(February 12, 2016 at 10:33 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Religious liberty is more broadly is about freedom of conscience. A moral objection is a moral objection regardless of whether it is religiously motivated. Think pacifism. If you curtail the liberties of the religious you have also undermined everyone's liberty to act in accordance with their consciences, including atheists.

To a surprising extent, I agree with this. But the point is that you and I do not have a right to act in accordance with our consciences when doing so violates the law or enacts discrimination against one group or another. I could not, for instance, refuse to hire a Christian simply because s/he is a Christian.

A lot of noise has been made about the 'gay cake' issue. I make and sell guitars for a living. Suppose I refused to sell one of my instruments to someone who informed me that he needed it to perform at a Christian wedding. He's not asking me to appear at the wedding, he's not asking me to inlay INRI into the guitar, he's not asking me to take part in any way. But I consider Christianity to be bad for people. If I sold him the guitar, I would in some way be helping to confirm what my conscience tells me is a counterproductive worldview. In effect, I would be refusing service to Christians simply because they are Christians. For me to do this would be just as wrong as a baker not selling a cake for a gay wedding.

Freedoms of different groups in a society often conflict with each other, which is why laws are in place to accommodate different views.

Boru

(February 11, 2016 at 7:36 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(February 11, 2016 at 5:22 pm)The_Empress Wrote: So you're not going to admit you were utterly and horribly wrong about the whole thing? You haven't bothered to look into it further, despite the fact that you were SO adamant about it?

Like I said: intellectually dishonest. Also, no; I will not respect you for any reason, let alone your shallow one here. You deserve no respect from me, liar.

Deliberately drawing on other threads in a clear ad hom attack is trolling. Are you going to follow the guy thread to thread, using quotes and links to make sure that his voice in new threads is silenced?

I think PMs and complaints to admins would be a more appropriate way of dealing with him if he's violating forum rules. If he's not, then I'm pretty sure you are. To be frank, if I was Chad, I would complain to admins-- though I doubt he will bother.

Why not practice what you preach and use the appropriate channels if you think anyone is violating forum Rules, instead of using open threads to do it?

(February 14, 2016 at 8:41 pm)Stimbo Wrote:

(February 11, 2016 at 7:36 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Deliberately drawing on other threads in a clear ad hom attack is trolling.  Are you going to follow the guy thread to thread, using quotes and links to make sure that his voice in new threads is silenced?

I think PMs and complaints to admins would be a more appropriate way of dealing with him if he's violating forum rules.  If he's not, then I'm pretty sure you are.  To be frank, if I was Chad, I would complain to admins-- though I doubt he will bother.

Why not practice what you preach and use the appropriate channels if you think anyone is violating forum Rules, instead of using open threads to do it?

And so your response to my hypocrisy is to do the exact same thing?

I considered recommending that Chad complain (I doubt he would), but I felt that it was worth airing this publicly, as it wasn't so much a rule violation as an irrelevant response to this thread.  Surely, if someone is saying something irrelevant to the thread, you can say, "Stop trolling.  Your ad hom attack is irrelevant to this thread."

That being said, the horse has been sufficiently flogged at this point, so I suppose it's probably /thread.

Except I haven't done the same thing, because I wasn't pointing out any rule breach. I'm merely reminding you of appropriate procedure. Which is sort of my job.

Adherence to the laws of the land here in America trump any religious faith, if the two conflict. This is not a "violation of religious freedom", it is enshrining the rule of law as paramount.

As for Hobby Lobby et al not wanting their plans to offer birth control or abortion coverage on religious grounds, I think it needs to be said how much those employers contribute towards the premiums. I know that often jobs like that will offer plans with no employer contribution at all. If HL is helping pay the premiums, I can see their concerns as valid, but if not, then it is between the insurance company and the employee, no?

(February 15, 2016 at 12:30 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Adherence to the laws of the land here in America trump any religious faith, if the two conflict. This is not a "violation of religious freedom", it is enshrining the rule of law as paramount.

As for Hobby Lobby et al not wanting their plans to offer birth control or abortion coverage on religious grounds, I think it needs to be said how much those employers contribute towards the premiums. I know that often jobs like that will offer plans with no employer contribution at all. If HL is helping pay the premiums, I can see their concerns as valid, but if not, then it is between the insurance company and the employee, no?

In Korea, employers are required to pay half of the government-run health care-- which is maybe $50, so pretty trivial.  I'd assume that Hobby Lobby is paying at least in part for the health care, because if not, they aren't complicit in any of the actions (like abortions or pills) that the health-care plan takes with employees.  To refuse THAT would be fucking outrageous. But I'm never surprised when America surprises me.

(February 15, 2016 at 1:37 am)bennyboy Wrote: In Korea, employers are required to pay half of the government-run health care-- which is maybe $50, so pretty trivial.  I'd assume that Hobby Lobby is paying at least in part for the health care, because if not, they aren't complicit in any of the actions (like abortions or pills) that the health-care plan takes with employees.  To refuse THAT would be fucking outrageous. But I'm never surprised when America surprises me.

If it were not a malicious attempt to deny their employees the very access to contraception, I might agree with you, bennyboy. But Hobby Lobby's argument was not that contraception was against their religious conscience, it was that BC Pills cause abortions. The entire case was hinged on the question of whether a company could have a belief that was based on nothing more than their false understanding of a concept. They used the term abortifacients at all times, not contraception or birth control. Despite literally every expert witness refuting the idea that the pill causes spontaneous abortion rather than preventing conception, the reason the decision was disastrous was because it 1) created a precedent where a company can have a belief, and 2) that belief, no matter how fallacious it is, is valid if it is "deeply held."

Now, these companies are taking to the SCOTUS cases wherein they assert that merely filling out the exemption form violates their religious liberty. They claim that filling out the form and opting out of coverage helps their employees get ACA access to them otherwise. They are not content with the fact that they don't have to provide anything for their employees, but the fact that their employees can still get access to reproductive healthcare despite them is now being called a violation of their religious liberty as well.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/religious-fre...-amendment

Benny, a little research indicates that HL does indeed fund their own insurance.

I also learnt that they have no objections to Viagra or Cialis, or vasectomies, being covered.

Just them damn wermerns trying to kill babies!!

(February 15, 2016 at 12:30 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Adherence to the laws of the land here in America trump any religious faith, if the two conflict. This is not a "violation of religious freedom", it is enshrining the rule of law as paramount.

As for Hobby Lobby et al not wanting their plans to offer birth control or abortion coverage on religious grounds, I think it needs to be said how much those employers contribute towards the premiums. I know that often jobs like that will offer plans with no employer contribution at all. If HL is helping pay the premiums, I can see their concerns as valid, but if not, then it is between the insurance company and the employee, no?

It has to be that way, if you want any kind of sensible country.

Otherwise, people can just make up any shit on the spot, call it their religion, and ignore any secular law they want.