Yea Religious Freedom

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

"There are many valuable lessons in the philosopher Ibn Tufayl’s twelfth century masterpiece. But what is most interesting in his parable is his view, a restatement, in clear dramatic fashion, that wise people, philosophers, and religious leaders, must refrain from telling what they understand to the general population. This is especially true, he states, about religion. Organized religion, as understood by the masses, is necessary for the masses, but wrong for people with understanding because it is not true.

Ibn Tufayl introduces his story by telling how his predecessors hid truths from the multitude. They told one thing in books they expected the general population to read and something entirely different in books that they wrote for scholars." - review of Hayy ibn Yaqzan by Ibn Tufayl

62

While the decision is written to reflect the specific case, it in no way precludes similar decisions involving different classes of employers or different religious beliefs.

This is awesome, Muslims believe that insurance itself is a form of gambling and won’t be required to carry medical, unemployment, workman’s comp or even auto insurance. The insurance is a part of the employee compensation package and so employers will finally be able to decide what their employees spend their compensation on - political parties, alcohol, tobacco, violent video games, whatever. As an employer you no longer have to spend money on religiously objectionable items. In fact you could set up a company store that only offers pre-approved items and pay your employees in company credit instead of US dollars. Hell, US dollars have religiously objectionable symbols printed right on them and present a significant religious burden to many anyhow. If you object, you don’t have to work for them, that’s freedom. It’s like credit, if one doesn’t want to agree to arbitration, one can live without any credit at all. See, total freedom.

Since all authority is derived from God, the laws of a secular government can simply be ignored in general. It’s time we got having a government off our back.

63

[quote]Bismark wrote:
I’m pretty sure the creator of the universe could not care less if we fuck without the intent to procreate. [/quote]

Your opinion is noted, but as a practicing Catholic I adhere to the doctrine. So, I appreciate this first step in protecting our long observed religious liberty.

64

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
If this case were to come to Pittsville , I would rule that the corporations would not have to pay for INSURANCE for birth control . But they would have to pay extra to each employee , what it would cost that employee to get a rider to cover such things .

I would bet those corporations would find a way to justify to the Corporation God how this is good , so the Corporation does not burn in Corporation Hell [/quote]

I got a novel idea. If you want something extra from your employer other than a paycheck, buy it yourself. If you can’t afford it, get a better job, pick up a part-time job, or cut your expenses. Simple.

Since when are employers required to provide you with anything? YOU chose to work for this company. I don’t think you were forced into this employment. Don’t like it? Get your GED and get a better job.

65

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Still a freedom even if you don’t benefit from it, isn’t that better than nothing?[/quote]

Freedom to do what ? to who ? tightly held corporations to inconvenience us ?

that is almost as good as money = free speech :slight_smile:
[/quote]

So, let’s imagine corporations are banned tomorrow. Even the tightly held ones. All business is individually held. Now the mandate has even more problems.

Or, the government says religious people can participate in tightly-held or whatever enterprises. But they must run them according to the State’s judgements on various religious beliefs and practices. So now the corporation is something to be competed against by privately/singularly headed businesses. A tool they don’t get to use unless they sign on to the State’s agenda. In short, punishment or reward depending on if one does or doesn’t sign onto the State ‘religion.’

If your bedroom is your business, surely their business is their business.
[/quote]

I know it is six minutes but it says it so well . The ruling is rediculous allowing people to opt out because it is morally objectionable

[/quote]

Why isn’t a moral objection a valid reason to abstain from offering certain benefits?

66

Where exactly in the constitution does it state that contraception is a fundamental right? Gender Bigotry.

67

[quote]tedro wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Still a freedom even if you don’t benefit from it, isn’t that better than nothing?[/quote]

Freedom to do what ? to who ? tightly held corporations to inconvenience us ?

that is almost as good as money = free speech :slight_smile:
[/quote]

So, let’s imagine corporations are banned tomorrow. Even the tightly held ones. All business is individually held. Now the mandate has even more problems.

Or, the government says religious people can participate in tightly-held or whatever enterprises. But they must run them according to the State’s judgements on various religious beliefs and practices. So now the corporation is something to be competed against by privately/singularly headed businesses. A tool they don’t get to use unless they sign on to the State’s agenda. In short, punishment or reward depending on if one does or doesn’t sign onto the State ‘religion.’

If your bedroom is your business, surely their business is their business.
[/quote]

I know it is six minutes but it says it so well . The ruling is rediculous allowing people to opt out because it is morally objectionable

[/quote]

Why isn’t a moral objection a valid reason to abstain from offering certain benefits?[/quote]

The issue is that it is a legally mandated benefit, not what that particular benefit is. One may think the law is a bad law or even an illegal law, but those are completely different and separate issues.

That’s the beauty, if it’s ok not to follow this law because it’s morally objectionable, what other laws can I ignore because I find them objectionable. If I find the government or the legal system itself objectionable do I actually have to follow any laws at all? If a lawyer uses this precedent to establish a different, yet similar precedent and this process continues, where does it end? The court, especially the supreme court, has to be very careful, not only in setting precedent by the decision, but in the wording used to explain it. This decision is very open ended and will allow so many challenges to a massive amount of legislation. The decision basically says you can’t legally tell people to do stuff if their religion says they shouldn’t.(Or don’t want to) That leaves a lot of room.

68

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
If this case were to come to Pittsville , I would rule that the corporations would not have to pay for INSURANCE for birth control . But they would have to pay extra to each employee , what it would cost that employee to get a rider to cover such things .

I would bet those corporations would find a way to justify to the Corporation God how this is good , so the Corporation does not burn in Corporation Hell [/quote]

Do you spend any of your income on pot?
[/quote]

yes , but little , what’s your point
[/quote]

If you have the income to make yourself feel and act goofy, you have the income for BC.[/quote]
we are talking whether a person has money for BC , we are talking about a law that every one has t o comply with but a few. We are looking at a finacial advantage for being against your religion [/quote]

Then I’ll guess you’ll be voting for candidates pledging to repeal the mandate. Don’t create the problem and then complain about it.

[/quote]

it probably has always been the way I voted , I see freedom as favoring people as apposed to corporations I also see free speech as costing (NO) money

69

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
The real question is, when can I expect my check to cover the cost of condoms in the mail?[/quote]

this is endemic of this board. find a subject you disagree with and talk about stupid shit .

Birth control is not just for controlling birth it is regular treatment for women’s health

Things like IUD can cost a thousand dollars or more and they use it for other things than birth control .

70

[quote]Waylon wrote:

[quote]tedro wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]sufiandy wrote:
Still a freedom even if you don’t benefit from it, isn’t that better than nothing?[/quote]

Freedom to do what ? to who ? tightly held corporations to inconvenience us ?

that is almost as good as money = free speech :slight_smile:
[/quote]

So, let’s imagine corporations are banned tomorrow. Even the tightly held ones. All business is individually held. Now the mandate has even more problems.

Or, the government says religious people can participate in tightly-held or whatever enterprises. But they must run them according to the State’s judgements on various religious beliefs and practices. So now the corporation is something to be competed against by privately/singularly headed businesses. A tool they don’t get to use unless they sign on to the State’s agenda. In short, punishment or reward depending on if one does or doesn’t sign onto the State ‘religion.’

If your bedroom is your business, surely their business is their business.
[/quote]

I know it is six minutes but it says it so well . The ruling is rediculous allowing people to opt out because it is morally objectionable

[/quote]

Why isn’t a moral objection a valid reason to abstain from offering certain benefits?[/quote]

The issue is that it is a legally mandated benefit, not what that particular benefit is. One may think the law is a bad law or even an illegal law, but those are completely different and separate issues.

That’s the beauty, if it’s ok not to follow this law because it’s morally objectionable, what other laws can I ignore because I find them objectionable. If I find the government or the legal system itself objectionable do I actually have to follow any laws at all? If a lawyer uses this precedent to establish a different, yet similar precedent and this process continues, where does it end? The court, especially the supreme court, has to be very careful, not only in setting precedent by the decision, but in the wording used to explain it. This decision is very open ended and will allow so many challenges to a massive amount of legislation. The decision basically says you can’t legally tell people to do stuff if their religion says they shouldn’t.(Or don’t want to) That leaves a lot of room.
[/quote]

I agree , if the principal is valid in this debate why should it not be in all. and why stop at health care

71

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
The real question is, when can I expect my check to cover the cost of condoms in the mail?[/quote]

this is endemic of this board. find a subject you disagree with and talk about stupid shit .

Birth control is not just for controlling birth it is regular treatment for women’s health

Things like IUD can cost a thousand dollars or more and they use it for other things than birth control .

[/quote]

72

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
The real question is, when can I expect my check to cover the cost of condoms in the mail?[/quote]

this is endemic of this board. find a subject you disagree with and talk about stupid shit .

Birth control is not just for controlling birth it is regular treatment for women’s health

Things like IUD can cost a thousand dollars or more and they use it for other things than birth control .

[/quote]

You don’t really believe the above do you Pitt? You think the majority of woman are using IUDs for something other than birth control?

“Birth control is not just for controlling birth”

Come on…

Also, how is that “stupid shit?” It is male birth control, which is not free (lol) for men. What about prostate health?

73

=)

WASHINGTON (AP) ? The Supreme Court on Tuesday confirmed that its decision a day earlier extending religious rights to closely held corporations applies broadly to the contraceptive coverage requirement in the new health care law, not just the handful of methods the justices considered in their ruling.
http://news.yahoo.com/justices-act-other-health-law-mandate-cases-133633160--politics.html

74

Oh, and thank you, President Bill Clinton.

75

[quote]Waylon wrote:

Since all authority is derived from God, the laws of a secular government can simply be ignored in general. It’s time we got having a government off our back. [/quote]

I would suggest that the government was poised to ignore it’s laws as encapsulated in the 1st Amendment and RFRA. Now, I find that much scarier.

76

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I would rule that the corporations would not have to pay for INSURANCE for birth control . But they would have to pay extra to each employee [/quote]

Your lack of understanding of the most basic, fundamentals of economics is painful to read.

You’d be well sever to take a 101 class at a local community college.

77

[quote]Waylon wrote:
The issue is that it is a legally mandated benefit, not what that particular benefit is. One may think the law is a bad law or even an illegal law, but those are completely different and separate issues.

That’s the beauty, if it’s ok not to follow this law because it’s morally objectionable, what other laws can I ignore because I find them objectionable. If I find the government or the legal system itself objectionable do I actually have to follow any laws at all? If a lawyer uses this precedent to establish a different, yet similar precedent and this process continues, where does it end? The court, especially the supreme court, has to be very careful, not only in setting precedent by the decision, but in the wording used to explain it. This decision is very open ended and will allow so many challenges to a massive amount of legislation. The decision basically says you can’t legally tell people to do stuff if their religion says they shouldn’t.(Or don’t want to) That leaves a lot of room.
[/quote]

That’s exactly what makes the ruling a big deal. In a country founded on liberty, an employer and employee should be left to their own devices in determining proper compensation and should be bound only by that private agreement. Hobby Lobby had to file suit on a very specific issue to ensure they had proper standing with the USSC, but the ruling could (hopefully) be used as a precedent for other issues.

It’s my hope that the next small victory will be a restoration of rights to wedding cake bakers and photographers.

It takes a thoroughly perverse government to force companies and individuals to provide a service that is morally objectionable to the provider. Why can’t the “stay out of our bedrooms” crowd stay out of Christian bakeries and camera lens’. Why does the “my body, my choice” crowd insist on taking away the choice of the business owner?

78

[quote]tedro wrote:
Why can’t the “stay out of our bedrooms” crowd stay out of Christian bakeries and camera lens’. [/quote]

Because they’re full of shit. If their policy was really “stay out of our bedrooms” then they would’ve been happy with the “don’t ask; don’t tell” policy in the military. You only need to look at the exhibitionism on display at gay “pride” parades to know that their real policy is “do tell!”

79

[quote]tedro wrote:
It takes a thoroughly perverse government to force companies and individuals to provide a service that is morally objectionable to the provider. Why can’t the “stay out of our bedrooms” crowd stay out of Christian bakeries and camera lens’. Why does the “my body, my choice” crowd insist on taking away the choice of the business owner?[/quote]

Totally agree.

80

[quote]Waylon wrote:
That’s the beauty, if it’s ok not to follow this law because it’s morally objectionable, what other laws can I ignore because I find them objectionable. [/quote]

  1. If the slipper slope fallacy is valid in this case, then it is valid in all others too. Please tell me you oppose gun control.

  2. We already have this:
    murder is illegal - except when it is a baby in the womb or the state condones it

theft is illegal - except when the government/government buddies do it

discrimination based on race and sex is illegal - unless it is a white person or male discriminated against.

Minimum wage - expect when Liz Warren doesn’t want to pay her interns

Like, come the fuck on with this.