Christ Centered Gamer

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06 ... bby-lobby/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

close margin 5-4

I'm going to have to agree with Justice Ginsburg's dissenting opinion.

"Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."

...

"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."

And that's all I have to say about that.

I can agree with the sentiment of Ginsburg's dissent. Despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth on the left, this decision was very focused. It should have been much, much wider.

Sarcasm Begin

That would undoubtedly have pleased the honorable justice.

Sarcasm End

Serious portion of post:

I'm still waiting til I can get unlimited quantities of alcohol at any age and commit acts of extreme violence in the name of my religion.




Anecdote:


I trolled someone on facebook so hard over this crap.

Being honest I couldn't care less about the decision, but someone made the mistake of saying no one within our borders has a right to resist the government, which combined with the fact that he was ripping into one of my childhood friends triggered my anarchist berserkr mode. After playing him into admitting his stance was discriminatory and that he was generally an uneducated, hubristic fool, he called me a right wing bigot who hates minorities, women, and liberals of any kind.

....

I proceeded to point out that anarchism is extreme leftism, as opposed to his penny ante white boy liberalism, and that saying an Asian hates minorities kinda makes him look like a dumb queynte. And, you know, that I actually follow the Aesir. His confusion at the idea someone actually cares enough to argue without being christian was amusing.

Orodrist wrote:Serious portion of post:

I'm still waiting til I can get unlimited quantities of alcohol at any age and commit acts of extreme violence in the name of my religion.

You equate a company being exempted from paying for certain types of birth control (Hobby Lobby will still pay for 16 of 20!) on religious grounds with a stepping stone toward government permitting violence in the name of religion?

I'd ask if you were being sarcastic, but you're not by your own admission.

Get some perspective, dude. A decision that says, "You can't be forced to drive into a concrete wall," isn't permitting you to drive your car through a parade full of people. As a self-professed anarchist you should recognize the difference between the state compelling a person to act and a person acting of their own volition.

Though in my experience anarchists are usually statists in disguise.

I don't need sanction, I just need them to stop interfering. You only gain entrance into Valhalla or Folkvangr through death in battle, and it's hard to die in battle when the dang pigs keep butting in the middle of a scrap.

Interfering with what?

Interfering with my fighting. Let me be more explicit since you seem to be perpetually missing points.

I'm Asatru. I follow Odin and Freya and the gods of my forefathers. By interrupting a fight, the pigs are interfering with the practice of my religion, as in order to attain our positive afterlife (though to be fair, what we call Hel is hardly your barbaric Judeo-Christian hell) we have to fall bravely in combat.

Oh selderane,
there are somethings you should probably know about Oro.
Oro doesn't aways mean what he says. (from what I gather at least. )
He also likes to play the role as... what was it again Oro?

Even then though, I know Oro has a heart of gold in there.
It really stands out at times.

Oh I'm dead serious.

I seem to remember someone once describing you as a "non-practicing pagan"?

Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly, but is this you Orodrist?

btw, slang interpretations: pigs = cops, or any sort of government employee (except mailmen. Who doesn't like mailmen?)

Nope, definitely practicing. Norse religious practices involve mostly fighting and drinking though.

Deepfreeze32 wrote:I'm going to have to agree with Justice Ginsburg's dissenting opinion.

"Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today's decision."

...

"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."

And that's all I have to say about that.

I have to agree with Ginsburg as well, which is odd. What also is odd is that I view it as a good thing. If an employer doesn't want to be forced to pay for something because it's against his or her religion, then he or she should not be forced to pay for it. Not just abortion, but anything. Simple as that. Jewish butchers should not be forced to sell bacon, for example. Christian book publishers should not be forced to print smut novels. Orodrist should not be forced into singing "give peace a chance."

Seriously, man. It might break your brain or make you go crazy(ier) or something. We like having you around.

Here is another opinion piece about the ruling that I thought made a lot of sense. One of the things that the author points out should be obvious - this decision does NOT ban "morning after" pills or other abortifacients. If someone wants to get something like that, all they have to do is go out and buy it (or I'm sure Planned Parenthood or other groups that want to legalize infanticide will be willing to give it away...). All it does is ensure that an employer doesn't pay for it themselves, if they disagree with it on religious grounds. If it's really that much of a sticking point for where you work, then why not go look for another job?

The question is where do you draw the line though? Sure we can all agree that Muslims who own a shop shouldn't be forced to sell alcohol, Catholic charities shouldn't be forced to give out birth control, Hindu restaurants should not be forced to serve beef, or Jewish shops forced to sell bacon, but what about more questionable religious practices?

Let's start with the blood transfusions for example, should that be allowed? What about a religious sect that doesn't believe in vaccinations or mental health? How about one of those snake handling groups that believe in handling poisonous snakes as a sign of their faith and do not believe in seeking anti-venom? They may be somewhat extreme examples but these do exist.

I am not saying I am against the ruling, because we need these religious freedoms, but a lot more needs to be fleshed out in order to prevent misuse. In my opinion, all rights come with responsibilities attached to them, and we must abide by those responsibilities. One of the responsibilities in this case is not allowing certain "religious" beliefs to put people in life-threatening situations for no good reason. This isn't like free speech issues where the main consequence is hurting people with words, we are talking life or death here in some cases.

RoosterOnAStick wrote: Let's start with the blood transfusions for example, should that be allowed? What about a religious sect that doesn't believe in vaccinations or mental health? How about one of those snake handling groups that believe in handling poisonous snakes as a sign of their faith and do not believe in seeking anti-venom? They may be somewhat extreme examples but these do exist.

If an employer attempts to force their employees to do any of those (and in the first two examples, I'm not sure how they could...), then the employee can simply find a different place to work. Similarly, if a customer doesn't like that the owner of that establishment believes in X, they can refuse to shop there. (I happen to do this, myself.) In instances like these - which would be exceedingly rare, I might point out - let the free market decide. If the owner of the company finds that they can't hire anyone and no one is shopping there, it might encourage them to consider a different approach.