Wrote the wrong "church" in pervious post, corrected.  But https://thesatanictemple.com/#
https://kutv.com/news/nation-world/satanic-temps-says-religious-freedoms-exempt-abortion-rights-from-state-laws

https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/has-the-u-s-supreme-court-defined-religion/#:~:text=In%201890%2C%20the%20Supreme%20Court,of%20obedience%20to%20his%20will.%E2%80%9D

In 1890, the Supreme Court in Davis v. Beason expressed religion in traditional theistic terms: “[T]he term ‘religion’ has reference to one’s views of his relations to his Creator, and to the obligations they impose of reverence for his being and character, and of obedience to his will.”

Following the expansive view of religion expressed in Seeger and Welsh, the Court in its 1972
ruling involving the Amish and compulsory school attendance suggested a shift back, to a more
exclusive definition. The majority opinion in Wisconsin v. Yoder indicated that the free-exercise
clause applied only to “a ‘religious’ belief or practice,” and “the very concept of ordered liberty
precludes allowing every person to make his own standards on matters of conduct in which
society as a whole has important interests.”

The Court in its 1981 decision Thomas v. Review Board further expressed its reluctance to protect
philosophical values. The Indiana Supreme Court had ruled that a decision by a Jehovah’s Witness
to quit his job after he was transferred to a weapons-making facility was a “personal philosophical
choice rather than a religious choice” and did not “rise to the level of a first amendment claim.” In
overturning the Indiana decision, Chief Justice Warren Burger cautiously stated, “only beliefs rooted
in religion are given special protection to the exercise of religion.” The Court found the worker’s actions
to be motivated by his religious beliefs.

So, the recent precedences YOU posted indicate that beliefs founded in religion are a valid basis for
ones actions, but simply holding a philosophical belief is not valid under the protection of religion.

You, as a non-believer of religion, would have zero basis for refusing IT services based on "moral grounds" as you proposed.

So, the recent precedences YOU posted indicate that beliefs founded in religion are a valid basis for
ones actions, but simply holding a philosophical belief is not valid under the protection of religion.

You, as a non-believer of religion, would have zero basis for refusing IT services based on "moral grounds" as you proposed.

But I can wake up tomorrow and believe in x religion that does. And you can't prove that I don't.   

.

But I can wake up tomorrow and believe in x religion that does. And you can't prove that I don't.

An affirmative defense of your actions puts the burden of proof on you.

An affirmative defense of your actions puts the burden of proof on you.

How would a doctor prove religion?  Its something that is impossible to prove. 

The whole point in this is that a person seeking an abortion has a right to get an abortion.  The doctor, if they can-not provided care, must find a replacement.  They can not just say no.  This would be like a store that is not handicap wheelchair assessable denying rights to a customer and telling them to find another store that is.  They must provide service or find a way to provide service. You can't discriminate.  Denying access to healthcare (abortion) on the basis of personal opinion is discrimination.

How would a doctor prove religion?  Its something that is impossible to prove. 

The whole point in this is that a person seeking an abortion has a right to get an abortion.  The doctor, if they can-not provided care, must find a replacement.  They can not just say no.  This would be like a store that is not handicap wheelchair assessable denying rights to a customer and telling them to find another store that is.  They must provide service or find a way to provide service. You can't discriminate.  Denying access to healthcare (abortion) on the basis of personal opinion is discrimination.

Off the top of my head, maybe by the fact he goes to church services, mass and confession regularly.  Might even be on the board of deacons or some other official status.  Then there's donations (which are tracked by the church for tax deductions for members, and attending events held by the church.

People who practice a religion actually do things to support the church.  Even social media posts that are religious in nature can show their beliefs and values as they relate to their religion.

You've identified one of the reasons gov't run healthcare won't work here.  The gov't would have to force doctors to provide services for the fees the gov't determines to be reasonable.  What happens when there aren't enough doctors?  Quality plummets as does availability.

You've identified one of the reasons gov't run healthcare won't work here.  The gov't would have to force doctors to provide services for the fees the gov't determines to be reasonable.  What happens when there aren't enough doctors?  Quality plummets as does availability.

Michael Moore did a doc about free helthcare in England. The doc he interviewed said over there, the docs don't have 3 homes and 3 Porche's.  He has 1 home and 2 cars, 1 is an Audi and the other is his wife's car.  Because they dont' pay as well as the states does.  Now this could just be 1 doc and not what the main income type is in England.

I can see this thread going on and on. So I'll just end my statement here and add in a (.) for future needs in this thread.

Off the top of my head, maybe by the fact he goes to church services, mass and confession regularly.  Might even be on the board of deacons or some other official status.  Then there's donations (which are tracked by the church for tax deductions for members, and attending events held by the church.

People who practice a religion actually do things to support the church.  Even social media posts that are religious in nature can show their beliefs and values as they relate to their religion.

You've identified one of the reasons gov't run healthcare won't work here.  The gov't would have to force doctors to provide services for the fees the gov't determines to be reasonable.  What happens when there aren't enough doctors?  Quality plummets as does availability.

So you are saying that religion is based on monetary donations or popularity?  That's pretty unfair viewpoint.  You must accept all religion or none.  Government deciding what religions are real is the same as no freedom of religion. Just like speech, all speech including hate speech is free speech the government doesn't get to decide what speech is approved and what's not.

There is a certain level of free enterprise for the individual like if they own a company and wish not to bake a cake a for gay people.  But then they should be required to provide someone with an alternative person willing to bake said cake.

Thus it brings us back.  You can't discriminate. Regardless of religion.  You must provide services one way or another.  Weather the person wants an abortion.  Or they are a person who is a minority,  handicapped or gay or anything that can be discriminated upon.

So you are saying that religion is based on monetary donations or popularity?  That's pretty unfair viewpoint.  You must accept all religion or none.  Government deciding what religions are real is the same as no freedom of religion. Just like speech, all speech including hate speech is free speech the government doesn't get to decide what speech is approved and what's not.

There is a certain level of free enterprise for the individual like if they own a company and wish not to bake a cake a for gay people.  But then they should be required to provide someone with an alternative person willing to bake said cake.

Thus it brings us back.  You can't discriminate. Regardless of religion.  You must provide services one way or another.  Weather the person wants an abortion.  Or they are a person who is a minority,  handicapped or gay or anything that can be discriminated upon.

#facepalm

So you are saying that religion is based on monetary donations or popularity? That's pretty unfair viewpoint.  You must accept all religion or none.  Government deciding what religions are real is the same as no freedom of religion. Just like speech, all speech including hate speech is free speech the government doesn't get to decide what speech is approved and what's not.

There is a certain level of free enterprise for the individual like if they own a company and wish not to bake a cake a for gay people.  But then they should be required to provide someone with an alternative person willing to bake said cake.

Thus it brings us back.  You can't discriminate. Regardless of religion.  You must provide services one way or another.  Weather the person wants an abortion.  Or they are a person who is a minority,  handicapped or gay or anything that can be discriminated upon.

Can you read English?  We KNOW you can't write it!

Did I say what religion is based on?  No.

Did I say there are many factors that establish YOUR adherence to a religious dogma or institution?  Yes.

Learn to read for comprehension.

Deciding to follow the Praying Mantis as a religion is NOT a "religion" in the eyes of the government.  Refer to the precedence I cited from YOUR SOURCE.

Deciding to follow the Praying Mantis as a religion is NOT a "religion" in the eyes of the government.  Refer to the precedence I cited from YOUR SOURCE.

This thread was about that beady eyed Sacky broad.

How in hell did that millennial chick get off on religion from that???

This thread was about that beady eyed Sacky broad.

How in hell did that millennial chick get off on religion from that???

The White House Propaganda Secretary was being asked about the religious/conscience exception to the new doctors' discrimination laws.  It's in the second video posted.

The Millennial Chick in Residence of the forum is off topic.  She is arguing the tangential issue of abortion rights ... AGAIN ... instead of discussing the actual topic:  Psaki's body language.

Professional thread derailer.

Agreed. It's almost like when the fake news says "a source".

The only time I would listen to a body language expert is at a poker table.

There are so many myths about body language there. One of the common ones being that lack of eye contact means someone is being dishonest when in fact there is no evidence this is true. In fact I think it has negatively impacted me in life because I avoid eye contact and I think some people may have taken it as a sign of dishonesty. So many variables like culture, personality type, etc. that such statements cannot be accurately made. Sometimes the people's body language can be used to interpret something but it isn't on its own, it has to be looked at for patterns and then a change in pattern as the discussion changes.
(Spy The Lie was a good book on this subject)

.