(CN) – An insurance company will pay $74,000 to settle a claim that it discriminated against agnostics and atheists. Des Moines-based GuideOne Mutual Insurance offered homebuyers, owners and renters in 19 states special benefits and discounts if they were churchgoers.
The United States’ lawsuit against GuideOne and two of its offices stemmed from complaints filed by an atheist, an agnostic, and the Lexington, Ky., Fair Housing Council, in Louisville Federal Court.
The defendants agreed to pay a total of $29,500 to three plaintiffs and a $45,000 civil penalty.
So what we’ve got here is a nice little case we can all use as backup should we ever face hard-core discrimination. This should be saved, printed, and filed by every reader. If you ever find someone discriminating against atheists, it it ILLEGAL, and you can sue and win. Of course, just faxing this article will probably yielded the desired result.
I’m not entirely sure I agree with this lawsuit entirely. While I think it is reprehensible that a company feels it should discriminate against clientele based on religious preference, insurance companies are by and large private companies, and are entitled to brand their product to specific groups of people. If, by some chance, they were the only insurance company in the state, or a customer was required to use them in order to receive housing, etc, I could see where a preference for religious customers could be considered illegal. This would be like a high school dropout suing a car insurance company for offering good student discounts, which they cannot obtain. If these people don’t like this company’s insurance options, there are hundreds, if not thousands of others out there, that don’t have these provisions.
I think it’s considered unlawful discrimination because the criteria in question, religiosity, really has nothing to do with insurance.
If they were to ban insurance for people who have committed insurance fraud, for example, that would be a logical approach to those people. That’s allowed because insurance fraud has a lot to do with insurance.
If a church wants to ban us because we’re not religious, that would make sense. The criteria for the ban is directly related to the core nature of the entity doing the banning.
The Boy Scouts of America demonstrated how someone can be banned from a private group because they violate a religious oath, although the core function of the group isn’t religious. But if that oath didn’t mention religion, the BSA would probably not be able to win in court over them banning someone in the context of religion. Even though we all know that tying knots, building campfires and helping little old ladies cross the street have nothing to do with religion. In that respect, the BSA is operating on a fraudulent notion.
as a partially humorous reply “religiosity, really has nothing to do with insurance.” should force insurance companies to remove any denial of coverage to “acts of God” then.
So I presume you would be OK with a restaurant sign that said “Christians Only”, or perhaps “20% surcharge for Jews and Atheists”?
After all there are plenty of other restaurants to choose from, so what’s the big deal?
In a sense, there are restraunts that do that – private dinner clubs. I guess I just don’t understand (personally) how housing insurance is tied up in the fair housing act? I’m not a lawyer, and I have never bought a house. I am just not sure how the law applies here – though it obviously does, or it wouldn’t have been litigated.
Where do you live? A private dinner club by a bunch of bigots is not a public access business.
As you say, obviously the law applies, so unless you have an argument as to why it should be changed, perhaps you should limit your comments to something you have a clue about.
LE
Should private companies be allowed to discriminate based on religion when considering hiring you?
Do you really expect an answer to that question, or are you new to reality?
That makes no sense.
They probably discriminated against atheists & agnostics, because they wouldn’t accept an ‘Act of god’ clause in their policies.
wow, similar thoughts entered at about the same time. HEHE
Wow, we bounced off each other @ almost the same time.
Great minds & all that, eh?
Here’s the link to the court docket for the case:
http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/09/25/NoAgnostics.pdf
My favorite part of the whole thing is at the bottom of page 10 beginning,
“WHEREFORE, the United States prays that…”
Also page 12 at the very top,
“The United States further prays …”
Prays? To who, whom, what, prays?!?!?
I looked this up. The term “pray/prays” in legal documents goes all the way back to middle english, when the term was used instead of ask/beg. It’s one of the many holdover words that have no real meaning or much different meaning outside of legal circles, apparently.
Prayer Law & Legal Definition
Prayer is a term subject to different meanings, but in the legal context, it refers to the specific amount asked for as damages at the end of a complaint or petition. A prayer gives the judge an idea of what is sought, and a defendant who fails to answer may have a default judgment entered against him/her for the amount prayed for.
The following is a sample prayer:
“The plaintiff prays for 1) special damages in the sum of $50,000, general damages according to proof, 3) reasonable attorney’s fees; 4) costs of suit; and 5) such other and further relief as the court shall deem proper.”
from definations.legal.com
I pray that you will not obfuscate the discussion further.
Amen! Case closed!
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Roland Marez. Roland Marez said: RT @AmericanAtheist: Atheists Win Discrimination Lawsuit – Church-only discounts are illegal, immoral, and un-American http://ow.ly/15Ttc8 [...]
Did they require proof you went to church,did every kind of church count?.
If its a private company which receives no public funds then I really dont see how they can be sued for offering a religious discount just as they should not be able to be sued for offering a discount to students. As a business owner myself I have often offered discounts to friends in the atheist community which are not available to religious folks. How is this any different? the government has no business meddling in private businesses.
Do you really need to be reminded that governments lack of “meddling in private businesses” is what created our current economic disaster? The government has the right if we give it the right and I, for one, do.
Ok folks, in the interest of full disclosure, I’m the “agnostic” identified in the article . . . here is a further breakdown of why this insurance policy benefit was unlawful (and which the federal goverment only got half-right in the complaint/lawsuit, IMNSHO):
The case was filed under the federal Fair Housing Act, as amended, because I inquired about home renter’s insurance with the company and received quotes with a “FaithGuard” provision. This provision, while “voluntary” for the insurance policy (but force-placed in my insurance quotes by the agent without either of us mentioning it during conversations, by the way), theoretically funnels money from people of no faith like me, even if I don’t elect to have this policy, directly to people of faith and places of worship, such as in tithes to churches, when a claim is approved. I say theoretically because the final investigative report I received from the federal government’s investigation showed that out of the 40,000+ people who had such a policy, not one religious-based claim was approved by the company. So, this is a victory for people of faith as much as it is for people with a lack of faith, since the company seems to have scammed the believers for several years now without paying out the religious benefit touted. Incidentally, the Fair Housing Act does have a religious exemption which states that religious housing transactions can be completed specifically among members of a congregation or order (i.e. religious-based housing for seminary students); what is prohibited is opening up transactions to the general market and siphoning benefits at the expense of one religious/non-religious group over to another. If the company would have stuck to insuring members of the Christian church only, as I believe it used to do, it would have been lawful.
that makes a heck of a lot more sense than what the original article stated. Thanks for the clarification.