Should Private Temples Be Allowed to Discriminate Based on Gender and Caste?

Had an interesting discussion the other day about discrimination against women and other groups by mosques and temples. This is one of those areas where I’m conflicted. On the one hand I believe that a person’s private property is sacrosanct. I can prohibit anyone I want from entering my house even if it’s discriminatory and doesn’t make sense. The government has no right to interfere. So if I stand up and say “No women shall enter my home!”, it may be stupid but not illegal. No one has an a priori right to enter my premises. You can ridicule me, avoid my company, call me a jerk or whatever. But you can’t put me in jail. Because it’s my home.

Discrimination in Private Temples and Mosques
Discrimination in Private Temples and Mosques

So if a temple is private property, doesn’t the owner have the right to restrict entry to women or lower castes if they want?  It’s not public land and there’s no god given (pun intended!) right to enter a place of worship you don’t own.

On the other hand, this kind of argument can be extended to allowing discrimination based on race, caste, or gender at work as well. After all, if a private business decides not to hire people of a certain caste or skin color, surely that is their prerogative? To take matters further, they will also have the right to deny service to whomsoever they want based on the same parameters. It’s a private business no?

Indeed this was the case in the US until the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Then the Supreme Court made its ruling and all such discrimination was made illegal. Even today when you go to rent an apartment in the US, there are prominent notices saying something like “Federal law prohibits discrimination based on race, gender etc etc”. This has been a good thing. The status of minorities has been dramatically improved due to these measures and it has done much to curb bigotry displayed towards them.

So how do we reconcile these two? How to we square property rights with making discrimination illegal in businesses?

One way is to view a business as a quasi public entity. They pay a different tax rate, electricity rate, have to adhere to employment standards, safety regulations, minimum wage, etc. Since there’s already so much government involvement in them it’s clear we don’t treat them as a totally private entity in the first place. So adding another rule to ensure that they don’t discriminate based on race and gender doesn’t seem so outlandish. Perhaps that’s just a rationalization but if it is, then all the other regulations imposed on businesses have to be rationalizations also. And that is a whole other discussion.

Coming back to temples. Should we disallow discrimination in private temples the same way we disallow discrimination in private businesses?

I don’t think we can do that. Unlike businesses, religion is an entirely private matter. If I start a new religion saying my god favors bald men over those with hair, the government cannot intervene and say my god is illegal and that my religion simply has to accept those with hair too! So if a private Hindu temple says that women or lower castes are not allowed inside it, I don’t see what basis the government has to violate the property rights of the owners and force them to accept those people whom they don not wish on their land.

So while I think there are reasons for the government to enforce non discrimination rules for businesses, I don’t believe that the same can be extended to temples and other houses of worship. So even though a private temple  or mosque banning women or lower castes is repugnant, I guess we just have to put up with it.

Do you agree with this reasoning? Or do you feel that laws in India banning discrimination against certain groups in religious places of worship are a good thing?

What do you think of this post?
  • Agree (1)
  • Don't Agree but Interesting (0)
  • You're an asshole (0)

20 thoughts on “Should Private Temples Be Allowed to Discriminate Based on Gender and Caste?”

  1. There is simply no basis for a government to interfere inside PRIVATE PROPERTY. Unless there is direct harm caused. Exclusion is not direct harm. It is part of the private property owner’s fundamental right to property.

    Period.

    s

    Reply

    • In reply to Sanjeev Sabhlok

      What about private businesses? Should a restaurant be allowed to discriminate against people based on caste, or gender? Or perhaps have separate restrooms and changing rooms for them?

      Or do you feel (like I do) that businesses are a quasi public entity.

      Reply

      • In reply to bhagwad

        I actually think that private entities should be allowed to discriminate as they see fit. If a restaurant owner in America doesn’t want Indians eating at his place, I’d rather he makes this clear and gets NONE of my business. As for the people who go to such places, I’m free to draw conclusions about them as well.
        But the thought of the government forcing hands on private property annoys me.

        Reply

      • In reply to bharatwrites

        I agree it’s a thorny issue – and one that pulls me both ways.

        What about private companies? Should they be allowed to discriminate based on religion, gender, sexuality etc?

        I totally get the idea about private property however. I really do. But there’s no denying that anti discrimination laws in the US for example went a long way towards greater racial equality.

        This is one of those issues where I’m in a dilemma.

        Reply

  2. If the law of the land allows a white supremacist organization to thrive and choose its members, I don’t see why it should be any different for a place of worship. Simply put, a private entity has the right to discriminate. As Sanjeev said, exclusion is not direct harm. Also, this aligns with your oft-mentioned theory that one can always turn a blind eye to emotional abuse as long as there is no physical harm involved. All in all, those affected should just find an alternative.

    Reply

  3. A temple is clearly a business. They accept money for services rendered. If it is not a business, then I wonder what is the definition of a business.

    If they discriminate, society should mobilize to remove them from the mainstream. Only social isolation can solve this problem, not government action.

    Reply

    • In reply to required

      I’m not clear about the law and whether or not anonymous donations are taxed. If I start a temple, I need not explicitly ask for money for any service. No receipts are given either. Clearly if we want to make it look like a business, there are some serious differences…

      But I agree. Social ostracisation is the only real way to get rid of discrimination.

      Reply

  4. Your argument for temples and places of worship makes perfect sense. If I own a temple and I don’t want women/ somebody to enter, I can clearly say so IF i do not receive any Govt aid etc of running a temple. So, If i privately own the temple with no help/aid( which is usually given to a lot of temples/places of worship) and also do not get a tax break for the money I collect etc then, it is upto the owner to decide who they want to allow.

    When it comes to private business/workplace, most corporations do receive a tax break( and some other benefits for being a corporation), in which case, it is ok for the Govt to say no discrimination. Also, I think the big difference between discrimination at temple and business is that temple is truly a private matter ( i.e. if I’m discriminated against, I can choose to not go there), whereas if a store for e.g discriminates against women by not allowing them, it can be a lot more of a hassle.

    Reply

  5. I don’t think racism and sexism should be allowed in temples or other places of worship, because faith particularly and very powerfully impacts how people see themselves and others in public life and also children who grow up watching such prejudice would grow up believing these prejudices are acceptable.

    Reply

  6. Hmm…I think overall the govt. can’t make discrimination illegal in private places. Even if they did, how on Earth are they going to enforce it? People themselves need to fight against the discrimination eg. if lower caste people aren’t allowed into a certain area then upper caste people who is should work to correct this, through boycotting or something. I don’t know if a place of worship is private though…and even if it isn’t I think there will be issues about what their God/s mandate versus what is constitutional. Like about not allowing women into mosques, clear discrimination, but can you imagine the drama if the govt. tried to change this?? People themselves need to realize that what they’re doing is wrong.

    Reply

  7. I don’t think discrimination should be allowed in temples. If a temple or any place of worship is open for Public in general then there should be no discrimination. Else isn’t it more of a club?

    Reply

    • In reply to N

      Does that mean that if I open my home to the public I should be forced accept everyone who comes? Don’t I still have a right to decide who’s allowed?

      Reply

  8. The government cannot legally force individuals and in the case of temples discriminating, no one is directly getting physically hurt, so there is no immediate harm done. That being said, for many people, religion plays a very important role in their lives and influences how they think and act. Their discriminating attitude which is further encouraged by the temple’s may end up harming some individual in the long term. So, it is true that more of a social change is needed in this case.

    Reply

Leave a Comment