If Hobby Lobby can claim their beliefs exempt them from the law why can't atheists?

[Bjorn Against]

Like many other people I have some strong beliefs that I am extremely passionate about, sometimes the law goes against my beliefs but I am still required to follow the law no matter how unjust I may sometimes find it. I am a strong and vocal opponent of war and have shown my commitment by participating in literally hundreds of anti-war demonstrations in the past decade. Despite my very strong beliefs I still have to pay taxes that fund war and I don't think I would get any Supreme Court justices siding with me if I tried to challenge that.

My beliefs are not based on religion, they are based on secular thinking but I fail to see any reason they should be treated differently than religious beliefs by the courts.

If the courts had any respect for equal treatment under the law they would not have even consider Hobby Lobby's argument. The freedom of religion means that people are free to practice their religion and they have protections from laws being put in to place that would target their religious practices, but freedom of religion does not mean they can ignore secular laws that the rest of us have to follow.

To grant religious exemptions to law is discriminatory against non-religious people who may hold beliefs which are every bit as strong as those of a religious person yet they can not claim the same exemptions.

The courts need to treat all beliefs equally, there is absolutely no reason that religious people should be able to claim exemptions for their beliefs but people who have strongly held secular beliefs should not be granted the same exemptions.

To be clear I am not suggesting that exemptions should be granted to anyone on the basis of their beliefs, but if they are going to grant exemptions then it seems discriminatory to grant exemptions to religious people that would not be granted to those who do not share their religion.

[pipoman]

1. Because every atheist i have encountered categorically denies

That atheism is a religion.

[Bjorn Against]

2. Why should that matter?

Why should religious beliefs be treated differently than secular beliefs in a court of law? People can hold secular beliefs every bit as strongly as the religious hold their beliefs. If a person can claim an exemption based on a religious belief can you give me a good reason that a person should not be able to claim the same exemption based on a secular belief?

[joeglow3]

11. The constitution says so.

[Bjorn Against]

17. The Constitution does not say religious beliefs should be treated differently than secular beliefs

[joeglow3]

18. That is the issue at question

The constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion. Historically, this has been interpreted to take precedence unless it violated someone else's constitutional rights (ie the example below regarding Muslims killing people is flawed because killing someone violates their constitutional guaranteed rights). The question, to me, is if the workers have a constitutionally guaranteed right to have birth control provided as part of their health insurance. Honestly, I could see this line of reasoning going a different way. Now, I am an accountant and not a legal expert, so what do I know?

[Bjorn Against]

21. Free exercise of religion does not mean religious people can ignore the law

What the Constitution guarantees is that all citizens have equal protection under the law, granting exemptions to the religious that are not granted to people who do not share the religion seems to me to be a clear violation of equal protection.

Freedom of religion means that people have the freedom to practice their religion under the laws of our nation, it does not mean they can ignore the laws they disagree with.

[joeglow3]

23. But, they are not preventing people from obtaining birth control

They are saying they don't want to pay for it. Like I said, I could see this going either way.

[Bjorn Against]

24. They are saying they don't want to follow the law that every other company has to follow

The fact is that if you run a company you are required by law to pay them and provide them with certain benefits, there is no reason that religious people should be able to pay their employees less because they are morally opposed to providing the benefits every other company has to provide especially when people of different beliefs can not get the same exemptions.

[joeglow3]

26. Which is why it is the courts to determine of it is constitutional

Just because is passed, it does not mean it is constitutionally sound.

[veganlush]

62. if they're "paying for it" by it

Being available in the health coverage, which is part of a wage and benefits package, then aren't they "paying for it" if an employee buys it with the wages "given" to them by the employer?

[wercal]

38. Like it or not

There are already religious exemptions in the law for Menonites and Amish.

[passiveporcupine]

55. There is nothing in the ACA that is taking away anyone's free exercise of their religion

They are not being forced to use contraception against their beliefs. They are asking that they be excused from contributing to a health insurance plan that allows anyone else to use contraception. If this is allowed, religions based on faith healing could also use this to opt out of insurance that allows people to have any kind of surgery or medical intervention. They don't believe in it, so they should not be forced to pay into health insurance that covers it, right?

[joeglow3]

60. Exactly my point.

I am not saying I disagree with you. However, that is the legal question.

[passiveporcupine]

65. There is only one way to get around this legally

If this is allowed in this case. Take all insurance out of the hands of employers. Let them contribute if they want to, but don't force them to. Instead go single payer so people have the right to have insurance if they want/need it, regardless of who their employer is.

Until then, if we are forcing people to have insurance, we cannot allow the law to establish that certain religious beliefs can limit or affect health insurance coverage for anyone.

[pipoman]

20. simply because

Religious beliefs can be determined valid by individual doctrine. Many claims of conscious objector have been denied Methodists and Lutherans but are almost always accepted of long time Mennonites or Amish. People claiming religious exception generally have to prove it beyond simply stating it as a deeply held individual belief.

[Bjorn Against]

22. And that is extremely discriminatory against those who do not share the religion

There is no reason that people from one religious group should be able to ignore laws the rest of us have to follow, many people disagree with the law and there is no reason that religious beliefs should be treated as more valid than the beliefs of the rest of us.

[pipoman]

25. I don't necessarily disagree. ..

My pet peeve has been the Amish being exempt from taxes but can use the infrastructure even to the point of damaging it because of their religion. Around here they don't drive cars, they drive tractors. ..everywhere. ..further they don't put air in the tires which is hard on asphalt. Then they load 10 kids into a pickup box trailer with a topper on it (illegal in this state) and proceed to drive 20 mph on the shoulder of a 65 mph highway. About every 4 or 5 years a family is wiped out this way...Nobody is ever charged with child endangerment. Religious exemption by proxy.

[joeglow3]

53. What taxes don't the Amish pay?

My understanding is the only taxes they do not pay is social security tax. However, they also never collect it because they take care of their old and infirm. Thus, they are paying for roads.

[pipoman]

57. They buy farm diesel fuel for their tractors

Then use the tractor to go to the Walmart for the family outing. ..

[joeglow3]

59. Turn them in. They are breaking the law.

They are not exempted from the law as was previously stated.

[pipoman]

64. Everyone knows it

The state doesn't enforce the law with them, just like they allow them to cart their whole family around in a pickup box. ..

[defacto7]

69. Because atheism is not a belief, it's a condition.

It's lower case, you know. It describes a condition that many people share but is has nothing to do with believing anything, it's the condition of not believing things that can't be proven.

All that said, I agree with your points in general and it doesn't logically matter whether either way. I think the constitution covers non-belief in principal. I see no reason not to be able to claim exemptions based on a secularist's view and the practice of non-belief.

[Bjorn Against]

72. Atheism itself is not a belief, but atheists often do have deeply held beliefs

While atheism is not a belief in itself, an atheist certainly could hold anti-war views and those views are certainly deeply held beliefs.

[defacto7]

79. The definition of belief that I accept

is a desire to accept an idea with or without facts. To have a belief is similar but not exactly the same as faith which requires the idea to be void of facts. I "trust" my observations or the observations of people I trust. Trust must change if the observation changes, belief doesn't require change when evidence arises, faith ceases being faith if there is evidence at all.

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged

1. a principle, proposition, idea, etc, accepted as true
2. opinion; conviction
3. religious faith
4. trust or confidence, as in a person or a person's abilities, probity, etc

Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary

1. something believed; opinion; conviction.
2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.
3. confidence; faith; trust: children's belief in parents.
4. a religious creed or faith.

Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2012 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.

belief - a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief

This source has a very good definition in the original form but has changed recently and I find it to have always had a religious bent to it's definitions that conflict with other standard dictionaries whose founders were not theologians. But I like their first take:

: a feeling of being sure that someone or something exists or that something is true
: a feeling that something is good, right, or valuable
: a feeling of trust in the worth or ability of someone

Definitions seem to be a fluctuating commodity these days as have some of my own, but belief has mostly been associated with a desire, a feeling, a need to accept an idea without facts and that is my take on it. I don't have beliefs where philosophy or science are concerned. I have trust in observations which can evolve.

[Bjorn Against]

83. As your dictionary definitions show an opinion is considered to be a belief

All atheists have opinions so all atheists have beliefs, they may not be religious beliefs but they are certainly beliefs. Many beliefs are based on facts, but they go beyond what the facts can tell us. Facts are essentially data points, they are extremely important in forming a well informed opinion but they don't tell us everything we need to know. Facts can tell us what is happening in the world, but they do not tell us right from wrong, in order to understand right from wrong you have to have moral beliefs but moral beliefs do not require religion.

[defacto7]

84. I think we differ in position at so many levels

it would take more argument than would be constructive, but thanks for your opinion and I'll think about your ideas.

I'm sure you'll continue to believe but I'll stick to my trusty observations.

[Bjorn Against]

85. I have both trusty observations and beliefs, just as you do.

[AtheistCrusader]

37. And that's not even remotely close to or related to what the OP says.

"To grant religious exemptions to law is discriminatory against non-religious people who may hold beliefs which are every bit as strong as those of a religious person yet they can not claim the same exemptions."

So uh, try and stay on topic.

[pipoman]

42. Maybe you should read the previous subthread

[AtheistCrusader]

46. I did respond to you before I did so, however

having done so, my response stands. Your objection is not directly related to the OP.

The government respecting deeply held 'religious conviction' and not respecting my deeply held non-aggression principle, is inherently discriminatory.


The OP did not imply that the strongly held beliefs that some atheists may possess are in themselves, a religion.

[pipoman]

51. My post was the answer to the op title question..

[AtheistCrusader]

56. A question that did not imply or state that atheism is a religion.

The post detailed precisely how the two could be compared, per the posters' line of argument.

[3catwoman3]

3. You hit the nail right on the head.

I agree with everything you said - especially the last 2 paragraphs.


"The courts need to treat all beliefs equally, there is absolutely no reason that religious people should be able to claim exemptions for their beliefs but people who have strongly held secular beliefs should not be granted the same exemptions.

To be clear I am not suggesting that exemptions should be granted to anyone on the basis of their beliefs, but if they are going to grant exemptions then it seems discriminatory to grant exemptions .religious people that would not be granted to those who do not share their religion."

I would like to share your words with some like minded friends

[Bjorn Against]

4. Thanks, go ahead and share

[mac56]

41. Me too, please.

[Bjorn Against]

50. Permission for one can be considered permission for all

[Ilsa]

5. Exactly. And this is why this opens the door for

All kinds of religious tomfoolery in creating chaos and discrimination. The story won't end with contraception.

[dhill926]

6. K & R…

very well said...

[justiceischeap]

7. I brought this point up in another post, but I think it'd do well here too

What stops people from creating a "religion?" I can create a religion that it's my strongly held belief that I shouldn't have to pay taxes since those taxes fund things that go against my strongly held beliefs--like war, lobbyists, churches being tax-free, discrimination, corporations having the same rights as people, the government constantly chipping away at my rights as a woman, etc. I can also claim that it's my strongly held belief that I shouldn't have to pay for cable (but should get it just the same), or food or car insurance or student loan debts. Whose to argue that I don't hold those beliefs strongly?

And, of course, some Muslims have strongly held beliefs that all Americans should die. If the USSC rules in favor of Hobby Lobby, what's to stop a Muslim from killing an American and claiming that it's okay under the Supreme Court decision? Or for a man to kill his wife because it's his strongly held belief that she wasn't being subservient enough? Or Mormons from having legal plural marriages to underage girls because it's their strongly held belief? It can go on and on.

I get your point though about secular beliefs and I agree that I hold strong secular beliefs that should exempt me from paying taxes because I don't like what's done with my tax money--plus, even though things are slowly getting better, as a lesbian I'm not being treated the same as my straight brethren--yet another reason I should be exempt from paying taxes.

On edit:
The reason I'm focusing on taxes so much is because I have to do mine... and I'm procrastinating.

[joeglow3]

13. Muslims killing violates someone else constitutional rights

The argument made here is that no one has a constitutional right for someone else to pay for their birth control. If that is true, the free exercise of their constitutionally protected religion is not violating someone else's constitutionally guaranteed rights.

[AtheistCrusader]

40. Nothing stops people from creating a religion.

That's how they all came to be in the first place.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. What do you think you need ot be exempted from?

If you do not want to participate in prayer or religious services you do not have to do so. Nor can someone force you to abstain from premarital sex or the use of contraceptives or observe halal dietary proscriptions.

[Bjorn Against]

10. I am not claiming I need to be exempted from anything

Hobby Lobby is claiming they need to be exempted from covering contraceptives based on their religious beliefs, I am saying that they should not get special treatment and have their religion given exemptions that no one else has.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

14. Why couldn't an atheist profess that impeding human reproduction would

diminish our fitness as a species?

[Bjorn Against]

15. They could argue that, but I don't think an exemption should be made for either them or Hobby Lobby

As I made clear in my OP I am not claiming that exemptions should be made, what I was arguing is that if exemptions are made then those exemptions should not treat religious beliefs differently than secular beliefs. It is discriminatory to provide exemptions for a religious group but deny those same exemptions to people who are not a part of that religious group.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

43. Nevertheless the right is there for atheists as well. If they choose not to exercise it

then that is their choice. One party declining to exercise its right does not place a burden on others to set aside their own rights.

[UTUSN]

9. I'll R#4 & K this n/t

[Johonny]

12. What if your a Satanist and thus believe in slavery based on your religion

should your company be exempt from the law and you be allowed to buy slaves to work for you?

[phil89]

29. Satanism doesn't condone slavery

the bible does though...

[bravenak]

47. Exactly!!

Wish more people knew about satanism.

[Johonny]

78. :)

[longship]

30. "What if you're a Satanist..."

If you are going to make an argument, at least get your grammar correct.

[Politicalboi]

16. We need to end tax exemptions too

The bible is a "book" nothing more nothing less. Just as Harry Potter is a book. Same kind of nonsense I suppose, only one is taken seriously for some reason.

[yeoman6987]

33. And that is why Hobby Lobby is taking it to court

They take their religion seriously and you just disrespected their beliefs by saying the Bible is "only a book". To them, it is everything. Being progressive, you should accept their beliefs like we accept everybody else's beliefs. (Just my opinion).

[stopbush]

70. Bullshit. You may choose to respect a person's right to believe what they will.

You need not respect their beliefs as such.

The text of the First Amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Where in that language do you get the idea that people aren't allowed to disrespect other people's beliefs? The stricture is against Congress passing a law that establishes a state religion or that prohibits the free exercise of one's religious beliefs. The Amendment - and The Constitution - says nothing about respecting any beliefs, religious or no.

BTW - why would you give religious beliefs more "acceptance" than other beliefs, like political beliefs? Do you accept and respect the political beliefs of the tea partiers? If not, then why accept and respect religious beliefs?

The Hobby Lobby position is that the ACA is a law passed by Congress that is "prohibiting the free exercise" of their religious beliefs by requiring their employer-offered health care plans cover abortions. The real question is whether corporations can hold religious beliefs as corporations.

[avebury]

19. Well put!

[Skinner]

27. The difference is that violating religious beliefs is called "sin".

And doing it could earn you eternal hellfire.

Violating closely held non-religious beliefs is called "being forced to do stuff you don't agree with."

Therein lies the difference.

[kiranon]

31. Can a corporation sin? Will heaven be populated with corporations?

The corporation as a person is at the heart of these "religious" claims made on behalf of the corporation. Dissolve the corporation and do business in another form if religious objections are to have any merit.

[Bjorn Against]

32. Many of us anti-war activists are also concerned about hellfire...

The difference is that the hellfire I am worried about does not happen in the afterlife, it happens right here on Earth in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and the numerous other nations that have suffered from military attacks.

I can't for the life of me see a reason why my opposition to well documented hellfires caused by war should be treated as a less valid belief than a religious person's fear of a hellfire in an afterlife that can not be proven to actually exist.

[Skinner]

34. One reason is that freedom of religion is specifically protected in the Constitution.

Therefore, religious beliefs are given special status. Beliefs that are not rooted in religion are not. So atheists enjoy freedom of religion to the extent that we cannot be forced to participate in religion if we don't want to.

But closely held beliefs that are not religiously derived -- whether they are held by atheists or believers -- are not given the special status of religious beliefs.

[Bjorn Against]

35. Freedom of religion is protected, but it does not seperate religious beliefs from secular beliefs

The Constitution does give people the freedom to practice religion and it protects them from laws targeting their religion, but it does not exempt them from the laws the rest of us have to follow nor does it ever suggest that courts should treat religious beliefs differently than secular beliefs.

The Constitution protects freedom of religion, but just as importantly it also guarantees equal protection under the law. It seems quite clear to me that the courts treating the views of religious groups differently than those who do not share their religion violates the principle of equal protection under the law.

[Skinner]

39. I think that it does actually exempt people from following the laws in certain cases.

But there are limits. I am not a con law expert, and I don't know where SCOTUS has typically drawn the line.

My understanding is that up until now, corporations could not use religion to avoid following the law. Unfortunately, I think that there is a chance that SCOTUS will find differently in this case, on the basis that Hobby Lobby is not a publicly traded company.

[Bjorn Against]

49. They have certainly exempted people, but I believe they were wrong to do so

I don't have a problem with adjustments made to the law to accomodate religious people as long as those adjustments are applied equally to all people. For example I have no problem allowing Muslims to wear a hijab in their driver's license photo, but I think the law should be written in a way that would allow non-religious people to get an exemption to the driver's license photo law as well if they choose to seek one. The law should be written in a way that accomodates religion but does not provide special exemptions to religious groups that are unavailable to the rest of us.

[Skinner]

61. I have no need for the same exemptions that certain religious people want.

I consider myself privileged that I don't have to bother with all that religious stuff.

Now, if the law carved out a special religious exemption for all of the 70%+ of Americans that are Christian, then it wouldn't be an exemption at all. It would be one law for the majority and another law for the rest of us. But allowing some minuscule fraction of the population some special personal accommodations so they can feel right with their God doesn't bother me. (To be clear: I don't believe that Hobby Lobby should be able to use religion to avoid providing contraceptive coverage.)

[Bjorn Against]

67. Most of us don't have need for those exemptions, but we should all have access to them

I certainly have no problem in shaping the law in such a way that provides for some limited exemptions from the law to accomodate people with strongly held beliefs, I just think that when exemptions are given to one group of people everyone else should be given a path to the same exemptions. For example to accomodate Muslim women who do not feel comfortable taking off their hijab in public we could write the law so that people who do not feel comfortable in public places without wearing something on their head can ask for an exemption to the ban on headwear in driver's license photos. I suspect that nearly everyone who requested such an exemption would be Muslim, but you are leaving the door open for others as well so you are not discriminating.

I think the law can and should accomodate religion while also treating those who do not practice religion equally, unfortunately I don't think our courts have struck that balance.

[840high]

36. Thanks for clarity.

[AtheistCrusader]

44. And that is precisely what is discriminatory.

There is no material difference between my refusal to take a human life, and an Amish person's refusal to take a human life, in the case of conscription to war.

[Skinner]

52. If it is discriminatory, it is discrimination that is written into the Constitution.

The difference between your refusal to take a human life and an Amish person's religiously based refusal is that the Amish person believes that they face the possibility of eternal damnation for doing so.

Now, you would argue that the Amish person's belief is wrong. But the Amish guy doesn't believe that, and the Constitution is silent on that.

[AtheistCrusader]

58. They believe in an afterlife. I believe in THIS life.

If my life is all that I have, I risk just as much as the Amish for refusing to fight, again, in the conscription/war scenario.

But it would not be the first time discrimination was codified in the constitution, either, as I am sure you know.

[Skinner]

63. You can say that you risk just as much as the Amish person because you don't believe in afterlife.

So, in that sense, you are correct -- you are risking just as much as the Amish person.

But the Amish person doesn't have the same view of what is at stake.

[AtheistCrusader]

66. Both groups risk all that they perceive that they have.

Also, the same protections are offered to people who claim a religion that do not believe in hell at all.

There are even non-theistic religions granted special status. (Some sects of Hinduism and Buddhism for instance)

[Skinner]

73. Belief in afterlife is not really the issue. I was using it as an example.

I think the issue is, essentially, obedience to a "higher" authority (whether it be God or gods or some sort of other supernatural authority) that is believed to exist above both the government and the individual person. Being asked to follow the rules of government and the rules of the supernatural higher authority puts religious believers in an existential bind. Which higher authority does the believer believe to be superior -- government or the supernatural higher authority? Government can put you in jail, and even kill you, but only the supernatural higher authority can punish you with supernatural bad karma -- possibly forever. So generally the supernatural higher authority is believed to exist further up on the hierarchy of authority than the government.

It's kind of like how my kid is subject to both my authority and the authority of his school. He is going on a field trip today, and in order to do so the school needed to get my approval in the form of a signed permission slip. Fortunately for me and my children, the my values and the values of the school are closely aligned, so my child is not in the position of having to choose between these two competing authorities. But it is generally understood that when it comes to my own children, my authority as a parent is considered to be higher on the hierarchy of authority than that of the school. If there were a case where my child had to choose between my authority and that of the school, because neither the school nor the parent would back down, he would understand himself to be in a no-win situation where he is going to catch hell (so to speak) whatever he chooses.

Believers are sometimes put in a similar situation. Except instead of "school" think "government" and instead of "parent" think "supernatural higher power." If my child refuses to do something the school asks him to do, his trump card is that his parents forbid it -- he is subject to a higher authority than the school. But if his justification is that he feels strongly that he shouldn't do what the school is asking, the school will be much less sympathetic to his wishes. He has to be really good at making his case. Which is pretty much the only avenue available to nonbelievers (and yes sometimes believers) when we face a situation that violates our closely held but non-religious principles. To place our own authority above the authority of the government doesn't usually go over very well with government.

[AtheistCrusader]

75. Some great points,

and I don't entirely disagree. In a sense, I agree with a comment you made in a thread fork up above, about not having a need for the same exemptions.

To put myself in a situation where I would need to consider Equal Protection type issues around this, would require a hypothetical Very Bad Thing, like WWIII, wherein a 35 year old male would be conscripted at all, for combat. Bad times, and kind of a ridiculous hypothetical. (And there are forms of war that I consider moral from a self-defense standpoint, and there are sometimes non-combat roles that can be filled by conscientious objectors.)


But on a general theory level, I don't accept that the government can elevate one particular type of belief over another, when choosing to implement or not implement a punishment associated with a law. I take a very all-or-nothing approach to implementing Equal Protection. It should be accessible to everyone, or no one. If the protection is attached to 'join a faith' (Not your words), that is in my eyes, as logically invalid as the far right anti-same sex marriage argument that same sex couples have equal protection already, because they are free to marry anyone of the opposite gender, just like everyone else. Yes, I am free to join a religion, but I cannot, just like I am not about to fabricate a relationship with an opposite gender person, if I seek to marry for the sake of marriage, when what I seek is the ability to marry the person I want to marry, who might be the same gender. I hope that's not too tortured of an analogy, just trying to illustrate that this is an Equal Protection under the law issue. I could pretend to be Amish, and object on religious grounds. Just as a gay man could pretend to marry a woman, to access certain legal statuses. But that sort of relief valve doesn't actually resolve the Equal protection issue at the heart of this, for either scenario. It requires either person to perjure or deny their own nature to attain that protection.


I don't think I could possibly believe any 'harder' or some other suitable adjective, in the non-aggression principle, even if you attached supernatural punishments to violating it that I could be convinced are real. From my subjective view of the universe, to me, 'eternity' is a thing; between now and the end of my consciousness, which occurs at my death. To spend that time in a jail, or a gallows for refusing various orders, is no less offensive to me, than spending eternity in some round 2 post-death existence, being tortured for sin, might be offensive or frightening to a believer.

I strongly agree with the premise of your last paragraph, it is an issue of strongly held personal beliefs not being respected by the government, if not shared and attached to some mysticism beyond the authority of the individual. That is why I believe this is a clear Equal Protection infringement. Otherwise, I probably wouldn't care about the issue at all. I am incapable of fabricating that sort of status, so I am disqualified as a class, from various legal protections.

[AtheistCrusader]

48. Given that life is all I have

I fail to see the intrinsic difference in a religious person being threatened with hellfire for 'sin', versus me losing my freedom/life for, in the case of conscription, refusing to fight for this country against people I do not consider a threat. Or for refusing to be silent about the proposition of being forced to fight. (Article 88, UCMJ, contempt toward officials)


If my life is all I have, I fail to see how my desire to live and be free is worthy of any less consideration than a belief in a post-death hellscape.

[MellowDem]

81. There's no real difference...

and religious beliefs don't deserve special protection over other beliefs. The only reason they are seen as deserving by our society is because of the power and privilege religion has had over society for millennia, but I see no good reason to give people special rights based on their type of belief system. That's discriminatory.

If a person believes they will be tortured eternally by an invisible force, society shouldn't provide that person special rules to accommodate that harmful belief, they should make available mental health care to them.

There are many harmful beliefs that aren't given any special exemptions in the law, and for good reason. But slap the label religion on a belief, and suddenly reason goes out the window. It's privilege of the worst sort.

[elleng]

28. Exactly,

and the Supremes are likely to see it this way too.

[bluestate10]

45. Republicans and conservative jurists fail to see that their bending

of the Constitution is going to come back to hurt the country badly. If Person A can use his or her religious belief to deny benefits, where does the situation end? Does a business owner during the future deny people the opportunity to attend church on Sunday because the business owner's religion doesn't recognize Sunday as a day of worship? My example may sound fantastical to some, but horrible movements start from an assertion that on it's face looks somewhat reasonable. Nazism sprung out of the belief that Germany and Germans had been excessively punished for starting WWI, part of the assertion is accurate, Germany and Germans were punished and driven into the ground by victorious allies. But Germany didn't have a right to use it's hurt to round up and kill Jewish people, invade and take over the Rhineland, or invade Poland. If Hobby Lobby wins at the Supreme Court, all manner of dark, unfathomable doors will be opened, with unforeseen consequences that will swallow the descendants of those now cheering for Hobby Lobby, or cheering for voter suppression.

[Deep13]

54. The problem is that this religious exemption...

...would apply only to bosses, but not to employees. Suppose my religion says that every rich person should sell all he or she has and give the money to the poor. As an employee, do I have a right to make the boss act in accordance with my religion? Hobby Lobby's owner claims that this is about religious freedom, but what it is really about is naturalizing the capitalist power structure.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

71. Your example is a misstatement of the issue at hand.

Your scenario has the employee forcing a religious observance upon the employer. Prior to the contraception mandate employees of Hobby Lobby could obtain and use birth control without hindrance. If HL prevails in its case the situation will return to this previous arrangement.

For the life of me I can't understand the mania to have personal life decisions hide-bound by law to a third party -- an employer no less. This case is nothing more than an emotional need by some to piss off people of faith because RELIGION! I don't want an employer attached to my birth control choices. On any other day we'd be protesting to get them OUT of our private lives.

[Deep13]

76. It's intended to be a reversal of the issue...

...to demonstrate the hypocrisy of calling this a matter of religious freedom. Why do we assume that bosses imposing religious views on workers is a real issue when no one would ever assume that a worker had the same right to dictate religious views to the boss? We have naturalized capitalist, patriarchal norms without realizing it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

77. Except HL isn't imposing anything.

The employees of HL were perfectly free to practice contraception before the HHS mandate. If HL prevails in its suit the situation will remain the same.

[Deep13]

80. That ignores the reality of our corporate insurance system.

If we are going to continue to use this employer based insurance system, then bosses can't pick and choose based on their own irrational prejudices. Besides, HL is a corporation, not a person. I doubt it has any religious beliefs. Further, health insurance is not some kind of gift from the boss to the workers. Workers earn that insurance as part of their compensation. So what right does the boss have to deprive workers of what they already earned?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

82. Less dogma, more facts, please.

1. You don't get to decide what is irrational and you certainly don't get to form law based on anti-religious bigotry. That is definitely unconstitutional.

2. People also form corporations to protect their rights. That's why activist groups form 501s. If we took your "corporations ain't people" argument to YOUR intended end then the government -- the institution wherein all corporations find their sole ability to exist -- could demand corporations display pro-government messages such as "We support the war!" as a condition of their continued existence, to Hell with the conscience and political beliefs of the owners. Never give your enemy the tools to destroy you (Unless you really trust the GOP).

3. Actually, insurance is an incentive to recruit and retain employees offered by the intention of the employer. A company could just as easily provide a straight salary and leave their workers to find their own insurance.

4. Even taking your argument at face value about insurance being owed as compensation you still ignore the reality that the specific services offered on a policy are what the employer and insurance company agree to offer. That a policy must include X, Y and Z is a construct of the ACA, not an inherent right. The GOP, once back in power, (yes, it is inevitable) could just as easily mandate something that would be just as offensive to us (Unless you're of the opinion the GOP would never do anything offensive.).

5. If Hobby Lobby prevails the situation becomes status quo ante wherein the employees of HL were free to acquire contraception on their own terms. I rather like the idea of my birth control NOT being tied to my employer and/or a corporation. Keep the corporations away from my bedroom (living room sofa, kitchen counter, hood of the car...)

6. The Administration has already exempted religious non-profits from the mandate. It seems a weak position that such a sweeping exemption could be offered but then turn around and claim there is a compelling state interest.

7. The company's original and current mission statement expresses religious sentiment. It's hard to claim this is just a dodge or that they never intended to operate as a religious concern.

[mike_c]

68. shopping at Hobby Lobby offends my religious beliefs....

eom

[treestar]

74. they should lose

I recall a case where Rastafarians argued about using pot as a religion. The SCOTUS said that as long as a law applies to everyone equally, the fact that it interferes with a religious belief does not make it a failure of equal protection. With that case as precedent, anyone claiming exemptions due to religious belief should lose.

[TeamPooka]

86. Because hypocrisy. nt

[quaker bill]

87. Quakers and others have been requesting a "peace tax fund" for decades

so we do not have to violate our testimonies by paying war taxes. The answer has been a consistent "no". Occasionally the answer has been "no" with an arrest and asset forfeiture to the IRS (for those who refused to pay - on grounds of conscience - usually they put the funds in escrow for payment to a peace tax fund, once created).

These are individuals acting on faith - not businesses, so the hobby lobby case is more absurd.

I think if the SCOTUS holds for Hobby Lobby, I need to make some calls about the peace tax fund.

I would prefer that they rule against this, as there are a lot of religions that hold for various things. Such a ruling would make governing nearly impossible.