The Hobby Lobby Decision Inspired Religious Groups To Ask For An Exemption From A Gay-Rights Order

a reply to: charles1952

I understand that the ruling was based on the law. The law is a bad one and needs to be addressed. If a religious entity feels compelled to deny someone qualified for a position based on sexual preference due to belief I in all honesty wouldn't have issue with it. IF they do not operate in the public sector. I firmly believe once you cross the line of distinction between the two that you should operate without exception under the same regulations and laws as all public sector businesses. There is a distinction between the two and the law should be written to reflect it. But that is purely my opinion.

a reply to: BasementWarriorKryptonite

I understand your point I just see it a bit different. I don't blame a religion for the wicked crap that has happened throughout history. Religion is a not a sentient being, it does nothing but exist. Mankind are the ones responsible, they have been for the bad as well as using the same religion for beautiful things. You can blame a book or a gun all you like but it will do nothing but exist, it's not until someone else picks it up and twists it and uses it for whatever they feel they need it for whether bad or good.

a reply to: drivers1492

That makes sense to me, but I hold those religious folks to account for their religion's former and current actions. Without them, they would not occur.

The buck has got to stop somewhere.

originally posted by: charles1952
And no, the Court didn't say that that the entire mandate for birth control was invalid

No one is claiming that the contraceptive mandate is invalid. But religious companies can get an exemption from the entire mandate. I know I PM'd you about this, so you've probably seen the proof, but here it is again.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday confirmed that its decision a day earlier extending religious rights to closely held corporations applies broadly to the contraceptive coverage requirement in the new health care law, not just the handful of methods the justices considered in their ruling.

AP

You are being disingenuous by continuing to argue this point when it has been shown to you many times that you are mistaken.

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
a reply to: drivers1492

That makes sense to me, but I hold those religious folks to account for their religion's former and current actions. Without them, they would not occur.

The buck has got to stop somewhere.

I agree that people should be held accountable for their actions. I don't hold any religious person responsible for the actions of others of the same faith. The person or people doing the actions are the ones accountable not the faith itself nor its previous members. But we do have a bit of agreement on accountability.