So, the SCOTUS sided with Hobby Lobby

[FatAndFaithless]

Actually, that part I get. They mean a corporation owned by a very small like-minded group of people can have a religious orientation. Hobby Lobby is entirely family owned.

But one thing is the orientation of the people another thing is the collective entity. The entity is formed by the people but both are separate. Objection of conscience can happen if a particular employer is against something, but the whole corporation can't be religious biased. Associations and foundations can, but corporations and enterprises can't, usually they search for profit only.

It's not so much that Hobby Lobby is 'religious' corporation as a whole, it's just that it's owners and shareholders (very few in number and nearly all in the same family) have their religious beliefs. The decision says that the law cannot force them to provide insurance (i.e. spend their money) for the morning after pill because they are exercising their religious freedom.

[Mudhammam]

Funny how a "Christian" corporation can claim righteous indignation at the idea of providing their employees basic health services AND then turn a blind eye to worker's conditions in a country they rely on for a good deal of their product (China).

[Dystopia]

But one thing is the orientation of the people another thing is the collective entity. The entity is formed by the people but both are separate. Objection of conscience can happen if a particular employer is against something, but the whole corporation can't be religious biased. Associations and foundations can, but corporations and enterprises can't, usually they search for profit only.

It's not so much that Hobby Lobby is 'religious' corporation as a whole, it's just that it's owners and shareholders (very few in number and nearly all in the same family) have their religious beliefs. The decision says that the law cannot force them to provide insurance (i.e. spend their money) for the morning after pill because they are exercising their religious freedom.

Well it is clearly objection of conscience. The decision of the american court (supreme or whatever, I don't know the name) was the right one according to legality, I'm 100% sure of this. It sucks, it may be unethical and stupid, but this is the way the law works, even though I have my doubts against objection of conscience for religious reasons being taken so far. Could I refuse to hire a gay or an atheist because they are against my faith? Could a doctor refuse to treat an atheist or a gay? Can I make a law supporting executions of everyone the bible says that should be executed (just because it says so in the holy book)? It seems to me this is going to far and it collides with national health and family planning. As someone who wishes to be a judge, and since my atheism will have 0 relevance to my decisions (principle of impartiality) I can't tell you what my decision would be in this case, considering the current laws and principles of the constitution.

[Anomalocaris]

Funny how a "Christian" corporation can claim righteous indignation at the idea of providing their employees basic health services AND then turn a blind eye to worker's conditions in a country they rely on for a good deal of their product (China).

People must live to suffer, which is why Christians wants people who could only suffer to live.

[Mister Agenda]

Bleh, at least their decision was very narrowly defined, i.e. specifically only for the morning after pill (I believe), so Jehovah's Witnesses can't refuse blood transfusions, Catholics can't refuse condoms, etc.

Yes, that's good...but it's unclear what reasoning allows them to allow Hobby Lobby to evade covering certain types of birth control, that doesn't apply to a Jehovah's Witness business owner not being able to do the same. At first glance, the reasoning seems to be based on none of the justices being a JW.

[FatAndFaithless]

It's not so much that Hobby Lobby is 'religious' corporation as a whole, it's just that it's owners and shareholders (very few in number and nearly all in the same family) have their religious beliefs. The decision says that the law cannot force them to provide insurance (i.e. spend their money) for the morning after pill because they are exercising their religious freedom.

Well it is clearly objection of conscience. The decision of the american court (supreme or whatever, I don't know the name) was the right one according to legality, I'm 100% sure of this. It sucks, it may be unethical and stupid, but this is the way the law works, even though I have my doubts against objection of conscience for religious reasons being taken so far. Could I refuse to hire a gay or an atheist because they are against my faith? Could a doctor refuse to treat an atheist or a gay? Can I make a law supporting executions of everyone the bible says that should be executed (just because it says so in the holy book)? It seems to me this is going to far and it collides with national health and family planning. As someone who wishes to be a judge, and since my atheism will have 0 relevance to my decisions (principle of impartiality) I can't tell you what my decision would be in this case, considering the current laws and principles of the constitution.

Taking your points in order (to the best of my knowledge anyway)
1)Could I refuse to hire a gay or an atheist because they are against my faith?

No. There are federal non-discrimination laws on the books that prevent employment judgment based on gender, sexuality, race, religion...and a couple other protected statuses (can't remember them all off the top of my head). Certain states have proposed laws that would allow business owners to refuse service to gay people or atheists based on relgious grounds, such as in Arizona (but that vetoed by their governor), and I think Oklahoma is trying another one of those bills. I doubt any of those would get anywhere though, since that would mean people could deny service to Christians too.

2)Could a doctor refuse to treat an atheist or a gay?

As far as I'm aware, no. The Hippocratic oath makes doctors beholden to provide treatment to everyone. As far as a hospital goes however, they can decline to use certain treatments or drugs based on religious objections, but as far as I'm aware an individual doctor cannot.

3)Can I make a law supporting executions of everyone the bible says that should be executed (just because it says so in the holy book)?

No, that's just silly.

---

Bleh, at least their decision was very narrowly defined, i.e. specifically only for the morning after pill (I believe), so Jehovah's Witnesses can't refuse blood transfusions, Catholics can't refuse condoms, etc.

Yes, that's good...but it's unclear what reasoning allows them to allow Hobby Lobby to evade covering certain types of birth control, that doesn't apply to a Jehovah's Witness business owner not being able to do the same. At first glance, the reasoning seems to be based on none of the justices being a JW.

I think the big part is that not providing funding for a morning after pill doesnt act against the interest of the government, seeing as it's a non-essental, non-emergency contraceptive that doesn't really prevent any sort of disease, whereas blood transfusions are a treatment in and of themselves, and restricting those would be denying treatment.

[Dystopia]

[quote='blackout94' pid='699150' dateline='1404155275']

Well it is clearly objection of conscience. The decision of the american court (supreme or whatever, I don't know the name) was the right one according to legality, I'm 100% sure of this. It sucks, it may be unethical and stupid, but this is the way the law works, even though I have my doubts against objection of conscience for religious reasons being taken so far. Could I refuse to hire a gay or an atheist because they are against my faith? Could a doctor refuse to treat an atheist or a gay? Can I make a law supporting executions of everyone the bible says that should be executed (just because it says so in the holy book)? It seems to me this is going to far and it collides with national health and family planning. As someone who wishes to be a judge, and since my atheism will have 0 relevance to my decisions (principle of impartiality) I can't tell you what my decision would be in this case, considering the current laws and principles of the constitution.

Taking your points in order (to the best of my knowledge anyway)
1)Could I refuse to hire a gay or an atheist because they are against my faith?

No. There are federal non-discrimination laws on the books that prevent employment judgment based on gender, sexuality, race, religion...and a couple other protected statuses (can't remember them all off the top of my head). Certain states have proposed laws that would allow business owners to refuse service to gay people or atheists based on relgious grounds, such as in Arizona (but that vetoed by their governor), and I think Oklahoma is trying another one of those bills. I doubt any of those would get anywhere though, since that would mean people could deny service to Christians too.

2)Could a doctor refuse to treat an atheist or a gay?

As far as I'm aware, no. The Hippocratic oath makes doctors beholden to provide treatment to everyone. As far as a hospital goes however, they can decline to use certain treatments or drugs based on religious objections, but as far as I'm aware an individual doctor cannot.

3)Can I make a law supporting executions of everyone the bible says that should be executed (just because it says so in the holy book)?

No, that's just silly.

The negative answers you gave were the obvious ones any sane person would support and any first world state would provide. I was merely putting emphasis to show how religious freedom cannot be absolute, no right is absolute and a lot of rights can be restricted, this should apply to freedom of religion. I am not an american to talk about your laws, but I'm positive any good doctors ethics code forbids them to refuse treatment, at least in case of life and death, because the patient is an atheist or a member of a different religion, or even if the patient is a personal enemy of the doctor. Just like you can't refuse to hire people, workplaces are not religion oriented, as far as I know, you can't even ask in an interview about someone's religion or sexual orientation, this shouldn't have any effect whatsoever, you are not committing a sin by hiring gays or atheists, but merely being impartial.

Like I said, we allow religious freedom in any civilized state, but all rights (except maybe the right to live) can be restricted at some point to avoid collision with other rights. In this case there is damage done to national health right and family planning right because of a few religious people. I don't think I'd decide in favor of the corporation if I was a judge.

[FatAndFaithless]

[quote='blackout94' pid='699150' dateline='1404155275']

Well it is clearly objection of conscience. The decision of the american court (supreme or whatever, I don't know the name) was the right one according to legality, I'm 100% sure of this. It sucks, it may be unethical and stupid, but this is the way the law works, even though I have my doubts against objection of conscience for religious reasons being taken so far. Could I refuse to hire a gay or an atheist because they are against my faith? Could a doctor refuse to treat an atheist or a gay? Can I make a law supporting executions of everyone the bible says that should be executed (just because it says so in the holy book)? It seems to me this is going to far and it collides with national health and family planning. As someone who wishes to be a judge, and since my atheism will have 0 relevance to my decisions (principle of impartiality) I can't tell you what my decision would be in this case, considering the current laws and principles of the constitution.

Taking your points in order (to the best of my knowledge anyway)
1)Could I refuse to hire a gay or an atheist because they are against my faith?

No. There are federal non-discrimination laws on the books that prevent employment judgment based on gender, sexuality, race, religion...and a couple other protected statuses (can't remember them all off the top of my head). Certain states have proposed laws that would allow business owners to refuse service to gay people or atheists based on relgious grounds, such as in Arizona (but that vetoed by their governor), and I think Oklahoma is trying another one of those bills. I doubt any of those would get anywhere though, since that would mean people could deny service to Christians too.

2)Could a doctor refuse to treat an atheist or a gay?

As far as I'm aware, no. The Hippocratic oath makes doctors beholden to provide treatment to everyone. As far as a hospital goes however, they can decline to use certain treatments or drugs based on religious objections, but as far as I'm aware an individual doctor cannot.

3)Can I make a law supporting executions of everyone the bible says that should be executed (just because it says so in the holy book)?

No, that's just silly.

The negative answers you gave were the obvious ones any sane person would support and any first world state would provide. I was merely putting emphasis to show how religious freedom cannot be absolute, no right is absolute and a lot of rights can be restricted, this should apply to freedom of religion. I am not an american to talk about your laws, but I'm positive any good doctors ethics code forbids them to refuse treatment, at least in case of life and death, because the patient is an atheist or a member of a different religion, or even if the patient is a personal enemy of the doctor. Just like you can't refuse to hire people, workplaces are not religion oriented, as far as I know, you can't even ask in an interview about someone's religion or sexual orientation, this shouldn't have any effect whatsoever, you are not committing a sin by hiring gays or atheists, but merely being impartial.

Like I said, we allow religious freedom in any civilized state, but all rights (except maybe the right to live) can be restricted at some point to avoid collision with other rights. In this case there is damage done to national health right and family planning right because of a few religious people. I don't think I'd decide in favor of the corporation if I was a judge.

I'm not sure where exactly you live in Europe, but I don't think in America there is such a thing as "family planning rights" or "national health rights".

[Dystopia]

The negative answers you gave were the obvious ones any sane person would support and any first world state would provide. I was merely putting emphasis to show how religious freedom cannot be absolute, no right is absolute and a lot of rights can be restricted, this should apply to freedom of religion. I am not an american to talk about your laws, but I'm positive any good doctors ethics code forbids them to refuse treatment, at least in case of life and death, because the patient is an atheist or a member of a different religion, or even if the patient is a personal enemy of the doctor. Just like you can't refuse to hire people, workplaces are not religion oriented, as far as I know, you can't even ask in an interview about someone's religion or sexual orientation, this shouldn't have any effect whatsoever, you are not committing a sin by hiring gays or atheists, but merely being impartial.

Like I said, we allow religious freedom in any civilized state, but all rights (except maybe the right to live) can be restricted at some point to avoid collision with other rights. In this case there is damage done to national health right and family planning right because of a few religious people. I don't think I'd decide in favor of the corporation if I was a judge.

I'm not sure where exactly you live in Europe, but I don't think in America there is such a thing as "family planning rights" or "national health rights".

Where I live the constitution has a right to Healthcare for everyone and a right to family planning, it is a mean of protecting the institution of family. But then again your constitution is a lot shorter than some european constitutions and we don't use amendments, a lot of constitutions in europe have more than 200 articles of rights and duties, principles etc, thanks to the french revolution, and specially after fascism it is a way to ensure people's rights are always protected.

[DeistPaladin]

Where I live the constitution has a right to Healthcare for everyone and a right to family planning, it is a mean of protecting the institution of family. But then again your constitution is a lot shorter than some european constitutions and we don't use amendments, a lot of constitutions in europe have more than 200 articles of rights and duties, principles etc, thanks to the french revolution, and specially after fascism it is a way to ensure people's rights are always protected.

It was once predicted that when fascism comes to America, it would be draped in a flag and carrying a Bible.

I have to say the tri-corner hats and tea bags were a surprise.