On Wednesday, the New York Times published a scathing editorial:
But as Jeffrey Tobin notes notes at Commentary, the Times has a curious double standard for religious accommodation at public facilities:
Aside from the Times’s hypocrisy here, there’s something more troubling going on. That’s because the New York City Human Rights Commission is involved in this mess. After an anonymous complaint, the Human Rights Commission intervened and stopped the pool from offering female-only swimming hours. Those hours were later restored after city officials and assemblyman Dov Hikind stepped in.
This is the second high-profile attack the Human Rights Commission has made on the city’s Orthodox Jewish population in the last couple of years. After Jewish stores in Williamsburg started putting up signs in their windows requiring that customers adhere to a dress code, the city’s Human Rights Commission sprang into action and threatened fines. Again, there was a big double standard. The Four Seasons could require diners to wear a jacket and tie, but Jewish business owners could not.
I went to Brooklyn and reported on the matter in 2014, but the story didn’t end there. Not long after my first report was published, the Human Rights Commission’s case against the Jews in Williamsburg blew up in its face. The Human Rights Commission had to make the case that the dress code was burdensome to other people and the city, and I later reported that the commission’s star witness in the matter was a left-wing activist who had a Facebook page littered with irrational attacks on Israel. Mayor Bill De Blasio was asked about the issue in a press conference the next day, and the Human Rights Commission quickly agreed to drop the case and assess no fines.
There seems to be a troubling trend where local officials are attempting to criminalize behavior that would otherwise be acceptable—but only when it has religious motivations. The attacks on Jews by the New York City Human Rights Commission and the New York Times are also a good reminder that religious liberty concerns are not just limited to Christians. Accommodating a large local religious population at a public facility a few hours a week hardly seems like an injustice, but at this point it’s hard to refute the fact that a major goal of the Left seems to be driving any trace of religiosity from the public square.
