Religious freedom to deny PrEP

[PozBearWI]

42 minutes ago, hntnhole said:

That's an interesting observation, and cries out for another layer to this religious "freedom for some, required for all" theme.

The "early US settlers" were vastly outnumbered in the land they were in process of invading / killing off the indigenous.  Forcing their magical, fevered notions of religiosity upon said indigenous enabled the new conquerors to engender hatred to the "infidels", and also promoted the crop of babies, sorely needed for the further conquest of the invaded land. 

It's always been, and remains to this day, about Power, and nothing else.

Oh indeed.  They fled being forced to believe something they didn't want to, and yet had their own brand of rottenness.  

[funpozbottom]

2 hours ago, JimInWisc said:

Oh indeed.  They fled being forced to believe something they didn't want to, and yet had their own brand of rottenness.  

There is a big difference between having a right to hold a belief and having a belief that you are right.

[PozBearWI]

14 hours ago, funpozbottom said:

There is a big difference between having a right to hold a belief and having a belief that you are right.

No issue with anyone believing they are right...  But I do have an issue with them making their belief's mandatory for me and others to follow (eg: illegal).  Believing we are right is after all a belief in and of itself.  

[hntnhole]

5 hours ago, JimInWisc said:

But I do have an issue with them making their belief's mandatory for me and others to follow

Of course.  I remember as a kid hearing one of the more infamous quotes attributed to Jesus:  "I am the way, the truth, and the light.  No one comes to the Father but through me".

What an astounding construct from the last of the synoptic gospels. Nothing like it appears in any of the earlier* gospels, whether synoptic or not.  What a blunt cudgel with which to hammer others into submission.  There is no chance that this is an actual quote from the man, and every chance that it's a later insertion.  No scholar of the texts denies this, and I mean any actual scholar.  There are plenty of noisy trumpets blaring away, those who own and operate the ancient enemy Organized Religion, usually men, but not always, admonishing us in stentorian tones that it's either do what they say, or it's the toaster oven when we ditch.  

No one has the right to intimidate others into believing horseshit.  No one has the right to out-shout their neighbors beliefs, denigrating their neighbors beliefs.  Part of being human is being aware that we don't have all the answers, and we're simply not entitled to force ours upon others, either literally or via cultural pressure. 

The argument against women's rights to control their own bodies is so thinly veiled, it's virtually transparent.  It's nothing more substantial than a fart in a windstorm, which storm I sincerely hope is coming in November.  

 

*earlier, by around 50 years, and thus closer to the life and actual sayings of the man. 

For more, read some of the Apocryphal texts - of Thomas, for instance, which texts also contains fragments of the yet-undiscovered "Q" document.

[BootmanLA]

I don't think anyone (well, almost anyone) in politics seriously thinks it's okay to impose a religious belief on others. The problem is when one person's religious beliefs command him to, or forbid him from, acting in a way required by law.

The PrEP thing is not an ideal case, but it serves to illustrate. The challenge is this: the employer believes same-sex sexual activity is against his religious beliefs. The employer's insurance plan must cover PrEP, which (let's be frank) is mostly used by gay men to protect themselves against HIV - protection they wouldn't need if they weren't having same-sex relations. Thus, to the extent that the company foots part of the bill for insurance, he is being forced to subsidize sexual activity that goes against his religious beliefs.

If it were a case of an employer banning his employees from having gay sex, that would be a slam dunk case of him wrongly trying to impose his religious beliefs on his employees. But that's not this case. This is the case of a right conferred by statute (the ACA, providing no-cost coverage for approved preventative measures) conflicting with a constitutional right (freedom of religion). As a general rule, the law is clear in such cases: the statute must bend to the constitution. 

This is the clearest reason yet why taking health care out of the hands of employers (such that religious concerns go away), raising taxes slightly across the board, and having a single-payer system (not a national health service where all health care is *delivered* by the government, merely one where the bills are footed by general taxes) is a wise idea. Aside from the fact that there's tens, if not hundreds, of billions of dollars to be saved. 

[PozBearWI]

Indeed @BootmanLA.  However, if employers are going to provide health insurance then the objective should be healthy employees.  The thought of imposing their kingly morals on all of their staff has nothing to do with the agreement to employ.  Employers are receiving plenty of public good to run their business; shared public good such as water, sewer, utilities...  We as a society pretty much leave them alone to run their business as they see fit.  (pretty much within constraints of local laws).  This regardless of the individual views individuals in the management hold.  This should apply equally to employees.  If the employers doesn't wish to offer healthcare, so be it.  That may reduce their pool of possible employees but that is their choice. 

At end, I agree, taking healthcare out of all employment contracts might be better.  And yet, that places it more in the hands of politicians whose goals are often more for their personal good than public good. 

Socially, while likely not possible, I would love to see society evolve towards a world where we stop imposing our personal decisions for ourselves on others.   

[BigBearSean]

"Religious freedom" is a dog whistle for hate.  Just like "states' rights."  It's ONLY EVER used when assholes need an excuse for assholes to abuse minorities and women.  Seriously.  Just look at 235+ years of court cases and you'll find, over and over again, that those screaming "religion freedom!" are always doing it to push hateful conservative christian bullshit against blacks, asain ancestry, women, LGBT, abortion rights, etc, etc, etc while time and time again those groups trying to use it get dismissed in court.  "Religious freedom" is shit in America where are first goddamned RIGHT is the freedom FROM religion.

[BootmanLA]

6 hours ago, BigBearSean said:

"Religious freedom" is a dog whistle for hate.  Just like "states' rights."  It's ONLY EVER used when assholes need an excuse for assholes to abuse minorities and women.  Seriously.  Just look at 235+ years of court cases and you'll find, over and over again, that those screaming "religion freedom!" are always doing it to push hateful conservative christian bullshit against blacks, asain ancestry, women, LGBT, abortion rights, etc, etc, etc while time and time again those groups trying to use it get dismissed in court.  "Religious freedom" is shit in America where are first goddamned RIGHT is the freedom FROM religion.

I wouldn't say "ONLY EVER". It's true that such challenges tend to lean conservative, rather than liberal, but they're not exclusively Christian. There's a significant case working its way around the courts right now regarding Yeshiva University, which is a Jewish institution, and there are routinely religious practices challenges in the federal courts on behalf of Muslims.

And it's simply untrue - that is, false - that the "first goddamned RIGHT is the freedom FROM religion."

With respect to religion, the First Amendment reads (omitting the references to speech, press, assembly, etc.): "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It does not say that people are free from any religious anything whatseover; it prohibits Congress from establishing an official religion, and also bars Congress from prohibiting the exercise of any religion. The Fourteenth Amendment, in turn, denies the power to any state (and by extension, its political subdivisions) to interfere with any right established by the laws of the United States, which include the Constitution - meaning that a state or county or city is just as bound as Congress is.

But it doesn't say "freedom from religion" - which is why I can't demand that a church cannot be built next to my house, or on my block. I can't demand that churches not allow bells so that I don't have to listen to them, nor can I demand that an imam cannot issue a call to prayer from a nearby mosque. We are not guaranteed lack of contact with religion.

In fact, until 1964 it was perfectly legal for a private business to refuse to hire non-Christians. Or non-Jews. Or non-Muslims. There's nothing in the Constitution, per se, that prohibits private businesses from discriminating on the basis of religion at all. What we DO have is the Civil Rights Act of 1964, under which Congress, using its powers under the Commerce Clause, made such discrimination illegal; and with respect to federal government actions only, we have the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which does not, however, apply to the states or local governments.

And this is important for two reasons. First, in theory, Congress could amend or repeal either the 1964 law or the 1993 law (in fact, both have had amendments over the years). It's unlikely they would be fully repealed, but it's possible, which would leave religion unprotected in the private sector. Secondly, the current Supreme Court has shown an increasing deference to religion, especially conservative religions, and could theoretically revisit the Civil Rights Act and determine (similar to the Hobby Lobby contraceptive decision) that closely held corporations have a First Amendment right to only hire members of their faith, striking down part of the Civil Rights Act entirely. It's considered a reach - currently - but this Court has shown an increasing interest in such reaches.

[tallslenderguy]

"If a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged, a liberal is a conservative who's been arrested."

Tom Wolfe

From where i sit, the notion of "rule of law" is often an almost romantic misnomer when it goes beyond stop signs and enters the arena of social 'moral' standards.  To me, we seem more ruled by the politically appointed judges that interpret law. Those rulings can have opposite impact on society, depending on the (double entendre) 'ruling' courts. Roe v Wade strikes me as a recent example of this.  

Anyone who thinks that the hard won rights of gays in the US are now a given, has not lived very long or is very unaware of where we came from.  We recently had a Vice President (Mike Pence), voted for by more than half the US voters, who would, citing religious belief, endorse this judges decision... and more.  Let the climate change, and those who believe "God hates fags" will resurface and undo or reverse any protections we have gained, arrest and even imprison us for living as we are.  i was arrested in 1998 for asking a cop pretending to be gay in a well known gay park if he wanted to fuck me. i was charged with a felony using a 100 year old law.  

Edited September 20, 2022 by tallslenderguy

[BootmanLA]

5 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

We recently had a Vice President (Mike Pence), voted for by more than half the US voters, 

That's simply untrue. For starters, Trump and Pence ran as a ticket, so nobody was asked to vote for Pence separately from Trump.

Secondly, in both the 2016 and 2020 elections, both Trump/Pence tickets got fewer votes their opponents (Clinton/Kaine and Biden/Harris), and far fewer than "half the US voters".

In 2016, Trump/Pence got 46.1% of the votes cast, compared with 48.2% for Clinton/Kaine. (The remaining 5.7% was squandered on third-party candidates with no hope of getting any electors whatsoever.) 

In 2020, Trump/Pence got 46.9% of the votes cast, compared with 51.3% for Biden/Harris. (A much smaller 1.8% was wasted this election on third-party candidates.)

[tallslenderguy]

26 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

That's simply untrue. For starters, Trump and Pence ran as a ticket, so nobody was asked to vote for Pence separately from Trump.

Secondly, in both the 2016 and 2020 elections, both Trump/Pence tickets got fewer votes their opponents (Clinton/Kaine and Biden/Harris), and far fewer than "half the US voters".

In 2016, Trump/Pence got 46.1% of the votes cast, compared with 48.2% for Clinton/Kaine. (The remaining 5.7% was squandered on third-party candidates with no hope of getting any electors whatsoever.) 

In 2020, Trump/Pence got 46.9% of the votes cast, compared with 51.3% for Biden/Harris. (A much smaller 1.8% was wasted this election on third-party candidates.)

i will bow to the numbers you quote as accurate.  my purpose was to point out that a large enough majority voted for the ticked to put them in office.  i do not mean to imply that anyone is asked to vote for Pence separately. The VP is the next in line for the white house, and VP's are often chose to pick up votes where a presidential candidate may need help. 

my point is i believe there is a large number of voters who i believe would be fine with making gays and what we are and do illegal.

i should have been more exact, thanks for the correction. 😉

[BootmanLA]

18 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

my point is i believe there is a large number of voters who i believe would be fine with making gays and what we are and do illegal.

I'm not sure about that. Certainly there are some people who actively want that, and probably some more for whom it's not a front-burner issue, but it's one they're okay with. But even added together, I don't think those people are more than, oh, 20% of the voting population. See, for instance, [think before following links] https://www.kff.org/other/press-release/poll-large-majorities-including-republicans-oppose-discrimination-against-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender-people-by-employers-and-health-care-providers/  I realize this survey was about employment and health care protection, but how many people do you think would be OK with sending gays to jail for being gay, but also in favor of job protections for them? I'd say if anything, this survey highlights that the vast majority of Americans are OK, if not entirely comfortable, with gay people.

The real problem, as I see it, is the people who are very uncomfortable with criminalizing gay sex, but who will stomach that anyway in order to get favorable treatment on some other issue - taxes, abortion, whatever. Because they're not gay themselves, they're willing to sacrifice some number of gay people - not anyone they're close to - so that they can pay lower income taxes. Or so pregnant 13-year-old girls can be forced to carry a fetus to term.

[tallslenderguy]

26 minutes ago, BootmanLA said:

The real problem, as I see it, is the people who are very uncomfortable with criminalizing gay sex, but who will stomach that anyway in order to get favorable treatment on some other issue - taxes, abortion, whatever. Because they're not gay themselves, they're willing to sacrifice some number of gay people -

This. You are seeing the point now. i do not see half of US voters on the extreme end of the spectrum, i do believe a large enough portion of the voting population will blow in the direction of the wind that fills their sails at the time, and times change.  Not the kind of bj i'd want to see happen. 

This has some interesting info. [think before following links] https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx

 

[NEDenver]

13 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

This. You are seeing the point now. i do not see half of US voters on the extreme end of the spectrum, i do believe a large enough portion of the voting population will blow in the direction of the wind that fills their sails at the time, and times change.  Not the kind of bj i'd want to see happen. 

This has some interesting info. [think before following links] [think before following links] https://news.gallup.com/poll/1651/gay-lesbian-rights.aspx

 

I think that another couple months of Fox cherry-picking stories to be anti-gay/trans and they’ll be primed for sodomy laws.  Especially if it removes 10% of the voters from a reliable Democratic voting pool.

[JessicaDiamond]

On 9/8/2022 at 4:01 AM, BareLover666 said:

I've grown more-and-more convinced that religious freedom doesn't only have limits but should be severely restricted because it causes people harm.

Ugh, religious freedom is a doctor telling a ten year old girl to literally go die because treating her life threatening condition goes against his beliefs. 

 

I myself have recently been religious freedomed. This piece of sh*t pharmacist refused to refill my prescription and tried to give me (testosterone) patches to "fix" me