The backfiring of the Hobby Lobby decision is the Satanic Temple's case claiming that their deeply held religious belief is that no one can violate their bodily autonomy. It's one of their seven tenets.

Thus, the 72 hour waiting period for abortions in Missouri, combined with the fact that there is just one abortion clinic in the state, is a violation of this woman's religious freedom.

In the secular west it isn't a matter of banning the private sector, but if we are to err in law, it is better to err to the side of minorities and those with less power. Otherwise you can have money, combined with politics and or religion and that can cause a monopoly. Our system of checks and balances is supposed to prevent abuse of money and power, it isn't there to prevent differences, just prevent abuse of power. And between a CEO and a store clerk, only one between the two can afford fleets of lawyers.

(February 11, 2016 at 12:22 pm)Mathilda Wrote:

(February 9, 2016 at 8:51 pm)TrueChristian Wrote: To what extant should religious liberty in this nation be respected?

Which nation?

It is our job as non Christians to be happy with house pet status. Our majority won't flip out as long as we know that our place is at the back of the bus, despite "no religious test". We simply have to know our place in the religious social pecking order.

The utter stupidity of their logic is they really truly believe they are different than the theocracies of the Middle East, not understanding that our secular anti monopoly First Amendment is what prevents us from looking like that.

(February 15, 2016 at 5:05 am)robvalue Wrote: Otherwise, people can just make up any shit on the spot, call it their religion, and ignore any secular law they want.

Exactly.

The idea that all rights are untrammeled is silly. All rights have limits.

(February 15, 2016 at 11:49 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(February 15, 2016 at 5:05 am)robvalue Wrote: Otherwise, people can just make up any shit on the spot, call it their religion, and ignore any secular law they want.

Exactly.

The idea that all rights are untrammeled is silly.  All rights have limits.

Yep agreed. It is stupid logic to equate regulations to all out bans. Roads exist and cars exist but you cant legally go 100mph through a school zone. Those laws aren't anti road, much less anti car.

We have anti monopoly concepts and voting for a reason. Because that is the civil way to settle differences. Losing sometimes is not a violation to your rights.

(February 15, 2016 at 2:01 am)SteelCurtain Wrote: 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.

Then they are fucktards, and must be forcibly sterilized to save future humanity.

Seriously, though, this does bring up other kinds of liberty which depend on deliberate ignorance: like the liberty to teach creationism in science class. With this, I'm much less on board.

(February 15, 2016 at 2:41 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: 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.

wtf?
I don't think the Bible says, "Be fruitful and multiply. . . except if you're an old white dude then do whatever you want."

Viagra and Cialis should be fine. . . for them OR for us. That could be thought of as health care, since it makes functional an organ that might otherwise be nonfunctional. I'm for it. I can't imagine HL would be against things like drugs that increase the amout of eggs released etc., or against female equivalents to viagra . . would they? But vasectomies? Are you sure? Cuz if they support vasectomies, they are clearly sexist hypocrite fucks and there's little more to say about HL.

(February 15, 2016 at 2:41 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: 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.

(emphasis is mine)

Fucking hypocrites, they are.

(February 15, 2016 at 5:47 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(February 15, 2016 at 2:41 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: 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.

wtf?
I don't think the Bible says, "Be fruitful and multiply. . . except if you're an old white dude then do whatever you want."

Viagra and Cialis should be fine. . . for them OR for us. That could be thought of as health care, since it makes functional an organ that might otherwise be nonfunctional. I'm for it. I can't imagine HL would be against things like drugs that increase the amout of eggs released etc., or against female equivalents to viagra . . would they? But vasectomies? Are you sure? Cuz if they support vasectomies, they are clearly sexist hypocrite fucks and there's little more to say about HL.

I think it speaks to the sexism of their avowed faith more than anything else, and that's why I think SCOTUS screwed the pooch on that decision.

Also I'd just like to add that pregnancy is indeed a health issue even though it involves a woman's body working normally. The sensitivity of the fetus to outside factors which can and do cross the placenta, coupled with the fact that childbirth itself it still a very risky and sometimes fatal process, means that it is a health issue, to my mind. As for abortion, I don't like the idea of forcing anyone to fund something which they find antithetical, but the social contract rather relies on exactly that sort of compromise.

(February 15, 2016 at 7:23 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: As for abortion, I don't like the idea of forcing anyone to fund something which they find antithetical, but the social contract rather relies on exactly that sort of compromise.

That's fair enough. The problem with the US is that the constitution separates church and state. And for those of you who will happily watch the state overrule religious institutions, be careful-- because we are then one Republican presidential win away from seeing Christianity instituted as the official religion of the states. Because for all their hollering about the Constitution, they will fuck it to hell if it means they can put up a virtual Confederate flag.

I think it's best to tread lightly in these matters.