Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So I have freedom of religion as long as my foot doesn't stand on tax supported soil? That's restricted freedom of religion. I'm surprised you didn't argue that the street corner is public property so you can't hand out missives there.
You are attacking a straw man.
I added the street corner thing precisely to illustrate what you can do. It is a public space, you are a private citizen. Go nuts. Wear a billboard, use flashing lights. State your piece. When you go for lunch, another person can take your place. Maybe they agree with you, maybe they oppose you. But all have access.
Putting ONE picture of ONE religion on a permanent basis is very different. Placing a permanent monument on a public space so that I am deprived of the option to do the same thing is an establishment of religion.
Quote:
I still fail to see how a simple picture equates to pushes or establishing an official religion of the United States. It is merely acknowledging that such and such religion exists. Even our own government traditionally has acknowledged a divine creator.
See above. It is biased and deprives others of equal opportunity.
How would you feel if I was the principal of your kid's school and put up a picture of Ba'al at the school entrance.
Yes, rules change. And those who say that they changed unconstitutionally have a different opinion from that of SCOTUS, who did agree that it was a constitutional change.
But aside from that, having employers opt out of laws because they have a religious objection to what their employees might do on their own time is bizarre.
If the owners of Hobby Lobby don't want to take birth control, fine, they do not have to. You are supporting their desire to impose their personal religion on their employees, and how their employees conduct their private lives. This is what makes atheists wary of Christians.
But let's assume that the Hobby Lobby prevails, and it becomes law for a private corporation to impose the religious beliefs of its owners upon its employees. The following results are possible and/or likely.
Scientologists opt out of psychological care for their employees.
JW opt out of transfusions.
Westboro Baptist followers (in their secular businesses) opt out of coverage for LGBT.
Christian Scientists opt out of health care entirely.
I opt out of coverage for left handed people, because I hate them, and I devoutly believe that they are satanic.
Where does it stop?
Let's take it a step farther. Say that a Hobby Lobby exec finds out that an employee had an abortion last week. Do you dock her pay by $500? After all, she earned that money by working at HL, and used it to do something that offends them.
What people do on their own time, with their own earned money/earned benefits, is their own business. Religious people need to understand that and stop interfering in the private lives of adults. What ever happened to the concept of American freedom?
I hadn't though of all those groups that might try to use their religion to opt of of something. Your statement is absolutely correct, though, (except for that part about lefties).
You are only looking at the issue from the side of the employee. The employee has the freedom to go work somewhere else if they don't share Hobby Lobby's Christian values or like their benefits package. An employer should have the right to establish the level of benefits that they want to provide.
Now if they promised to provide birth control and then denied it to an employee then the employee has a right to complain. The issue at hand is that the employer is being forced to establish benefits that they feel are morally wrong. It would be equivalent to the government forcing a PETA organization to provide compensation for hunting license fees for all their employees.
Hobby Lobby is a corporation and therefore has no values.
And I don't see why atheists go balllistic over something like a cross memorial to a fallen soldier. WHat happened to showing a little bit of respect and tolerance for someone's religious beliefs? I don't get all up in arms if I see a Star of David memorial on government property.
You'd have to ask an atheist. I'm not one. However, I doubt you feel that Judaism is oppressive.
So I have freedom of religion as long as my foot doesn't stand on tax supported soil? That's restricted freedom of religion. I'm surprised you didn't argue that the street corner is public property so you can't hand out missives there.
I still fail to see how a simple picture equates to pushes or establishing an official religion of the United States. It is merely acknowledging that such and such religion exists. Even our own government traditionally has acknowledged a divine creator.
You may fail to see it, but the Supreme Court didn't have any problem recognizing the problem and ruling against it. BTW, acknowledging the existence of a "divine creator" is not favoring one religion over another, since many religions recognize some "supreme power."
I hadn't though of all those groups that might try to use their religion to opt of of something. Your statement is absolutely correct, though, (except for that part about lefties).
That is really the biggest problem of course. If you allow for a corporate religious exemption to a law, anybody can exempt their business from anything on the basis of religion.
A case can be made for discrimination against any EEOC protected group because your particular religious viewpoint says that it is necessary. You could exempt yourself from minimum wage rules because your religion mandates slavery.
Btw, I must spread some rep around before giving you more. You have to settle for an attaboy.
You may fail to see it, but the Supreme Court didn't have any problem recognizing the problem and ruling against it. BTW, acknowledging the existence of a "divine creator" is not favoring one religion over another, since many religions recognize some "supreme power."
Just because it's called the Supreme Court doesn't mean they always make the right decisions. Certainly, their decision to support Obamacare stands as an example of bad judgement.
Just because it's called the Supreme Court doesn't mean they always make the right decisions. Certainly, their decision to support Obamacare stands as an example of bad judgement.
However, the Supreme Court is as far as you can appeal anything. If you want to overstep the Supreme Court call your Congressman and ask for a new law or a new Amendment.
Obamacase is best left in the P&OC form since it has nothing to do with religion. Otherwise, I'd debate their judgment on that issue as well as several others.
I'm sorry...perhaps I misunderstood what you were referring to. I agree---the Hobby Lobby thing is more about government control and birth control/abortion. But they're stepping on their religious freedom.
How is it possible for a corporation to have "religious freedom?"
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
