If you sign a contract with someone with one of these clauses, you have legally opted-in to the arbitration process. I'm against drive-by EULA's, but other than that I can't really see a reason not to uphold them.
The difficulty is when there is a power asymmetry in the original agreement, as there normally is when it's an individual signing a contract with a larger organization.
Two large companies agreed to arbitration? Stick to the original agreement, as both sides paid lawyers to advise them on what to do, and there was almost certainly a negotiation. But individuals don't, usually, have the resources to hire lawyers or the ability to do the kinds of negotiations required to get favorable contracts. In such situations, I am troubled that we can end up signing away our ability to appeal to the courts to intervene on our behalf.
If this issue gets enough press for a long enough time, I could see legislation that voids arbitration clauses in certain cases.
I can see value, and certainly abuse, in people agreeing to allow their religious organizations to arbitrate civil disputes... it would seem that people should be allowed to make the choice and suffer the consequences if the agreement is within the established law.
The problem is that, currently, I can't get wireless from Sprint, ATT or Verizon without signing away my right to sue. If this is the case, I feel like I have been forced into signing an arbitration clause (I don't really have a choice not to have a phone). Comcast allows me to opt out (though at the time I didn't realize this was an option).
At what point am I no longer able to make a choice to live a life without entering into an arbitration agreement with someone, and if that point comes, have my rights been violated?
Technically, I've entered into a contract for a service. However, if every contract for that service includes an arbitration clause, I no longer have a choice, and I haven't really "opted in" to the arbitration process, because I can't "opt out".
I'm pretty sure this isn't a valid legal argument, but that doesn't make it right. At the very least, controls need to be put into place to make sure that arbitration is neutral: otherwise the clauses are similar to a clause that says "if you wish to sue us, we win by default: tough shit", which feels like it should be illegal (or unenforceable).
Perfect pull quote. The article buries the lead by putting this line so far down in the body.
The article cherry-picks a few religious examples to support the headline, but there's nothing inherently religious about arbitration clauses. If they are infringing on the rule of law, this article hasn't demonstrated how.