Dear [MENTION=20614]candycorn[/MENTION]
I did hear of a case of a woman suing a Baptist institution
for not promoting her based on gender. The court ruled in favor of the school's
right to keep with their beliefs that a woman could not hold a teaching position over men.
What I would have recommended in That case is for
the school to OFFER an equally paid/ranked position where a woman could teach,
such as over women, or other functions that don't involve teaching men.
As long as they had such an equal position available, that is not discrimination.
If no women students enroll, where this job remains vacant, that isn't their fault.
So for the case of the Muslim company, this can ALSO be resolved by
creating equal positions for women who have contact with other women
and do not interact with men in ways that are against their beliefs.
Possibly, but I doubt it.
It is.
It has opened the door to religious discrimination.
This was an extremely stupid ruling.
It's nonsense.
I want you to do me a favor. Take this out of the insurance argument.
Let me ask you this: Lets say that someday a company is founded by a Muslim that becomes, lets say, a nationwide chain of car dealerships. As we know, Muslims have a big problem being subordinate to a woman.
Could a company that is completely privately held by a Muslim family, find religious footing to not promote women?
[MENTION=25283]Sallow[/MENTION] the ACA already discriminates by religion through govt regulations based on religion
1. the exemptions regulate what religions qualify so if you don't belong or your religion doesn't qualify, you don't get the same exempt status as a religion that does
2. the mandates discriminate by political beliefs or creed
if you believe in nationalized health care through govt, you are represented, you get to use this system of your choice that matches your beliefs
the govt is basing endorsing and enforcing your political beliefs in govt health care, and punishing people with fines whose beliefs are violated:
if you do not believe in this, if it goes AGAINST your beliefs, you get fined for not buying insurance under the regulations by govt, even if that is against your beliefs.
you do not have religious free choice if you believe in "free market health care"
as the people who believe in "right to health care through govt"
which are the only ones the govt approves through this bill
Unlike the freedom of choice in abortion, which leaves the choice open to the person to have abortion or not,
this punishes people's free choice, and forces the "choice" of federal health care or mandated insurance, and penalizes free choice to provide and pay for health care in other ways besides govt.
paying for medical services through charity and education DO NOT count as an exemption and are still fined; only insurance counts as the only way to avoid fines
unless you fit the exemptions also regulated by govt. So it was ALWAYS discriminating religiously from its very writing and passage.
Sallow maybe you didn't notice it because you didn't disagree with it, and didn't feel it violated your beliefs.
but for others, it did from the start, and this HL case only addresses ONE instance of proof of violation among many more.
The HL case was used as the legal process to point out these flaws exist, just ONE example
This is necessary to go through the legal system to make the argument "through govt"
even though it already exists in principle -- the violations are written in the ACA and this is just formality in proving it in court.
Even without this case, the flaw is there, and always was the way the bill was written to penalize some choices and exempt others
People still believe in their own beliefs, which are still violated by the insurance mandates
but we are going through the expensive tedious process of proving it legally through courts
since people did not respect these religious liberties BEFORE passing the bill.
now we have to address and correct them AFTERWARDS
