frigidweirdo
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2014
- 47,484
- 10,517
- 2,030
Kavanaugh explained the case this way: "That was a group that was being forced to provide a certain kind of coverage over their religious objection to their employees. And under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the question was first was this a substantial burden on the religious exercise."
"It seemed to me quite clearly it was. It was a technical matter of filling out a form. In that case they said filling out the form would make them complicit in the provision of the abortion-inducing drugs that they were, as a religious matter, objecting to."
That phrase, "abortion-inducing drugs," is one the right-wing glommed onto to intentionally confuse contraception with other drugs.
The man thinks that the pill is an abortion inducing drug.
If he's against birth control you know you can kiss Roe V Wade goodbye.
He's trying to pretend otherwise but the e-mails that the Dems released (over the objection if the GOP creeps) showed he clearly thinks he can and should overturn it
So what are you saying? That Religious Organizations like Hobby Lobby and the Little Sisters of the Poor should be forced to pay abortion contrary to their religious beliefs?
I don't see this as a "rove v wade" situation, but more of a simple first amendment/free exercise of religion case.
Should an islamonazi deli be forced to sell bacon? Should a Hindu restaurant be forced to serve sacred cow steaks? Where do we draw the line?
On the other hand, should people be able to not do things they have religious beliefs against, then soon people will have religious beliefs against taxes, black people, immigrants, foreigners, hell, anything they have a prejudice against.
That's the sort of thing that causes strife and problems in society.