Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by rdowns, Jul 2, 2014.
And here we go.
But, hey, I was told that yesterday's ruling wasn't going to hurt anyone. All it did was make women buy certain contraceptives! I mean, that's what I was told anyway.
Here we go for the religious extremists in America, AKA the American Taliban
If LGBT is against your religious beliefs, okay, fine, no problem for me. But if I take federal money while not liking LGBT, I have no choice but to accede to the executive order. So, if it's important enough for me to object, I'll not take federal money. After that, it's nobody's business but mine.
(My ox isn't gored. I'm just saying that if you take the king's shilling, you are obligated to follow his orders.)
Government contractors are publicly funded for that portion of their business. They want to retain that business and any resulting profits, yet they still want to exclude a portion of the public from hiring considerations on a basis that doesn't involve safety or ability to perform the necessary tasks. I have no sympathy for them, regardless of whether the timing was calculated.
Edit: Someone posted a link to the letter in the other thread.
It's worth reading. He brings up varied opinions and rights of religious people and whatever else.
What he fails to mention is what I stated. We don't want to publicly fund an organization that imposes discriminatory hiring practices when another that will take any qualified applicants of the aforementioned public is available to provide the same service.
Maybe an LGBT person denied access should sue under RFRA, asserting that their affectional preference is equivalent to a sincerely held religious belief. Then we'd have "dueling religious beliefs", and a compelling government interest in resolving it.
The Hobby Lobby decision explicitly refused to rule on the validity of the asserted belief, and only examined its sincerity (they cited case law supporting this limited examination). I suspect that any LGBT person's beliefs in their own sexuality are at least as sincerely held as any other person's religious beliefs.
In any case, it would make for some interesting fireworks with each side basically accusing the other of unrepentant abject sinfulness.
And to think conservatives claim to be against the nanny state.
This ... this is the road to the ultimate nanny state.
No, no, they're against a HELPFUL nanny state.
There's a difference.
I won't work.
The ONLY reason Hobby Lobby "won" is because there is a way to provide birth control to all women that would infringe on their religion less than what the ACA said, which is to just have the Gov pay for it directly.
Does the Gov have a compelling interest in LGBT people not being discriminated against by employers? Obvious "yes".
Is there a "less infringing" way for LGBT people to not be discriminated against by employers OTHER THAN... LGBT people to not be discriminated against by employers? No.
So they'll lose.
How screwed up are we when religious people who benefit from Freedom of Religion, turn around and try to use it to discriminate against others? Thank you Supreme Court. We are a dismal species who like to pat ourselves on the back for being advanced, hah.
See, that is the wrong tack to take. Already, bible-thumpers have perceived sexual preference as comparable to religious faith. And we know that people have been converted from one faith to another, so if a parallel is drawn (via, say, a suit), it will only bolster the position of the religious, that sexual preference is a choice. And I know fer damn sure, I do not want them freaks going and converting my kids to their perverted pedo-bestial ways, dad-blame it.
Looks like that minefield is a bit more dangerous than we thought.
Exactly, this is all outrage over nothing.
And the fact that anyone takes it seriously shows they don't understand the premise of the Hobby Lobby ruling at all.
Read Rdowns post from five minutes ago.
This is and will spread much further than the "narrow" ruling the court claimed it was.
His link said that the ruling could be expanded to "all contraceptives" which makes sense if any and all contraception is against the owner's religion (ie catholic). It also said the court refused to review cases of employees seeking to become exempt from providing any and all insurance coverage on religious grounds.
What more does that link prove?
One step closer to single-payer! Hopefully someone will sue saying that providing ANY medical care/insurance goes against their religion, and thus will have to be provided by someone else (the government). And single-payer is born!
"I told you so!" Who checks Supreme Court predictions against what actually happens?
I sometimes wonder what happens back in the Justices private chambers. Given that some justices have, in effect, been making predictions in recent opinions, I wonder if they play "I told you so!" ?
You know, things like, after Citizens United, whether there /will be/won't be/ a flood of money, or, after Hobby Lobby, whether or not everybody and his cousin will want a religious exemption from some law or other for his corporation.
It could be pretty fun to be a fly on the wall.
this might make some GOP nutjob brave enough to try to ban contraception completely. there are plenty wanting too but most are at least smart enough to know it would be their doom. but then you have legitimate rape and the such so you never know.
The more I think about this is I know see in my minds eye the religious right going nuts when "CAIR" wants something limited from a law.
The Pandora's box is now open and this is going to come back and bite them (the religious right) in the future.
Yes but it will be presented to the base as Sharia Law.
there are christian leaders that are dominionists and believe we should bring back biblical justice and they have political followers. they are just waiting their time till they think they can come into power.
I believe that they prefer to refer to themselves as part of the New Apostolic Reformation. If I am not mistaken, Both Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry are associated with/part of this movement.
(Edit: Another source here.)
yes rick perry for sure his father is one crazy cuban. Michele Bachmann is just too crazy and lacks intelligence for it.
And here we go.
Meh. This will never fly. I think mostly everyone was expecting SCOTUS to rule in favor of hobby lobby. I genuinely doubt they would rule in favor of Eden foods or in favor of anti-gay religious leaders. Especially Kennedy.