As I mentioned above, our protected individual right is more than a right to worship. It is a right to religious free exercise, which includes our everyday lives.
Abortions are performed in an attempt to execute a human life, but be that as it may, if a woman has that “right”, it like every other right does not include the right to someone else’s labor and wealth to acquire it, anymore than my right to religious free exercise does not obligate the taxpayers to build a church for me.
Just like all the limitations imposed on everyone. It is the price we all have to pay for living in a society.
As long as it does not infringe on the life of others. Remember: “The right of your fist ends where my nose begins.”
Nothing outside the state.
Playing down to the opposition I see.
Please identify this caveat in the first amendment. It isn’t there. Why? Because government lacks authority to limit rights in such a way.
Choosing not to bake a wedding cake because it is a same gender wedding is not discrimination if said event is contrary to my beliefs. Refusing to sell a cake to a gay person or couple is. The distinction is the event. Forcing someone to participate in that way is discriminatory and a violation of their individual right to religious free exercise. Government forcing them to is authoritarian.
The limitation is on government, not the individual.
Exactly. According to the supreme court’s decision, a woman may get an abortion. Her right to swing her “fist” ends at my wallet, and that of every taxpayer.
I have no problem with that. Of course the so-called conservatives would do almost anything to take that right away.
I think this is where the problem is going to lay in the future. Are we going to make halal stores sell pork? Are we going to force a Catholic Church to rent out their gym to celebrate a gay wedding?
Agreed. If Biden wants to unite the country, he’d do well not to force liberal beliefs on conservatives, such as making nuns provide abortifacient drugs.
Huge religious freedom case that might say otherwise…
In other words outside the realm of make believe. And you wonder why your side drives away religious people?
Why stop there? Christian Scientists were probably more violated with any type of coverage.
I agree. It’s curious that we might balk at how children might be impacted by the religious belief against blood transfusions, for instance, but not abortion.
The reason is the swing of that women’s fist takes the life of an innocent soon to be born human being.
Is extending Medicare to, say 55, forcing liberal beliefs, when Medicare is generally accepted to conservatives?
A true liberal would not force their beliefs this way. Progressives would.JonNC:
Agreed. If Biden wants to unite the country, he’d do well not to force liberal beliefs on conservatives, such as making nuns provide abortifacient drugs.
Medicare is simply wrong, but Medicare for all that eliminates private insurance is not only wrong but authoritarian.
I did not want to use such harsh words. But it might be interesting to explore, why is there a need for a special protection for religious ideas?
They took her money for years. She would have been foolish not to recoup that money taken from her in services.