Hobby Lobby case and pastafarian colanders
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-12-2014, 03:42 PM
RE: Hobby Lobby case and pastafarian colanders
(10-12-2014 03:39 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  
(10-12-2014 03:34 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  That's colander Rosanna Rosanadanna Yes

Edit: @ Tear151

Yes, that's what I get for taking his actual post literally. So are you saying I can't wear a calendar now?

You can wear whatever you want, who am I to say what looks good on you? Big Grin

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
10-12-2014, 05:22 PM
RE: Hobby Lobby case and pastafarian colanders
(10-12-2014 03:40 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  That's colander Rosanna Rosanadanna Yes

and that's Roseanne Roseannadanna
Thumbsup

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
11-12-2014, 12:45 PM
RE: Hobby Lobby case and pastafarian colanders
If I insisted that my religion was specifically against minimum wage laws, health and safety, and paying settlements, what then?

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2014, 12:58 PM
RE: Hobby Lobby case and pastafarian colanders
(11-12-2014 12:45 PM)tear151 Wrote:  If I insisted that my religion was specifically against minimum wage laws, health and safety, and paying settlements, what then?

In theory, under the Hobby Lobby decision, if you were a private owner of a business or controlled a tightly-held corporation, you would be free from those requirements, without any governmental examination of what your religion was, whether your religion was true, or whether it was actually against those things. Your say-so alone would be enough.

In practice, you wouldn't stand a chance, because your religion that is against those things is not conventionally-interpreted socially conservative Christianity and thus doesn't have the special rights that American governance unofficially and illegally reserves for conventionally-interpreted socially conservative Christianity.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2014, 01:06 PM
RE: Hobby Lobby case and pastafarian colanders
(11-12-2014 12:58 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(11-12-2014 12:45 PM)tear151 Wrote:  If I insisted that my religion was specifically against minimum wage laws, health and safety, and paying settlements, what then?

In theory, under the Hobby Lobby decision, if you were a private owner of a business or controlled a tightly-held corporation, you would be free from those requirements, without any governmental examination of what your religion was, whether your religion was true, or whether it was actually against those things. Your say-so alone would be enough.

In practice, you wouldn't stand a chance, because your religion that is against those things is not conventionally-interpreted socially conservative Christianity and thus doesn't have the special rights that American governance unofficially and illegally reserves for conventionally-interpreted socially conservative Christianity.

There isn't a case of that tested yet on the Hobby Lobby grounds to prove it is true or not... that's pretty much what the attempted Satanic case I mentioned earlier is trying to test. If they can get the law accepting of a completely fabricated belief based on the claim of religion.

It is the case in some Scandinavian countries. As I recall some news stories of Swedish people winning cases in the name of Kopimism allowing for legal spreading of information; as well as, a case of a man winning stating something along the lines of going to metal concerts was his religious experience and so critical for him that he shouldn't able to be fired for missing days of work to see metal concerts.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2014, 01:15 PM
RE: Hobby Lobby case and pastafarian colanders
(11-12-2014 01:06 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(11-12-2014 12:58 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  In theory, under the Hobby Lobby decision, if you were a private owner of a business or controlled a tightly-held corporation, you would be free from those requirements, without any governmental examination of what your religion was, whether your religion was true, or whether it was actually against those things. Your say-so alone would be enough.

In practice, you wouldn't stand a chance, because your religion that is against those things is not conventionally-interpreted socially conservative Christianity and thus doesn't have the special rights that American governance unofficially and illegally reserves for conventionally-interpreted socially conservative Christianity.

There isn't a case of that tested yet on the Hobby Lobby grounds to prove it is true or not... that's pretty much what the attempted Satanic case I mentioned earlier is trying to test. If they can get the law accepting of a completely fabricated belief based on the claim of religion.

It is the case in some Scandinavian countries. As I recall some news stories of Swedish people winning cases in the name of Kopimism allowing for legal spreading of information; as well as, a case of a man winning stating something along the lines of going to metal concerts was his religious experience and so critical for him that he shouldn't able to be fired for missing days of work to see metal concerts.

Like I said, in practice, it won't work. And yes, that's more cynicism than careful consideration talking.

I don't think there's a way for this to work out coherently and well for society without Hobby Lobby being reversed. The only other outcomes lead to either a restriction of precedent which establishes (yes, establishes) a particular interpretation of Christianity as the only valid recipient of this benefit, or a chaos of religious privileges being asserted willy-nilly.

"If I ignore the alternatives, the only option is God; I ignore them; therefore God." -- The Syllogism of Fail
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: