4 ms·

Both of those examples are infact not examples of infringement. Imagine a world in which any healthcare provider could arbitrarily decline coverage for anythin

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.

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.