0

Meet Charlie. Charlie is a devout Catholic and has a 10 hour layover in Narnia Airport. He decides that he will go and have a bit of restorative prayer at the Christian chapel provided.

Now meet Dan, a devout Muslim who has a 15 hour layover. He is saddened to find there is no area set up for Muslim prayers so he is unable to say any of his Salah prayers.

Has Dan been treated less favourably by the airport and unlawfully discriminated against?

JosephCorrectEnglishPronouns
  • 6,301
  • 3
  • 24
  • 66
  • 9
    Keep looking for a better example --- 
    At the airport
Terminal facilities

    "Multi faith prayer rooms The Heathrow Multi Faith Chaplaincy supports staff and passengers of all faiths and those of none" https://www.heathrow.com/at-the-airport/terminal-facilities/multi-faith-prayer-rooms

     – George White Oct 13 '22 at 00:03
  • 7
    I wasn't aware that Islam required a specific place to be set aside for prayer... I am not Muslim, but my understanding from people I know is that you can pray pretty much anywhere as long as it is clean...

    Which means that a devout Muslim is not prevented from saying a prayer.

     – Questor Oct 13 '22 at 00:09
  • 1
    Okay then I did a poor job of illustrating the legal principle but please just humour me and don't be pedantic about it. – JosephCorrectEnglishPronouns Oct 13 '22 at 00:29
  • Nobody said this had to be factually accurate. – JosephCorrectEnglishPronouns Oct 13 '22 at 00:32
  • 2
    What’s Bob at checkout? – Damila Oct 13 '22 at 03:13
  • 3
    Can you please edit to give a title that explains that the question is about religious facilities and discrimination? All we can tell from the current title is that it's related to travel, which isn't even really true. – Nate Eldredge Oct 13 '22 at 03:18
  • 2
    Are we to assume that the airport never has facilities for Muslim prayers? At many airports, there is a room which hosts services for different religions during different times or days of the week. If so, it may be that facilities are available at some times, but Dan was simply unlucky with his arrival time. – Nate Eldredge Oct 13 '22 at 03:20
  • @Damila - Bob at the counter is a character in a previous question by the OP who seems to be trying to understand the boundaries of impermissible “discrimination”. – George White Oct 13 '22 at 15:52
  • Perhaps there confused perception that was the premise of the question had arisen from the US Constitutional anti establishment clause – JosephCorrectEnglishPronouns Oct 13 '22 at 16:53
  • Dan chose to have a layover in Narnia Airport, he could have chosen to have a layover at an airport in a muslim country. If I choose to go to a vegetarian restaurant, am I discriminated against because they can't serve me meat? – Peter M Oct 13 '22 at 17:03
  • It's a good question but I suppose the answer is no. – JosephCorrectEnglishPronouns Oct 13 '22 at 17:17
  • @PeterM The jurisdiction is England and Wales. That’s where hypothetical Narnia is located at for the purp. of the question. – kisspuska Oct 13 '22 at 18:41

2 Answers2

1

Not offering a particular service is not a crime and also not discrimination. In the example stated, the "particular service" would be "prayer room for Muslims".

The example provided is not optimal, since airport chapels are normally arranged so that people of every religion find what they need (e.g. they provide the Koran as well as the Bible). Of course, it's possible that Dan arrives just when there's a Christian service in the chapel, but then he can just wait for half an hour or so.

In the general case, no private entity is forced to offer a particular service. So even the airport would not be forced to offer a prayer room, let alone a Muslim prayer room. It could however be illegal discrimination if Dan wasn't allowed to enter a Christian chapel because he is Muslim. This is the same as if the waiter in a restaurant denies entry to black people (a serious crime in many countries). But it's of course legal for the waiter to not (specifically) offer food for Muslims (e.g. without pig).

PMF
  • 5,583
  • 2
  • 19
  • 41
  • “It could however be illegal discrimination if Dan wasn't allowed to enter a [Synagogue] because he is Muslim.“ No. Once an allocated time for one faith to keep a service is permitted, their religious rules would enjoy broad discretion on who they allow, and who they don’t. It would not be surprising if an orthodox congregation would not allow anyone in its Shabbat who’s not a Jew. It could be an issue if the airport operated on its own expense a room but only for one religion and no other, and not a multifate one or none. – kisspuska Oct 13 '22 at 07:09
  • @kisspuska That may depend on local legislation. Also, I wasn't referring to services, but to the location itself. Not permitting somebody of a different faith to enter a [Synagogue] (never) could be considered discrimination. In either case, in a modern world, denying entry to somebody doesn't make sense unless you want to make others suspicious about your intents and the purpose of your assembly. – PMF Oct 13 '22 at 07:20
  • "but then he can just wait for half an hour or so" - not really. Some devote Muslims need to pray at very specific times: https://www.islamic-relief.org.uk/islamic-resources/prayer-timetables/prayer-timetable-cambridge/ – Martin Bonner supports Monica Oct 13 '22 at 08:34
  • @MartinBonnersupportsMonica I suppose there are exceptions to this rule, namely while traveling? It's not possible to roll out a carpet while on a plane. – PMF Oct 13 '22 at 08:53
  • 1
    @PMF There are exceptions, and obedience to prayer doesn't necessarily require one to "roll out a carpet". The Quran says "So keep your duty to Allah and fear Him as much as you can." and the Prophet Muhammad PBUH said "When I command you to do a thing, do as much of it as you can." –  Oct 13 '22 at 10:00
  • I think the Muslim religion is a bit flexible there. So maybe you are supposed to pray at some exact time, and if you don't because you forgot then it's a sin. If you don't because the prayer room is occupied by a dozen Christians and you have to wait, then it's not a sin. Same if someone tricks you into eating food that you shouldn't eat. – gnasher729 Oct 13 '22 at 15:54
  • I don't know JBentley once advised that it could be indirect discrimination: suppose you allow men and women into your establishment but only provide urinal facilities which indirectly discriminate upon women. I think that unless this is a proportional means of achieving a legitimate aim then this is unlawful. – JosephCorrectEnglishPronouns Oct 13 '22 at 19:25
  • @JosephCorrectEnglishPronouns That's possible. But as you say, in such (probably border line cases) it would be up for a court to decide whether the discrimination was intentional (or at least negligent). It's rather obvious that a catholic church isn't discriminating Muslims by not offering Muslim services. But it could be discrimination if they don't let them take part in a parish festival. Or worse, by proclaiming anti-islamic sermons. – PMF Oct 14 '22 at 13:52
  • No, I don't think anti Islamic sermons would be unlawful in any way. CF. S29J public order act 1986 added by house of lords on concerns of free expression under the Hunan rights act. – JosephCorrectEnglishPronouns Oct 14 '22 at 14:00
  • @JosephCorrectEnglishPronouns That depends on the country and their interpretation of "freedom of opinion". There have been lengthy threads (such as https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/78348/why-do-some-laws-make-saying-heil-hitler-illegal-when-other-laws-allow-freedom) about whether a verbal discrimination is covered by the "free speech" term or not. – PMF Oct 14 '22 at 14:34
  • Germany AFAIK doesn't have a house of lords nor pubic order act 1986 – JosephCorrectEnglishPronouns Oct 14 '22 at 14:44
  • The question meanwhile was tagged England-and-wakes. – JosephCorrectEnglishPronouns Oct 14 '22 at 14:45
  • @JosephCorrectEnglishPronouns I saw that. I tried to keep my answer general, because your question isn't necessarily linked to England. – PMF Oct 14 '22 at 14:49
0

It depends on the extent to which any chapel is provided. Under 42 USC 2000a, it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of religion in a place of public accommodation. An airport could set aside a room for vague "quiet contemplation", but it could not specifically limit the use to Catholic prayers or Buddhist meditation. Illegal discrimination is not just based on a filter "If Muslim, no entry", it also includes practices with discriminatory effects. If a seemingly-neutral facility is closed during the times for Muslim prayers, that would be clearly discriminatory. A legally untested question is whether a facility could get in legal trouble if it does not provide male-only and female-only prayer facilities, given the premise (by some in Islam) that men and women should not pray together, likewise in Judaism (note that sex discrimination in public accommodations is allowed).

user6726
  • 214,947
  • 11
  • 343
  • 576