha, Oklahoma. Fatihah, a member of the United States Army Reserve and a native of Tulsa, Oklahoma, was denied access to the shooting range due to the fact he practiced Islam. The business is now being accused of religious discrimination against Muslim peoples. In response to the actions of the aforementioned business, both the national and Oklahoman ACLUs, and the Council on American-Islamic Relations Oklahoma Chapter filed for a lawsuit against the "Muslim Free" business. The lawsuit insinuates that the policy of not allowing Muslim people to partake in the activities offered at the range violates both Oklahoma's non-discrimination law and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which does not allow a business to deny service to customers based on their religion, race, or national origin.
In July 2015, the owners of the business decided to post a sign close to the front of the building that stated they were a "Muslim Free Establishment" and that Muslim people were not permitted to be at the facility. When Fatihah arrived at the counter to fill out his liability form, he was asked to provide his name, address, and driver's license number, all of which fits in the parameters of standard operating procedure for a gun range. However, as soon as the employees realized that Fatihah was muslim, the owners armed themselves and requested to know if he was there so to "commit an act of violence or as part of 'jihad'" in a prejudiced and unruly reaction to learning an individual's religious affiliation.
In Case No. 16-CV-58-KEW the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma has to decide whether or not Chad Neal and Nicole Mayhorn Neal are guilty in the complaint for injunctive relief and supplemental state tort relief against Raja'ee Fatihah. Fatihah alleges that the business is explicitly segregated due to the fact that the business is generally accommodating to the general public, but has publicly posted their exclusion of Muslims in their front window. The plaintiff has also been personally excluded from the place of business solely due to his religious beliefs. He is also arguing that the business owners are violating his rights to equality represented in both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Oklahoma's anti-discrimination law. The lawsuit was filed in hope of reestablishing equal access to public accommodations for all Oklahomans, and to make sure Fatihah was represented as the actions of the business were not only unconstitutional but truly unfair.
The issue at hand is whether or not the privately owned business has the right to exclude someone based on their beliefs and religious affiliation. This case can be loosely related back to Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2017) due to the nature of business enterprises discriminating against the public consumers. If the defendants are ruled in favor of, there would inevitably be the fear that a slippery slope of discrimination would occur and it would become commonplace for private enterprises to decide who they believe are permissible to partake in what their company offers. The main difference between the cases is that in Cakeshop v Colorado the store owner did not want to customize a cake for a gay couple because he felt it went against his right to free-exercise, as he did not personally believe that he has to make an artistic expression under his name that was in favor of homosexuality. However, the case has not been decided and it would not be surprising if the cakeshop owner was found guilty of discrimination. In Fatihah's case, the business owners were not only limiting their services, but not even offering to open the doors.
In my personal opinion, I believe that the business is in the wrong, and should not be allowed to discriminate against muslim people, let alone an American citizen who has served in our military. This is a clear example of prejudice and a hatred towards a group of people, not a justifiable exclusion of a group of people. Personal liberties, and religious equality are both ideals that must be kept intact in order to keep the principles of freedom that the first amendment and our founding fathers call for. Fatihah is a member of the public, and the law states that the public must be accommodated for.
Sunday, February 11, 2018
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I agree with your conclusion that this business is unfairly discriminating against a religious group by banning Muslims. In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights, the shop owners were specifically refusing to make a cake that was intended to be celebrating a practice that went against their religion. I defended the shop owners right to refuse to make the cake on the grounds that the refusal was based on the practice not the sexual orientation of the customers. However, in this case, it is very clear that the gun range is discriminating against a group of people, rather than exercising their freedom of religion to refuse to support a ceremony or event that goes against their beliefs. Specifically, by banning Muslims from even entering the establishment, the gun rage owners make it clear that they are practicing religious intolerance by pigeonholing all people of a specific religion to behave in a violent manner.
In general, I believe that every case, especially free exercise cases, have their nuances. That being said, it's very hard to see them in this case. It was very explicit that the couple rejected Mr. Fatihah solely on the grounds of his religion. In other words, it seems very clear that the owners of the firing range did exactly what the Civil Rights Act of 1964 sought to prevent. Additionally, I don't believe that this case is similar at all to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. The couple didn't cite any religious reason for refusing to serve Fatihah and furthermore, the good or service which they refused required no amount of artistic expression on their part. This case doesn't lie in the middle of the slippery slope created in the Cakeshop case, but instead lies in a ditch about 300 yards past the bottom of the slope.
I agree with Rob, but I do not believe this has many similarities to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case other than the discrimination aspect. This isn't within the owners' religious rights and these people align with whats possibly the very worst of America, discriminating against an American soldier just because he has the same religion as members of terrorist groups. It's one thing if Mr. Fatihah provided a threat for them to deny him service but to deny all Muslims is in direct violation of the man's rights and they should be thus sentenced accordingly.
The sign posted stating "Muslim-free Establishment" and the physical removal of Fatihah from the gun range is a clear violation by the owners of the gun range of the Oklahoma Civil Rights Act of 1964. The ACLU should argue that the discrimination is mounted in hatred for a particular religious group based on negative stereotypes, especially learning that Fatihah was questioned about his motives for entering a gun range and asked whether or not he was there to "commit an act of violence or as part of a ‘jihad.’” I would be interested to learn what the defense will argue in favor of the gun range owners. It seems that everyone who commented above is in agreement, does anyone have any counterarguments?
I would go further than Harrison and suggest that the Masterpiece Cake shop case has almost nothing in common with this example of obvious prejudice and discrimination. The owners of the Gun Range are making no argument for free exercise, but rather are demonstrating their animus for Muslims. It seems to me that this will be a very cut and dry case, and I am curious to see how the Owners will be defending themselves in court.
The Civil rights act of 1964 title II says that “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.” The question of public vs private when reading this has been established in Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. U.S. and Katzenbach v. McClung, The Supreme Court upheld the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as a valid exercise of Congressional power under the Commerce clause thereby prohibiting private discrimination in public accommodations, such as motels and restaurants. It does not seem like a gun range would fare different.
I agree with Rob and the comments above that this is a clear case of discrimination that the sign posted stating "Muslim-free Establishment" is in no way part of the owners' First Amendment right to Free Exercise. This business is simply unfairly discriminating against a religious group with no valid basis. This discrimination is unconstitutional and in my opinion has nothing to do with the First Amendment because no part of the First Amendment allows for discrimination against a religious group other than your own. I agree with many of the comments above in saying this case is nothing like the Masterpiece Cake shop. The cake shop refused to create a custom product on the basis of religion but did not refuse these people entrance to their shop as the owners of the gun shop did.
I agree with the comments above arguing that the owners of the gun range can not use the First Amendment right to Free Exercise as an excuse to discriminate in this case. The owners of the gun range seek to ban Muslims from using their facilities because of their personal views toward Muslims and not religious reasons. In my opinion, the Muslims wishing to enter into the gun range are protected by the Civil Rights act of 1964 and the gun range owners have no case regarding Free Exercise.
I am also in agreement that the gun range is in a very clear cut violation of Oklahoma's non-discrimination law and the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which does not allow a business to deny service to customers based on their religion, race, or national origin. By posting a sign advertising the range as being Muslim free and forcibly removing the plaintiff from the range upon learning of his religious beliefs violates the exact letter of the law and I cannot think of a single legally viable defense for the range's Muslim free policy.
I'd actually agree with the assessment that this case shares some similarity to the Masterpiece Cake shop outside of the discrimination aspect. In both cases, individuals are twisting religious liberties to strip liberties and the right to happiness from minorities. If you read the old testament to a T, you could find religious justification for numerous crimes against humanity. The state has an interest in enforcing any and all laws pertaining to our human rights with no exceptions. Discrimination is discrimination, no matter what grounds one attempts to justify it with. As the founders first stated when they declared our independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..." It is in the States interest, in our interest as citizens, and in the interest of the rights of humans that discrimination be given no justification.
Post a Comment