[eahman00]

>to display/not display ads to users whom Facebook categorizes as interested in a particular place of worship, religion or tenet, such as the "Christian Church," "Sikhism," "Hinduism," or the "Bible."

It says "such as"; I'm interested if this list includes "synagogue" or "Torah". Is there any place the entire list is included?

[dsr_]

No. The point of non-discrimination is not to protect certain classes, but to protect everyone. The list to check against has to grow over time to reflect current usage.

"colanders", "pirates", "meatballs": the Pastafarians are just as much a protected class as Catholics, Jains and Druze.

[int_19h]

> the Pastafarians are just as much a protected class as Catholics, Jains and Druze.

Only if they can demonstrate that their religious beliefs are sincere. There have been some court cases along these lines already.

[vkou]

Nobody asks a Christian to confirm that their beliefs are sincere, and that they aren't just pretending to believe in God, for the social benefits it brings.

[shard972]

Have you been watching US politics in the last few years?

At this point people just seem to make the assumption that people like donald trump are just lying about their faith as if it's a completely normal thing to assert about someone.

[ben_w]

That exact thing happens in the UK.

https://www.sundaypost.com/news/uk-news/school-places-withdr...

For purposes of going to secondary school, I was raised Catholic. Slightly more completed my case as although my dad was an atheist, my mum thought she was taking it seriously (given how many New Age books and Hindu icons and statues she had, I don’t count her as a proper Catholic).

[roel_v]

Well just the last week, the Dutch highest administrative court ruled that Pastafarianism is not a real religion. Do you at least see why (you don't have to agree, just understand)?

[Retric]

I can understand the reasoning. However, that ruling does not apply to the US.

It’s something of a cultural identity issue in the US. Mocking religious beliefs in the abstract is often acceptable, but mocking specific people is far less so.

[int_19h]

Like I said, there have been similar court rulings in US. Look up Stephen Cavanaugh for one example.

So, yes, it does apply in US as well - you have freedom of religion, but it has to be an "actual religion", whatever that means. Things might have been different if the Constitution just spoke of freedom of consciousness or some such; but we have what we have.

This, by the way, is one of the reason why the Satanic Temple has been a lot more successful with its lawsuits so far (e.g. https://religiousreproductiverights.com/lawsuit-status/lawsu... - but also numerous cases where a mere threat of a lawsuit causes the local government to change its tune) - because it tries to present itself in a way that makes it clear that trolling isn't the only thing it is about.

[creaghpatr]

I guess you could in theory go buy some ads on fb and see what it lets you scope