| Author |
|
Conrad Teves
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 January 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 2301
|
| Posted: 02 July 2014 at 12:50am | IP Logged | 1
|
|
|
Can anyone, coportation or otherwise, pick and choose which laws they are going to obey, or to what degree they will obey them?
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Joe Welsh
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Posts: 197
|
| Posted: 02 July 2014 at 1:06am | IP Logged | 2
|
|
|
Can anyone, coportation or otherwise, pick and choose which laws they are going to obey, or to what degree they will obey them?
Well, that's an interesting question...Let go to the supreme example, can Presidents pick and choose what laws they are going to enforce? in the last decade the example has been set. President has been set, why not everyone follow the example?
Joe
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Koroush Ghazi
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 October 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1696
|
| Posted: 02 July 2014 at 1:11am | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Marcel Chenier wrote:
| Take vasectomies: by a not too convoluted religious translation, this could be considered the grandest affront to the Sky God on account of its being the ultimate pre-emptive abortion. |
|
|
Precisely. If we examine the beliefs at the heart of this issue, the absurdity and hypocrisy of them becomes apparent.
For example, the same people and organizations that staunchly defend the "right to life" and "every life is sacred" dogma seem to have no problems investing money into (directly or indirectly), working with, or otherwise supporting military activities. War is the greatest affront to the concept of the sanctity of life. How many "Christian" businesses happily profit in some way from servicing the military, or organizations connected to the military? Why don't we see the Catholic church excommunicating military leaders? Why don't we see local churches leading prominent anti-war protests?
Why? Because the edict against abortion has nothing to do with the sanctity of life, and everything to do with increasing the number of Christians. Abortion reduces the membership levels, so it's bad (same with euthanasia and suicide). War on the other hand has traditionally benefited the Church: it reduces the number of people of other faiths (their life is not so sacred!); it provides potential converts; and also allows the acquisition of additional wealth and/or territory. So aside from the Pope mouthing a few meaningless words lamenting war every now and then, it is essentially seen as OK by the church.
And don't even get me started on the tax exempt status that religious organizations enjoy...
We're meant to have a rational discussion about this nonsense? The only truly rational discussion begins and ends with the statement: if you want to practice your superstitions, do so without receiving any benefit or exemption from the rest of society.
Edited by Koroush Ghazi on 02 July 2014 at 1:16am
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Joe Welsh
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Posts: 197
|
| Posted: 02 July 2014 at 1:13am | IP Logged | 4
|
|
|
Can anyone, coportation or otherwise, pick and choose which laws they are going to obey, or to what degree they will obey them? me
As citizens of a free country, it is my duty to always question the laws that my government passes. supposedly if i can get a majority of people to agree with me i can get laws, taxes and regulations changed. Hobby Lobby did what they were supposed to do in this country and the the supreme court in the land agreed with them. The court agreed narrowly with the defendant and yet all i see if people claiming that it equates to women being chained and bound.
Joe
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Joe Welsh
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 19 April 2004
Posts: 197
|
| Posted: 02 July 2014 at 1:21am | IP Logged | 5
|
|
|
We're meant to have a rational discussion about this nonsense? The only truly rational discussion begins and ends with the statement: if you want to practice your superstitions, do so without receiving any benefit or exemption from the rest of society.
I do not agree with this statement. One of the founding principals of this country is that I can practice my superstition with out government interference. That means the government cannot make me eat pork or make me pay for my employees people to eat pork if it's against my superstitious practices. am i wrong?
Joe
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Michael Roberts
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 20 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 14888
|
| Posted: 02 July 2014 at 2:08am | IP Logged | 6
|
|
|
One of the founding principals of this country is that I can practice my superstition with out government interference. That means the government cannot make me eat pork or make me pay for my employees people to eat pork if it's against my superstitious practices. am i wrong?
-----
Your analogy is silly, but on the broader point, yes, you are wrong. The RFRA and the Hobby Lobby decision both acknowledge that the government CAN impose a burden on the exercise of religion if it serves a compelling government interest. What this decision hinged on is that the RFRA requires the government to find the least restrictive means to further the government's interest, and in the majority's opinion the contraceptive mandate did not do so. But one's superstitious practices would not be able to trump the government's compelling interest in providing an equal opportunity for employment without regard to race, which is an example given in the Hobby Lobby decision.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Koroush Ghazi
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 25 October 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 1696
|
| Posted: 02 July 2014 at 2:46am | IP Logged | 7
|
|
|
So Joe, you would be fine if a Muslim business decided not to provide a clothing allowance or uniform to employees unless the clothes being purchased were "suitably modest" (i.e. veils for female employees).
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
e-mail
|
| |
Steven Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 10 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5727
|
| Posted: 02 July 2014 at 7:32am | IP Logged | 8
|
|
|
One problem I have is Hobby Lobby doesn't want to provide these types of contraception because, despite no scientific evidence to support this, they believe these things can cause an abortion maybe sometimes perhaps. So Hobby Lobby is allowed to use irrational reasons to not follow a Health Care law. And the law doesn't make the owners of Hobby Lobby, or anyone else use these drugs, it just allows access to those who want them.
It therefore shifts the burden on women who want these drugs to having to get them themselves just so they satisfy the superstitions of their employers. This is why it's bigotry. It only affects women. But we know that many religions freely practice and brag about their bigotry, and their followers cheer them for it.
I do agree that the ultimate solution is government-provided health care for all. Everyone pays into it, and everyone gets what they want out of it.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
John Byrne
Grumpy Old Guy
Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 134284
|
| Posted: 02 July 2014 at 9:44am | IP Logged | 9
|
|
|
I do agree that the ultimate solution is government-provided health care for all. Everyone pays into it, and everyone gets what they want out of it.••• Are you sure? Once you let the government take control of part of your life, how long before that control starts spreading? It's a two edged sword.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Steven Myers
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 10 June 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5727
|
| Posted: 02 July 2014 at 11:19am | IP Logged | 10
|
|
|
Health care should be government-provided because everyone needs it. It's okay for a poor guy to have a small apartment and take the bus to work, a middle class guy to have a small residence and drive a decent Chevy, and a rich guy to have a mansion (or two) and be chauffeured places. But if they all get cancer, they all need the same treatment. That's why Health Care should be a right and one of those things that should be government provided.
Granted, it's difficult. Universal coverage is something only a few countries have succeeded in providing. Off hand, I can only think of England, France, Sweden, Taiwan, Australia, Canada, Germany, Spain...
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
|
| |
Conrad Teves
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 28 January 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 2301
|
| Posted: 02 July 2014 at 11:51am | IP Logged | 11
|
|
|
Joe>>That means the government cannot make me eat pork or make me pay for my employees people to eat pork if it's against my superstitious practices. am i wrong?<<
Can you not see the difference between requiring you to eat pork, vs requiring you to provide it? People cook/serve stuff at restaurants all the time that they would personally not eat.
There's a lot of people (everyone?) who have used the phrase "I don't want my tax dollars used for _________", but they still have to do it unless they get the law changed. What SCOTUS has done here is saying my beliefs now outweigh the Law in a way I get to decide on how it's applied as I wish. We've had problems here in Minneapolis with Muslim cab drivers refusing to pick up fares because they had dogs with them. Even Seeing-Eye dogs. That's people exercising the above.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
| www
e-mail
|
| |
Eric Doyle
Byrne Robotics Member
Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 302
|
| Posted: 02 July 2014 at 1:20pm | IP Logged | 12
|
|
|
I do agree that the ultimate solution is government-provided health care for all. Everyone pays into it, and everyone gets what they want out of it.
---------------------------------------
The Government typically does two things very well, collect money and spend money. Looking at recent issues:
Post Office
Social Security
Education
Infrastructure
VA Affairs
Immigration
Affordable Care Act
NSA
IRS
- All of the above have problems and not small ones. There is not enough accountability in Government. In the private sector, if I don't get good service I usually can fire them, or have some sort of recourse, not the same with Uncle Sam. Sure, we can "vote the bums out", but typically the damage is done. I want basic services provided, but keep my taxes low and I'll find and decide my own health care.
|
| Back to Top |
profile
| search
|
| |
Topic Closed)
