“Discrimination on the basis of someone’s religious faith is prohibited by the Fair Housing Act,” said Loretta King, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “All individuals have the right to secure homeowners and renters insurance without regard to their religious beliefs, and the Civil Rights Division will continue to ensure those rights are protected.”

You can discriminate in the provision of car insurance all you want. But, y’know, you usually probably shouldn’t, because it’s rude and bad PR. But there’s nothing wrong with targeting niche markets, especially if they’re already insuring churches, they might as well kiss ass to the parishioners.

They sued a couple years ago.

I don’t think that means what you think it means.

I’d like to see the fine print. Perhaps they only provide payment if you make the claim from the afterlife – double if it is from heaven. Or perhaps original sin or a history of expressing doubt are disqualifying pre-existing conditions. Special pain and suffering if you hit clergy and get sworn at or are suddenly excommunicated.

However, my line of reasoning here could lead to an interesting chain of consequences: In a bid to gain marketshare among the religious, companies begin a game of one-upmanship that leads to a defacto penalty against the non-religious (10% discount on rates if you’re a registered church-goer [etc.])

Except that most companies wouldn’t care about market share among the religious, but rather about total market share. Any company that could afford to give churchgoers a 10% discount would naturally give everyone a 10% discount if they wanted to remain competitive.

Anyway, the decision was completely wrong (on a moral level if not a legal level: perhaps it’s consistent with some provision of FHA; if so, I don’t care). It’s common for one business to make deals with another business to steer customers their way. While the features certainly look weird, you have to remember that (as they are one of the nation’s leading insurers of churches) the costs of these features is going to be borne primarily by the churches.

And guess what? If you don’t like the services one business offers, you can frequent another instead. You don’t see vegetarians suing BBQ restaurants over a lack of veggie options; we just eat elsewhere.

Just note that they’re being prats, and shop around for the best insurance plan. If they still offer the best insurance plan for your money, consider taking your business elsewhere anyway, and send them a letter explaining why they’re not getting your business.

However, my line of reasoning here could lead to an interesting chain of consequences: In a bid to gain marketshare among the religious, companies begin a game of one-upmanship that leads to a defacto penalty against the non-religious (10% discount on rates if you’re a registered church-goer; we’ll reduce your yearly bill by the amount you tithe – just bring a church receipt; I can think of these ideas all day!). Which would then lead to an effort to get anti-discrimination laws put in place / adjust regulations, etc.

In my cartoon universe, this would then lead to a backlash involving torch-wielding mobs and scientists building rayguns to defend the university, starring Arnold as a graying physics prof rescuing skeptics from the city at large (“Come with me if you want to live.”) (Dang, I can’t keep it serious for five minutes, can I?!)

I suppose, reflecting on this issue, that atheists have a stronger need for absolute equality in this life, because you don’t believe in the perfect equality and justice of the life to come in heaven. Personally I’m sticking with my faith, but it’s been interesting learning a bit more about atheism, thank you.

Timothy (English, Christian, church-goer, and never sued anyone – or been sued by anyone!)