DiscussMormonism.com

This opinion from a federal judge in Texas (Bush appointee) is making the rounds. There are several lessons in it. One is that it illustrates how the constitutional right to free exercise religion is being transformed into the freedom from things that offend religious beliefs. I think the most important lesson is how insane it actually is to deliver health care through employment. Why in the world should my employer have any say at all in whether I have access to a medication that will prevent me from transmitting a serious disease to another person. in my opinion, it's arbitrary crap from employers such as this that make movement to universal public health insurance inevitable. If you're against that, you should counsel employers to stop pretending that providing health insurance has anything to do with the right to freely exercise their religion.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 1.92.0.pdf

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 07, 2022 4:48 pm

This opinion from a federal judge in Texas (Bush appointee)

Senate was 51/49 Democrat with 2 independents caucusing with the democrats.

But hey, if every judge now has to be divided up by the president who appointed them, great. Let's do this.

I'm somewhat confused reading it over, so I hope you'll forgive the potentially silly questions.

Is this basically saying that a privately owned hospital, waste disposal, plasma bank (or any other number of professions that potentially come into contact with human blood, or needles) can deny providing deductible-less Pr3P** coverage to workers?



**Had to change it to include a "3" as Shades has made the name of the HIV preventative treatment autocorrect to "preparation," because reasons.

Doctor Steuss wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 07, 2022 5:11 pm

I'm somewhat confused reading it over, so I hope you'll forgive the potentially silly questions.

Is this basically saying that a privately owned hospital, waste disposal, plasma bank (or any other number of professions that potentially come into contact with human blood, or needles) can deny providing deductible-less Pr3P** coverage to workers?



**Had to change it to include a "3" as Shades has made the name of the HIV preventative treatment autocorrect to "preparation," because reasons.

Yes. Based on religious belief or, as far as I can tell, offense to dignity or something.

Religion rarely makes people think more clearly. It's far more likely to cloud people's judgment and favor bad decisions. The biggest problem with religion is the undue respect people tend to pay it.

Frankly, the proper response to anyone bringing up their religion in the context of legal decisions is to laugh in their face and tell them to shut the “F” up so the adults can talk.

Some Schmo wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 07, 2022 7:09 pm

Religion rarely makes people think more clearly. It's far more likely to cloud people's judgment and favor bad decisions. The biggest problem with religion is the undue respect people tend to pay it.

Frankly, the proper response to anyone bringing up their religion in the context of legal decisions is to laugh in their face and tell them to shut the “F” up so the adults can talk.

I’m a little confused by that last bit. The boundaries of both the free exercise and establishment clauses are set by legal decisions.

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 07, 2022 7:22 pm

I’m a little confused by that last bit. The boundaries of both the free exercise and establishment clauses are set by legal decisions.

I'm saying that religious beliefs should not influence the law.

Some Schmo wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 07, 2022 7:54 pm

Res Ipsa wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 07, 2022 7:22 pm

I’m a little confused by that last bit. The boundaries of both the free exercise and establishment clauses are set by legal decisions.

I'm saying that religious beliefs should not influence the law.

I think that depends to a certain extent what particular religious beliefs we are talking about. Most religions profess belief in the golden rule of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, or, at least, pay lip service to that belief. Though this belief is not nearly as much the exclusive province of religion as many deeply religious people would like us to believe, it is a principle that ought to be the guiding principle of all laws. In fact:

Rabbi Hillel > Quotes > Quotable Quote

“That which is hateful to you, do not do to another. That is the whole Law. The rest is commentary. Now go and learn.”

― Rabbi Hillel

Gunnar wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 08, 2022 3:37 am

I think that depends to a certain extent what particular religious beliefs we are talking about. Most religions profess belief in the golden rule of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, or, at least, pay lip service to that belief. Though this belief is not nearly as much the exclusive province of religion as many deeply religious people would like us to believe, it is a principle that ought to be the guiding principle of all laws. In fact:

Rabbi Hillel > Quotes > Quotable Quote

“That which is hateful to you, do not do to another. That is the whole Law. The rest is commentary. Now go and learn.”

― Rabbi Hillel

I agree it should be considered, but Do unto others is common sense that got codified by religion. If we just go with laws that protect people, property, animals and the environment, we should be OK. Religious ideas need not apply.

Gunnar wrote: ↑

Thu Sep 08, 2022 3:37 am

Rabbi Hillel > Quotes > Quotable Quote

“That which is hateful to you, do not do to another. That is the whole Law. The rest is commentary. Now go and learn.”

― Rabbi Hillel

Shabbat 31a has many gems.

I need a Hillel to teach me how to be a lawyer while on one foot.