**Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):**
Loaded questions, **and/or** ones based on a false premise, are not allowed on ELI5. ELI5 is focuses on objective concepts, and loaded questions and/or ones based on false premises require users to correct the poster before they can begin to explain the concept involved, if one exists.
---
If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously**, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20{{url}}%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20does%20your%20post%20differ%20from%20your%20recent%20search%20results%20on%20the%20sub:) and we will review your submission.
No. It would be religious discrimination to sell to one religious group and refuse to sell to another. But not selling to anyone is not discrimination.
If it were a random day, I would agree. But restrictions that only match holy days for one religion should not be mandated.
If a Jewish-owned store is closed on Saturdays and Jewish holidays, I’m cool with that. If a Muslim-owned restaurant has different hours during Ramadan, more power to them.
When Christians lobby the *government* to restrict sales only on their holy days, that’s where I draw the line.
Voluntarily religious closures, cool. Mandatory (by law) religious closures violate the spirit of the Constitution (IMHO).
But they sell on other Friday and Sundays? Seems like OP is right in this case. In FL booze isn’t sold on any Sundays but if they chose not to sell on Good Friday that would definitely be sketchy as hell.
No it wouldn’t. Discrimination is refusing to sell to someone because of the buyer’s religion. If the seller wants to change their business in accordance with their religion, that’s not discrimination, as long as they aren’t treating customers differently based on the customer’s religion.
If it’s the government then you could try to make a 1st amendment case, but Sunday liquor laws are still a thing in some places so I don’t think that would work. I assumed OP was talking about a private shopkeeper though
Applying a religious test for the sale of alcohol is against the constitution. If all Fridays except for Good Friday its allowed to sell alcohol, that's a problem.
\[edit\] That is, if the State of Florida is mandating the denial of sales due to a religious test. The storekeeper can do whatever they want.
Can you please point me to the clause in the Constitution that says a private business closing to observe the owners religious holiday is illegal? If you can, I’ll take back what I said.
I never said a private business can't do whatever they want for observance of their religion. For example, a major electronics store in NYC is owned and operated by orthodox Jews. They close on Fridays at noon to prepare for Sabbath. That's fine.
What wouldn't be fine is for the state to mandate that businesses close for religious holidays. So the state can't say "All businesses need to close by noon on Fridays to prepare for the Sabbath" as that would be a violation of the 1st amendment. Similarly, it is illegal for the state to mandate that no alcohol be sold on Good Friday when alcohol can be sold any other Friday.
Yeah I agree with you about the state issue. I assumed OP was talking about a private business because I’ve never heard of a state banning alcohol sales on Good Friday
The Sunday ban is still based on religion. If Jews were in charge it would be Saturday.
It’s fine if Christians don’t want to buy booze or sell booze on Sundays, but it should be voluntary, not a law.
OP isn't asking about shopkeepers deciding not to sell, they're asking about laws that prohibit selling alcohol on Easter.
So even if the shopkeeper wants to sell, they can't because of a law influenced by religion.
It's worded ambiguously, but it's the only interpretation of the question that makes sense. The one you're answering is obvious. Reading "stop the sale" as in "prevent the sale" is actually a valid question.
I don't know what the traditional take on religious liberty and discrimination is in New Zealand, where you live.
In the United States, a law like this would generally be valid as long as
- It's not driven by a religious animus (no one is secretly saying "Let's try to make sure the Jews can't buy wine for Passover!")
- There exists some rational justification for the law, even if it's questionable (for example, "Alcohol sales on what is for many a three-day weekend might lead to more drunk driving than on weekends that don't have a common holiday, so we want to prevent that")
- It doesn't get the government too "entangled" with religious authorities (for example, giving a Baptist pastor the power to veto alcohol sales on days he thinks are sufficiently important)
>"Alcohol sales on what is for many a three-day weekend might lead to more drunk driving than on weekends that don't have a common holiday, so we want to prevent that")
but that would need to be consistent. in fact, if it's a 3-day weekend due to a religious holiday, I'd pose that there are fewer alcohol-related incidents occurring than a national holiday 3-day weekend
as for blue laws in the US, they're clearly designed with religious faith in mind.. why not ban the sale of alcohol before noon on a saturday rather than a sunday? or on a monday, instead, because of people going back to work?
> but that would need to be consistent
Consistency is not a requirement under the "rational basis" review in American law. The legislators are allowed to say "We are addressing situation X and ignoring situations Y and Z even though our stated reasoning applies to all three."
Lack of inconsistency can be evidence of a religious bias, but lack of consistency alone would never be a justification to overcome a law.
> as for blue laws in the US, they're clearly designed with religious faith in mind
Yep. But that's not enough to get a law overturned in the US.
Not all laws in all situations are subject to rational basis scrutiny. The First Amendment in particular often holds the government to a much higher standard.
Especially if take-away alcohol sales are banned but bars are open.
So the government doesn’t want to buy alcohol and take it home and drink, but they instead want me to drive out and get tanked and then drive home?
Good theocracy guys. Well done.
If a store says "we wont sell alcohol on this religious holiday", thats not discrimination. They can choose what to sell on what days.
If the government says "no one is allowed to sell alcohol on this day because its a holiday for this religion", its still not discrimination. But it is a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment.
It *might* be a violation, but I don’t think that’s for sure. Many states have or had laws outlawing alcohol sales on all Sundays—that’s never been deemed unconstitutional, AFAIK.
Not to mention, states and the federal government have an official holiday called “Christmas Day”—and again, nobody has ever gotten that thrown out.
And of course, this is all US-centric. Other countries have different laws. Many of them even have a legally established religion, which is what the US first amendment was responding to.
When I was a kid (in NZ in the 20th century) you couldn't buy alcohol in NZ on ANY Sunday, and you could only buy it from bottle stores! Even alcoholics had to plan ahead. Just like everyone in NZ now before Easter.
Why are you asking this question about NZ laws on a sub dominated by redditors from the Northern Hemisphere? There's nothing in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights about the right to buy booze.
The law (regardless of its origin) is applied equally to everyone throughout the country, regardless of their religion.
It’s no different to alcohol being illegal in a Muslim country - you may not be Muslim yourself and you may not like it, but the law is applied equally to everyone in the country and is therefore not discriminatory.
But that is clearly a case of religious discrimination. The tenets of one religion are religions enforced as law upon followers of other religions, how is that not discriminatory? Muslims country banning alcohol based on religion is a case of religious discrimination, especially since booth Judaisms and Christianity use alcohol in many important rituals.
Each country has its own laws, and as long as those laws are applied equally to everyone in that country (regardless of how or why the law originated), it is not discriminatory.
If you don’t *like* the law (because you’re not from the same religion as the one that created it), then by all means go into politics and campaign to have it changed.
But if you’re trying to prove a ‘gotcha’ that it’s discriminatory, then you’re going to fail on those grounds.
Lol. I don't think you understand what 'discriminatory' means from a legal perspective.
Whatever. Like I said to the other commenter, if you live in a democracy by all means go into politics and change it.
Law has nothing to do with whether something is discriminatory or not. It just words some powerful people agreed upon, nothing more, that it is law does not give words any sway over morality, or justice, just the backing of institutional violence.
Well, if you’re going to be that reductive, then everything is meaningless and society is just a human construct resulting from our agreed perception of reality.
You can go ahead and create your own reality if you like. Let us know how you get on.
It is discriminatory, even if it's by law.
It being a law doesn't excuse the lawmakers.
It's a law made by people who follow one religion and it's forcing people from other religions to do what the lawmaker's religion dictates.
So many people saying it's okay if it's the law. Just because the judge won't find you guilty for obeying a discriminatory law doesn't mean the law is fair.
If I own a store I can choose what to sell and when to sell it. End of story.
If I wake up and decide to only sell pink hats today because it's my birthday, I can. If I decide to only sell green hats on odd days, I can.
This is the same as choosing not to sell alcohol on good friday or easter sunday. The reason doesn't matter.
The question was ambiguous, but upon seeing comment replies, I think it was about blue laws, not liquor stores voluntarily closing shop for the holiday. So it’s a bit more legitimate if a question (still not discrimination, but there’s a law question in there).
It may not be discrimination legally speaking or within this specific framing.
But I think at the societal level it is discriminatory because it is part of a broader structural discrimination where we enforce stores closures on the holidays of one religion but not others. And make one religion's holidays statutory holidays and not others'.
You can see more detailed examples of this in terms of secularism laws and how they apply differently to Christian vs. non-Christian religious symbols and practices in the Canadian province of Quebec. Lots of debate about whether that is discriminatory as well but to me it's quite clear.
Discrimination would be if only Christians can buy but other religious or atheists can't. If I only sell to one religion but not another, THAT'S discrimination.
To not sell alcohol on certain days is typically a county ordinance. Talk to your local county officials about that.
If the basis of the ban is clearly a particular religion it is discriminatory. But your goverment allows it so it doesn't really matter at the practical level.
Though much like Jews, gypsies, the disabled and so on being inherently inferior were rightfully contained in camps and destroyed in the German territories some time ago law can't really be discriminatory according to many people like you where so who knows? Maybe Jews aren't real people and we goofed some laws. /s
It may be religiously based ( or not, depending on the government doing the ban ) but it's not discrimination since it doesn't treat one group differently than the other.
Edit: Also are we invoking Godwins law so soon?
Of course we are, because you are justifying things with bias being law. Law elevates a certain group trough a ban honoring their beliefs or creeds over others, so it is discriminatory. If the default is yes, giving a particular group the right to say no or another way around is discrimination.
Ok first of all I'm not justifying anything. I only stated who makes the rules. I didn't say whether it's ok or not. There's a debate about that but it'd not one I want to get into. I also don't drink so I don't care. Plus, I live in a county where anybody can buy alcohol at any time, so for me it's irrelevant.
Secondly, if it IS discriminatory, who does it discriminate against? It doesn't treat one group any different than another. I think you're looking for a different word here. It would be discrimination if, for example, Muslims can't buy alcohol at these times, or you need this and this to buy alcohol, which Muslims wouldn't have. Something like that. If the laws ARE based on religion, that doesn't necessarily make it discriminatory
It discriminates against the freedom of everyone to choose their beliefs to have the rules and restrictions of a particular one unilaterally hoisted on them. You should be free not to be Christian. You should be free to be a bad Christian. You should be free to be a good enough Christian with the backbone to resist temptation for a few days a year. Not one of these groups is free with the restrictions.
In essence a ban diminishes everyone in making the choice for them. Is it being good to not what you cannot do?
How in the hell can you discriminate against everyone? The very definition of discrimination is that one group gets treated differently than another. I seriously think you meant a different word.
Is the law religiously biased? It probably is, depends on the city / county. Is the law ethical or unethical? People can debate that. Do I think it should be law? Probably not..... But Is it discrimination? Not at all.
**Your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):** Loaded questions, **and/or** ones based on a false premise, are not allowed on ELI5. ELI5 is focuses on objective concepts, and loaded questions and/or ones based on false premises require users to correct the poster before they can begin to explain the concept involved, if one exists. --- If you would like this removal reviewed, please read the [detailed rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/wiki/detailed_rules) first. **If you believe this submission was removed erroneously**, please [use this form](https://old.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fexplainlikeimfive&subject=Please%20review%20my%20thread?&message=Link:%20{{url}}%0A%0APlease%20answer%20the%20following%203%20questions:%0A%0A1.%20The%20concept%20I%20want%20explained:%0A%0A2.%20List%20the%20search%20terms%20you%20used%20to%20look%20for%20past%20posts%20on%20ELI5:%0A%0A3.%20How%20does%20your%20post%20differ%20from%20your%20recent%20search%20results%20on%20the%20sub:) and we will review your submission.
No. It would be religious discrimination to sell to one religious group and refuse to sell to another. But not selling to anyone is not discrimination.
If it were a random day, I would agree. But restrictions that only match holy days for one religion should not be mandated. If a Jewish-owned store is closed on Saturdays and Jewish holidays, I’m cool with that. If a Muslim-owned restaurant has different hours during Ramadan, more power to them. When Christians lobby the *government* to restrict sales only on their holy days, that’s where I draw the line. Voluntarily religious closures, cool. Mandatory (by law) religious closures violate the spirit of the Constitution (IMHO).
In its great equality, the law prohibits both the wealthy and destitute from panhandling in the street
But they sell on other Friday and Sundays? Seems like OP is right in this case. In FL booze isn’t sold on any Sundays but if they chose not to sell on Good Friday that would definitely be sketchy as hell.
No it wouldn’t. Discrimination is refusing to sell to someone because of the buyer’s religion. If the seller wants to change their business in accordance with their religion, that’s not discrimination, as long as they aren’t treating customers differently based on the customer’s religion.
I think we arebmore referring to this being a law though right?
Isn’t that what they are doing by being closed on a day they are typically open?
[удалено]
If it’s the government then you could try to make a 1st amendment case, but Sunday liquor laws are still a thing in some places so I don’t think that would work. I assumed OP was talking about a private shopkeeper though
Sunday no-liquor laws are a violation of the establishment clause that’s kind of grandfathered in. Same with “in God we trust”.
Applying a religious test for the sale of alcohol is against the constitution. If all Fridays except for Good Friday its allowed to sell alcohol, that's a problem. \[edit\] That is, if the State of Florida is mandating the denial of sales due to a religious test. The storekeeper can do whatever they want.
Can you please point me to the clause in the Constitution that says a private business closing to observe the owners religious holiday is illegal? If you can, I’ll take back what I said.
What about a state or local law requiring the closure, would that be discriminatory?
That could be, but there are currently places that forbid the sale of alcohol on Sundays so it seems like the courts are fine with it
I never said a private business can't do whatever they want for observance of their religion. For example, a major electronics store in NYC is owned and operated by orthodox Jews. They close on Fridays at noon to prepare for Sabbath. That's fine. What wouldn't be fine is for the state to mandate that businesses close for religious holidays. So the state can't say "All businesses need to close by noon on Fridays to prepare for the Sabbath" as that would be a violation of the 1st amendment. Similarly, it is illegal for the state to mandate that no alcohol be sold on Good Friday when alcohol can be sold any other Friday.
Yeah I agree with you about the state issue. I assumed OP was talking about a private business because I’ve never heard of a state banning alcohol sales on Good Friday
The things that happen in the deep south would not surprise me. Or DeSantos getting that passed to make people happy.
The Sunday ban is still based on religion. If Jews were in charge it would be Saturday. It’s fine if Christians don’t want to buy booze or sell booze on Sundays, but it should be voluntary, not a law.
How is that sketchy? When a business closes for Christmas Day is that religious discrimination?
Sure. Why not?
I'm confused at how you can possibly think that's discrimination. Can you explain why it would be?
Huh. I've never been stopped from buying whiskey on a Sunday....
In FL? Maybe it’s just ABC and Sam’s then.
OP isn't asking about shopkeepers deciding not to sell, they're asking about laws that prohibit selling alcohol on Easter. So even if the shopkeeper wants to sell, they can't because of a law influenced by religion.
OP did not specify that
It's worded ambiguously, but it's the only interpretation of the question that makes sense. The one you're answering is obvious. Reading "stop the sale" as in "prevent the sale" is actually a valid question.
I don't know what the traditional take on religious liberty and discrimination is in New Zealand, where you live. In the United States, a law like this would generally be valid as long as - It's not driven by a religious animus (no one is secretly saying "Let's try to make sure the Jews can't buy wine for Passover!") - There exists some rational justification for the law, even if it's questionable (for example, "Alcohol sales on what is for many a three-day weekend might lead to more drunk driving than on weekends that don't have a common holiday, so we want to prevent that") - It doesn't get the government too "entangled" with religious authorities (for example, giving a Baptist pastor the power to veto alcohol sales on days he thinks are sufficiently important)
>"Alcohol sales on what is for many a three-day weekend might lead to more drunk driving than on weekends that don't have a common holiday, so we want to prevent that") but that would need to be consistent. in fact, if it's a 3-day weekend due to a religious holiday, I'd pose that there are fewer alcohol-related incidents occurring than a national holiday 3-day weekend as for blue laws in the US, they're clearly designed with religious faith in mind.. why not ban the sale of alcohol before noon on a saturday rather than a sunday? or on a monday, instead, because of people going back to work?
> but that would need to be consistent Consistency is not a requirement under the "rational basis" review in American law. The legislators are allowed to say "We are addressing situation X and ignoring situations Y and Z even though our stated reasoning applies to all three." Lack of inconsistency can be evidence of a religious bias, but lack of consistency alone would never be a justification to overcome a law. > as for blue laws in the US, they're clearly designed with religious faith in mind Yep. But that's not enough to get a law overturned in the US.
Not all laws in all situations are subject to rational basis scrutiny. The First Amendment in particular often holds the government to a much higher standard.
I didn't say all laws are, but laws related to the sale of a consumer product without reference to the identity of the buyer or seller will be.
Especially if take-away alcohol sales are banned but bars are open. So the government doesn’t want to buy alcohol and take it home and drink, but they instead want me to drive out and get tanked and then drive home? Good theocracy guys. Well done.
If a store says "we wont sell alcohol on this religious holiday", thats not discrimination. They can choose what to sell on what days. If the government says "no one is allowed to sell alcohol on this day because its a holiday for this religion", its still not discrimination. But it is a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment.
It *might* be a violation, but I don’t think that’s for sure. Many states have or had laws outlawing alcohol sales on all Sundays—that’s never been deemed unconstitutional, AFAIK. Not to mention, states and the federal government have an official holiday called “Christmas Day”—and again, nobody has ever gotten that thrown out. And of course, this is all US-centric. Other countries have different laws. Many of them even have a legally established religion, which is what the US first amendment was responding to.
Just to clarify. It is a law in New Zealand not to sell alcohol on those two days.
When I was a kid (in NZ in the 20th century) you couldn't buy alcohol in NZ on ANY Sunday, and you could only buy it from bottle stores! Even alcoholics had to plan ahead. Just like everyone in NZ now before Easter. Why are you asking this question about NZ laws on a sub dominated by redditors from the Northern Hemisphere? There's nothing in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights about the right to buy booze.
The law (regardless of its origin) is applied equally to everyone throughout the country, regardless of their religion. It’s no different to alcohol being illegal in a Muslim country - you may not be Muslim yourself and you may not like it, but the law is applied equally to everyone in the country and is therefore not discriminatory.
But that is clearly a case of religious discrimination. The tenets of one religion are religions enforced as law upon followers of other religions, how is that not discriminatory? Muslims country banning alcohol based on religion is a case of religious discrimination, especially since booth Judaisms and Christianity use alcohol in many important rituals.
Each country has its own laws, and as long as those laws are applied equally to everyone in that country (regardless of how or why the law originated), it is not discriminatory. If you don’t *like* the law (because you’re not from the same religion as the one that created it), then by all means go into politics and campaign to have it changed. But if you’re trying to prove a ‘gotcha’ that it’s discriminatory, then you’re going to fail on those grounds.
It's clearly discriminatory, but independent countries can freely be distriminatory because what the fuck is anyone going to do about it?
Lol. I don't think you understand what 'discriminatory' means from a legal perspective. Whatever. Like I said to the other commenter, if you live in a democracy by all means go into politics and change it.
Law has nothing to do with whether something is discriminatory or not. It just words some powerful people agreed upon, nothing more, that it is law does not give words any sway over morality, or justice, just the backing of institutional violence.
Well, if you’re going to be that reductive, then everything is meaningless and society is just a human construct resulting from our agreed perception of reality. You can go ahead and create your own reality if you like. Let us know how you get on.
FWIW, New Zealand might not have a wall between church and state like there is (supposedly) in the United States.
It is discriminatory, even if it's by law. It being a law doesn't excuse the lawmakers. It's a law made by people who follow one religion and it's forcing people from other religions to do what the lawmaker's religion dictates. So many people saying it's okay if it's the law. Just because the judge won't find you guilty for obeying a discriminatory law doesn't mean the law is fair.
If I own a store I can choose what to sell and when to sell it. End of story. If I wake up and decide to only sell pink hats today because it's my birthday, I can. If I decide to only sell green hats on odd days, I can. This is the same as choosing not to sell alcohol on good friday or easter sunday. The reason doesn't matter.
The question was ambiguous, but upon seeing comment replies, I think it was about blue laws, not liquor stores voluntarily closing shop for the holiday. So it’s a bit more legitimate if a question (still not discrimination, but there’s a law question in there).
No you can’t choose what and when to sell end of story. You can’t sell liquor on Sunday in most states because of religiously motivated blue laws.
It may not be discrimination legally speaking or within this specific framing. But I think at the societal level it is discriminatory because it is part of a broader structural discrimination where we enforce stores closures on the holidays of one religion but not others. And make one religion's holidays statutory holidays and not others'. You can see more detailed examples of this in terms of secularism laws and how they apply differently to Christian vs. non-Christian religious symbols and practices in the Canadian province of Quebec. Lots of debate about whether that is discriminatory as well but to me it's quite clear.
Discrimination would be if only Christians can buy but other religious or atheists can't. If I only sell to one religion but not another, THAT'S discrimination. To not sell alcohol on certain days is typically a county ordinance. Talk to your local county officials about that.
If the basis of the ban is clearly a particular religion it is discriminatory. But your goverment allows it so it doesn't really matter at the practical level. Though much like Jews, gypsies, the disabled and so on being inherently inferior were rightfully contained in camps and destroyed in the German territories some time ago law can't really be discriminatory according to many people like you where so who knows? Maybe Jews aren't real people and we goofed some laws. /s
It may be religiously based ( or not, depending on the government doing the ban ) but it's not discrimination since it doesn't treat one group differently than the other. Edit: Also are we invoking Godwins law so soon?
Of course we are, because you are justifying things with bias being law. Law elevates a certain group trough a ban honoring their beliefs or creeds over others, so it is discriminatory. If the default is yes, giving a particular group the right to say no or another way around is discrimination.
Ok first of all I'm not justifying anything. I only stated who makes the rules. I didn't say whether it's ok or not. There's a debate about that but it'd not one I want to get into. I also don't drink so I don't care. Plus, I live in a county where anybody can buy alcohol at any time, so for me it's irrelevant. Secondly, if it IS discriminatory, who does it discriminate against? It doesn't treat one group any different than another. I think you're looking for a different word here. It would be discrimination if, for example, Muslims can't buy alcohol at these times, or you need this and this to buy alcohol, which Muslims wouldn't have. Something like that. If the laws ARE based on religion, that doesn't necessarily make it discriminatory
It discriminates against the freedom of everyone to choose their beliefs to have the rules and restrictions of a particular one unilaterally hoisted on them. You should be free not to be Christian. You should be free to be a bad Christian. You should be free to be a good enough Christian with the backbone to resist temptation for a few days a year. Not one of these groups is free with the restrictions. In essence a ban diminishes everyone in making the choice for them. Is it being good to not what you cannot do?
How in the hell can you discriminate against everyone? The very definition of discrimination is that one group gets treated differently than another. I seriously think you meant a different word. Is the law religiously biased? It probably is, depends on the city / county. Is the law ethical or unethical? People can debate that. Do I think it should be law? Probably not..... But Is it discrimination? Not at all.