So what do you want to do, shoot them if they won't hire gay people? What level of FORCE are you advocating here?
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...eating-new-religious-demands-on-obama/373853/ An article to refer to when building ad absurdum attacks against each other.
man..I dont get it QT Tuesday's letter is different: It comes from a group of faith leaders who are generally friendly to the administration, many of whom have closely advised the White House on issues like immigration reform. The letter was organized by Michael Wear, who worked in the Obama White House and directed faith outreach for the president's 2012 campaign. Signers include two members of Catholics for Obama and three former members of the President’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. These are brownfingers cronies that you make out to be some kind of wackos..these are the people who helped promote a lot of the "progressive" ideas you also believe in..
Despite all the posturing and rambling, all I see in this decision are the following: The government cannot mandate that anyone pay for a service that violates their religious beliefs; Small-business owners do not lose constitutional protection just because they own a business. I'm sorry, but those seem like two very reasonable positions to me.
Seriously, at some point you're forcing people to do things against their will. That doesn't seem right, either.
This Supreme court is a bad joke. Bush putting two right-wing nut jobs in there really tipped the balance of power. Now I have to shudder every time these assholes hear a case. First off, the idea of opting out of a law because of a "religious belief" is ridiculous. If the law is something that can be discarded simply because someone doesn't agree with it, it shouldn't be a law in the first place. What if my religion is that I shouldn't cruise below 60 MPH on any street? Would the government be dumb enough to grant me impunity from speeding? But now they are saying that corporations can be "religious people" and opt out of laws. And just like with the Harris v. Quinn case, the case and justification given by the majority have these sweeping implications, but they say, "oh no this only applies to contraception". That makes no sense at all! As Justice Ruth Ginsburg pointed out, this opens up the door to objections to blood transfusions (JW), antidepressants (scientolgists), medications derived from pigs or coated with gelatin (which includes anesthiesia) (Muslims, News, Hindus).....
This supreme court is a fucking embarassment to America. Congress needs to get these assholes out of the chair.
What if they make a law against going to church on Sundays? There are limits to what laws congress can pass. Thank goodness.
So, can a pacifict avoid paying taxes that go to the military? Can a vegan avoid paying taxes that go to the Department of Agriculture for meat inspection? What about my religious freedom? The decision is that I have to live my life by the boss's religion. A violation of 200 years of precedent. They ruled that the objection does not have to be factually correct, as long as it is "sincerely held". A violation of evidence based law. They ruled that only birth control matters. A violation of gender equity since it only applies to women's health care and religious freedom, since they are saying some religious objections "count" but others don't. The ruling also prohibits coverage even for birth control counseling; a violation of free speech. They ruled that beliefs do not even have to be shown to be sincere; Hobby Lobby covered birth control for years. They never objected until it became mandate in AC. They trade with China. They invest their 401(k) in companies that make birth control and abortion supplies. All you have to be is "sincere" for one court case. There is no constitutional basis for this decision. It is solely based on the personal views of 5 reactionary men.
You can't avoid paying taxes, period. You can avoid going to war as a draftee if it is against your religion. Wow, there's a precedent. http://girightshotline.org/en/military-knowledge-base/topic/conscientious-objection-discharge
Not sure if you're responding to my post? But I'm not talking about passing a law, but being granted immunity from a law because of a religious belief. Congress is SUPPOSED to work within the framework of the constitution, but RELIGIONS do not have any limitations.. If we as rational people think it's ok for someone to not obey a law because they don't agree with it, then that law needs to be thrown out. Like some groups get an exception to allow them to take certain drugs, and I'm fine with that because those drugs shouldn't be illegal in the first place.
High levels of unemployment in educated youth with lots of debt. Republicans becoming more decisive. I can't see how this could end poorly ;]
The framework of the constitution protects religion from government. The point of my post about a more obvious law against religious expression. Throw out obamacare and it will all be solved. It was a bush appointee that was the deciding vote in favor of obamacare being constitutional. Yeah, I was responding to your rant.
Companies don't give anyone healthcare and never have. Once people figure that out, the solution to access to healthcare will be much easier to figure out.
The constitution does not grant people blanket impunity to crimes or laws which they don't agree with. For example, if you believe the Supreme Court's logic in this case, that means we should also not stop terrorists, because they are sincerely following their religion. You brought up avoiding going to war as a draftee, but you'd still go to prison in that situation. So that's not an example of religious freedom since you're being punished just as someone who violates a law. So the phrase, ..."Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion" does that mean laws are optional? No, it was intended to prevent the government from trying to establish a state religion and surpress others. Look at the history of Europe and the religious wars between the protestants and catholics for example. They wanted a purely secular government.
