4 ms·

Here are two recent examples where government meddling -- one in healthcare, one in marriage -- ended up infringing on religious liberty. Healthcare: The Litt

by judah 10y ago

Here are two recent examples where government meddling -- one in healthcare, one in marriage -- ended up infringing on religious liberty. Healthcare: The Little Sisters of the Poor, a Catholic charitable organization that also offers healthcare for women, were required by the Affordable Care Act to provide contraception as part of their services. This infringed on the religious liberty of practicing Catholics. Nonetheless, the federal government fined the Little Sisters of the Poor for not providing a service the Catholic Church considers immoral. Million of dollars in lawyer fees later, the Supreme Court finally reversed the decision [0]. Marriage: A gay couple asked a Jack Phillips, a Christian baker and owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, to make the wedding cake for their upcoming gay marriage ceremony. The Jewish, Christian, and Muslim faiths all forbid homosexuality; Philips asked the couple to take their business elsewhere. But the couple took Phillips to court and the court ruled that Phillips and his staff were required to break their moral convictions and were ordered take re-education classes and file quarterly compliance reports for two years [1]. [0]: http://thelittlesistersofthepoor.com/#supreme-court-ruling http://thelittlesistersofthepoor.com/#supreme-court-ruling [1]: http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/26/christian-baker-forced-to-bake-gay-wedding-cakes-or-make-no-wedding-cakes-at-all/ http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/26/christian-baker-forced-to-...

int_19h 10y ago
He specifically asked about same-sex marriage. These examples involve something else - the first one is about requirements for medical insurance, the second is about anti-discrimination laws.
- judah 10y ago
  >> "the second is about anti-discrimination laws." You are merely changing the language to avoid admitting the reality of a government infringing on religious liberty. The government forcing religious people to go against their religion is infringement of religious liberty. Forcing those religious people to undergo government re-education classes is Stalinesque. The founders of the US saw this potential abuse; it's why religious liberty is protected as the first right in the Bill of Rights. And on a broader point, this is why we fight for small government: a large, powerful government is a bastion for tyranny. And the religious are merely the canary in the coal mine. Perhaps the left will recognize this wisdom after President Trump issues executive orders overturning all that the left holds dear.
  - int_19h 10y ago
    We were specifically talking about government recognition of same-sex marriage. Can you explain again how that infringes on your religious liberty? Everything else in your comment is basically offtopic.
    - e40 10y ago
      It's pretty clear this person has gotten themselves into a logic box they can't get out of. All discussion has to point to evidence for their point of view, or it's discounted or ignored.
    - judah 10y ago
      I gave you an example of how same-sex marriage can, and has, infringed on religious liberty. You dismissed it as pertaining to anti-discrimination laws, even though it specifically was caused by same-sex marriage laws and involved a dispute about religious freedoms in response to those laws.
lordCarbonFiber 10y ago
Both of those examples are infact not examples of infringement. Imagine a world in which any healthcare provider could arbitrarily decline coverage for anything on the grounds of "religion". Have a genetic illness, sorry that's founded on the "theory" of evolution we're not going to cover you, etc. Allowing healthcare providers to pick and choose coverage is a nightmare for consumers . Your second example is a similar issue. Allowing businesses to arbitrarily deny service to minorities (the case would have been different if the couple asked for a custom cake with a phrase the Phillips found objectionable) is not small gov or freedom of religion. It's just plain bigotry. A citizen's freedom of religion ends when the next citizen's rights begin. If you take that away you might as well be living in a Theocracy.
- judah 10y ago
  >> "A citizen's freedom of religion ends when the next citizen's rights begin." What "right" are you talking about here? The gay couple's "right" to force a particular person to bake them a cake? There is no such right. Likewise, there's no "right" to healthcare. You can't force a doctor to perform a medical procedure on you, for example. Forcing people to provide you with their services is called slavery.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    Collecting taxes and using them to pay doctors for services isn't slavery, unless you're of the opinion that taxation is equivalent to slavery.
  - ZeroGravitas 10y ago
    Luckily, our religion approves of cake slavery.
- spaginal 10y ago
  They are in fact classic examples of infringement. It is someone's "opinion" that a private Catholic Christian charity should exercise a procedure or have a policy that is strictly against the values of that organization. Strictly speaking, as intelligent adults here, we can rationalize that a Catholic charity does not believe in contraceptives or abortions and would not participate in these activities. They have a long held history of this practice and it wasn't made up on the spot because they felt like it, such as your example of belief in evolution leading to denial of a procedure, which very few if any people in this country hold and especially any organizations that practice in the field of medicine. Frankly, if you have issue with private healthcare providers having a choice in their practice, you should be for a legal framework and consumer market that allows for more consumer choice instead of less so people can choose a provider that works with what they need. In a truly free market, this would be extremely easy to accomplish. As to the baker example, it doesn't require any further explanation than this. No private individual or business has a solemn duty to respect and faithfully accommodate the practices and requests of another individual that they object too. Would a satanist be a protected individual with case to sue if they specifically wished for a Christian bakery to create a cake with Jesus impaled on a cross? Afterall, the satanist is a minority holding a minority belief. As citizens in a free society, if we want to start rolling back division in this country, we need to dramatically improve our education, and we need to start allowing people to behave freely again, good and bad. Forcing people into associations they don't want to have causes further division ultimately.
mikeash 10y ago
Your second example has nothing to do with state-sanctioned same-sex marriage. The exact same court case could have happened if they had been getting "married" without making it official with the state. That case might be an argument against laws which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexuality, but it's not an argument against same-sex marriage.

by judah 10y ago

int_19h 10y ago

He specifically asked about same-sex marriage. These examples involve something else - the first one is about requirements for medical insurance, the second is about anti-discrimination laws.

judah 10y ago
>> "the second is about anti-discrimination laws." You are merely changing the language to avoid admitting the reality of a government infringing on religious liberty. The government forcing religious people to go against their religion is infringement of religious liberty. Forcing those religious people to undergo government re-education classes is Stalinesque. The founders of the US saw this potential abuse; it's why religious liberty is protected as the first right in the Bill of Rights. And on a broader point, this is why we fight for small government: a large, powerful government is a bastion for tyranny. And the religious are merely the canary in the coal mine. Perhaps the left will recognize this wisdom after President Trump issues executive orders overturning all that the left holds dear.
- int_19h 10y ago
  We were specifically talking about government recognition of same-sex marriage. Can you explain again how that infringes on your religious liberty? Everything else in your comment is basically offtopic.
  - e40 10y ago
    It's pretty clear this person has gotten themselves into a logic box they can't get out of. All discussion has to point to evidence for their point of view, or it's discounted or ignored.
  - judah 10y ago
    I gave you an example of how same-sex marriage can, and has, infringed on religious liberty. You dismissed it as pertaining to anti-discrimination laws, even though it specifically was caused by same-sex marriage laws and involved a dispute about religious freedoms in response to those laws.

lordCarbonFiber 10y ago

Both of those examples are infact not examples of infringement. Imagine a world in which any healthcare provider could arbitrarily decline coverage for anything on the grounds of "religion". Have a genetic illness, sorry that's founded on the "theory" of evolution we're not going to cover you, etc. Allowing healthcare providers to pick and choose coverage is a nightmare for consumers . Your second example is a similar issue. Allowing businesses to arbitrarily deny service to minorities (the case would have been different if the couple asked for a custom cake with a phrase the Phillips found objectionable) is not small gov or freedom of religion. It's just plain bigotry. A citizen's freedom of religion ends when the next citizen's rights begin. If you take that away you might as well be living in a Theocracy.

judah 10y ago
>> "A citizen's freedom of religion ends when the next citizen's rights begin." What "right" are you talking about here? The gay couple's "right" to force a particular person to bake them a cake? There is no such right. Likewise, there's no "right" to healthcare. You can't force a doctor to perform a medical procedure on you, for example. Forcing people to provide you with their services is called slavery.
- mikeash 10y ago
  Collecting taxes and using them to pay doctors for services isn't slavery, unless you're of the opinion that taxation is equivalent to slavery.
- ZeroGravitas 10y ago
  Luckily, our religion approves of cake slavery.
spaginal 10y ago
They are in fact classic examples of infringement. It is someone's "opinion" that a private Catholic Christian charity should exercise a procedure or have a policy that is strictly against the values of that organization. Strictly speaking, as intelligent adults here, we can rationalize that a Catholic charity does not believe in contraceptives or abortions and would not participate in these activities. They have a long held history of this practice and it wasn't made up on the spot because they felt like it, such as your example of belief in evolution leading to denial of a procedure, which very few if any people in this country hold and especially any organizations that practice in the field of medicine. Frankly, if you have issue with private healthcare providers having a choice in their practice, you should be for a legal framework and consumer market that allows for more consumer choice instead of less so people can choose a provider that works with what they need. In a truly free market, this would be extremely easy to accomplish. As to the baker example, it doesn't require any further explanation than this. No private individual or business has a solemn duty to respect and faithfully accommodate the practices and requests of another individual that they object too. Would a satanist be a protected individual with case to sue if they specifically wished for a Christian bakery to create a cake with Jesus impaled on a cross? Afterall, the satanist is a minority holding a minority belief. As citizens in a free society, if we want to start rolling back division in this country, we need to dramatically improve our education, and we need to start allowing people to behave freely again, good and bad. Forcing people into associations they don't want to have causes further division ultimately.

mikeash 10y ago

Your second example has nothing to do with state-sanctioned same-sex marriage. The exact same court case could have happened if they had been getting "married" without making it official with the state. That case might be an argument against laws which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexuality, but it's not an argument against same-sex marriage.