In order to enhance diversity, it was necessary to suppress it, cont’d: The GuideOne Mutual insurance company offers, in 19 states at last report, what it calls a “FaithGuard” policy rider with features it believes are valued by some churchgoers. In particular, to quote its critics, the rider
waives insurance deductibles if there is a loss to personal property while it is in the “care, custody and control” of the insured’s church; pays church tithes or donations if the insured suffers a loss of income from a disability; and doubles medical limits for an injury received while sponsoring an activity conducted on behalf of the church.
All three provisions might make a family feel more confident about pledging material support or volunteer time to its church, by limiting the potential financial downside in case of accidents or misadventure. But now GuideOne is on the receiving end of a lawsuit filed by the National Fair Housing Alliance, on the grounds that the rider discriminates against non-churchgoers — which is to say, by providing benefits they would have no interest in purchasing. In particular, complains NFHA,
The benefits of FaithGuard are not available to persons who suffer a covered loss or disability while engaged in similar activities but who are not religious, who do not belong to a church, or who do not attend church or participate in religious activities.
Of course people in these latter categories would never be inclined to purchase FaithGuard in the first place, any more than people who never step on airplanes would go out of their way to buy flight insurance. Instead, if they worry about the financial risk of accidents, they would select one of the innumerable insurance products readily available with no particular religious component. But to achieve religious nondiscrimination in the eyes of NFHA, it’s apparently crucial not just that we non-churchgoers have access to every sort of risk coverage we might take a notion to buy, but that FaithGuard’s customers not have access to one they might like. Will the result of this lawsuit if successful be more diversity? Or, again, less? (earlier). More: Rick Armon, “Akron suit claims insurance for churchgoers discriminates”, Akron Beacon Journal, Nov. 27; Religion Clause (Howard M. Friedman), Nov. 28.
16 Comments
When I first read this post I wondered why would the National Fair Housing Alliance be concerned one way or the other with a company that provides Insurance to individuals doing church related activities. According to their website the mission statement is as follows:
The National Fair Housing Alliance (NFHA) is the only national organization dedicated solely to ending discrimination in housing. NFHA works to eliminate housing discrimination and to ensure equal housing opportunity for all people through leadership, education and outreach, membership services, public policy initiatives, advocacy and enforcement
Now one would naturally assume that they would only be concerned about discrimination against minorities in the rental and purchase of housing. But there you would be wrong.
The investigation also confirmed that GuideOne routinely inquires into the religious affiliation of all applicants for homeowners insurance and has even created a special application form which asks for the applicant’s religious denomination. Such an inquiry is illegal under the federal Fair Housing Act.
It is apparent that there must be a sub rosa agenda on the part of banks, real estate agents and insurance companies to keep atheists from renting apartments and buying houses. But thanks to the Federal Government with help from organizations like the National Fair Housing Alliance this dastardly activity is being routed out from our society. Well I for one feel so much better knowing that the combined forces of the US government and the NFHA are protecting us from such insidious bigotry!
The funny thing of course is that blacks and Hispanics would be the least likely groups to be affected by this “(non-)religious discrimination” because a higher percentage of these groups are church goers than the general public.
More evidence of the erosion of the “right to contract”.
Of course, one shouldn’t be able to “contract” slavery, various forms of discrimination, etc. But this seems pretty harmless … more a way to target marketing materials than an intent to discriminate.
Somehow, I would think courts would be capable of distinguishing what kind of contracts to enforce, and what kinds not to. But there are some wacky judges out there too.
So presumably having a kosher section should be unlawful.
Actually, a private store could indeed have section for Christian bread (whatever that might be), if it so desired, just as a Christian bookstore can decide which sorts of titles it will stock.
That Smith thinks they can’t says more about her own bigotry than about anyone else. Time to designate atheism as a religious faith with the same rights and responsibilities as the others.
Utterly amazing. This should be dismissed immediately for lack of standing and sanctions placed on the NFHA for abuse of process and a frivolous action.
Good grief. This is discrimination because the insurance package is only offered to church members and not members of non-religious organizations offering similar services, i.e., if your organization doesn’t believe in god you aren’t allowed to have this coverage.
How about car insurance only available to Catholics? Or renter’s insurance that requires that you be a Suni? Or health insurance that is only for Reform Jews–not just marketed at Evangelicals but actively denied to members of other faiths? Still for FaithGuard? Some of the more libertarian, pro-discrimination of you, sure, but not me.
Good grief. This is discrimination because the insurance package is only offered to church members and not members of non-religious organizations offering similar services, i.e., if your organization doesn’t believe in god you aren’t allowed to have this coverage.
No one is preventing anyone from buying the coverage, scote. Discrination would be not selling to someone because of their beliefs. Making or selling a product that a consumer may not use or want is not discriminatory in the least.
To take your thought further, let’s sue Ford dealerships for not carrying Chevrolet parts. That is the same thought process here.
BTW, I should also probably turn my analogy from an emphasis on the seeming inclusion to the actual **exclusion** that is the heart of such a system. Who here would be for housing insurance available only to non-Jews?
That is a narrower version of what FaithGuard is, insurance only available to religious organizations that FaithGuard approves of–and yes, they will be deciding who’s religion counts since there is no one way to determine what is or isn’t a religion since the definition varies depending on circumstances, say for Federal tax purposes (where even long established religions don’t count if they also advocate for individual politicians) or for purposes of marrying people (where the state decides what counts), for conscientious objector status, etc. And those are just some examples of where government recognizes religions but doesn’t necessarily say an organization is or isn’t a “religion,” just whether it counts for certain government purposes.
Scote:
I know a temple that will not allow you to become a member (which you pay for, and which requires them to provide you services) unless you were born Jewish (to a sect they accept!) or convert according to their specifications.
If you don’t have a car, can you buy car insurance? Think of this as “church insurance”.
“I know a temple that will not allow you to become a member (which you pay for, and which requires them to provide you services) unless you were born Jewish (to a sect they accept!) or convert according to their specifications.”
Tis true. Religions are often discriminatory. Interfaith marriages are not allowed in Catholic churches or in Israel, for instance. I’m not sure quite what to think about that. Is it bigotry?
“If you don’t have a car, can you buy car insurance? Think of this as “church insurance”.”
Here your analogy falls down. FaithGuard is more like being able insure your car if you are Catholic but not if you are an atheist. That is, FaithGuard will not provide functionally identical insurance to relating to secular organizations. So **approved** religious members but not Masons.
Do you really want an insurance company deciding whether your religion qualifies **as a religion** and denying you insurance if they don’t like your church, temple, mosque, meeting house? I know I don’t. I’m not comfortable having an insurance company make religious determinations and I don’t think it is legal if the insurance relates to housing.
It appears that The National Fair Housing Alliance is running out things to justify their existence.
Unless I’m sorely mistaken, Scote, my interfaith marriage was celebrated in a Catholic church. So, uh, yeah.
scote – your argument is totally invalid. NO ONE is prohibited from buying this insurance, and the ins. co.s are NOT making “religious determinations”. The atheists, agnostics, or even the demon-possessed can buy this insurance IF THEY WANT TO. So HOW can it be discriminatory? It’s only that (as the original post points out), like those who don’t fly choose to decline flight insurance, these parties will decline this product. This is a no-brainer.
Scote,
The insurance company is not discriminating. They are offering a product. It is no different from offering “kosher” food. You not being Jewish does not in any way make the selling of kosher food discriminatory against you.
This is the same. It is a product you don’t want. So… don’t buy it.
Actually, you even COULD buy it, if you wanted. It would be a waste of your money, but you could, just as I could buy kosher food (as it happens, that would only be a waste of SOME of my money, as I could still eat it, but it would cost more than similar food that was not kosher, so that difference would be the waste).
“If you don’t have a car, can you buy car insurance? Think of this as “church insurance”.”
Here your analogy falls down. FaithGuard is more like being able insure your car if you are Catholic but not if you are an atheist.
No, it’s more like being able to buy car insurance but not motorcycle insurance (or vice versa)… sure, they seem functionally the same, but the underlying facts and costs may well be noticeably different. Insurance companies study this stuff quite carefully before they offer such policies, making sure they charge enough to cover expected losses. If they have not yet studied, for instance, the Masons, they would be quite foolish to insure against them.
If there are enough Masons, etc, who they think might want such a service to justify the costs of the studies, I would expect to see similar coverage for Masons, etc, in the future.
Also, “what counts as a religion” is spelled out in advance in writing (insurance is always VERY VERY VERY specific), so if your group is not covered, don’t buy it… just like not buying kosher food if you’re not Jewish (or not buying pork if you’re Muslim).
There are all sorts of affinity products in insurance.
The AARP markets insurance products only to AARP members. is that age discrimination? Most Colleges and Universities have deals with credit card companies so you can get your credit card with your favorite logo on it (mine’s a Gator), the AAA sells auto insurance to its members. Universities also sell auto insurance to its alumni through some sort of cross marketing arrangement too. Is this educational discrimination?
The Knights of Columbus (a Catholic fraternal organization) sells life insurance to Catholics. is this religious discrimiantion?
These are examples of a common insurance marketing arrangement which discriminate in favor of some kind of membership.
In addition, every state has potentially scores of (if not over one-hundred) insurers willing to sell home and liability insurance. Further, most are willing to sell to anyone. It’s a free market out there so it does not really matter if a customer won’t qualify due to some sort of affiliation as there is another company ready and willing to supply coverage!
scote:
Should a supermarket be permitted to have a kosher section?
Should a church be permitted to arrange deals with local businesses to offer discounted services to its members?
Should a national religious organization be able to create its own insurance company whose sole purpose is to insure its churches?
“FaithGuard is more like being able insure your car if you are Catholic but not if you are an atheist.” Except it’s only insurance against church-related incidents. It is impossible, or at least pointless, to insure your car against church-related incidents if you are an atheist.