If a law should apply, it should apply regardless of how people feel about following it. If the law infringes on liberty, it should be repealed.
The concept was originally one I could get behind as I believe initially it was to avoid religious persecution, but look at all the dumb shit we’ve experienced from religious groups in the last decade or two - but especially during COVID. Sucks to see the Christian community so resistant and spiteful in the face of saving lives because they just couldn’t get with the program.
Isn’t it depressing how many things that sound like reasonable accommodations for different people are either twisted into something negative or were designed that way from the start?
Exemptions to do things in private settings that don’t impact others is one thing, but using religious exemptions to allow discrimination is completely wrong. Honestly, if the exemptions negatively impacts someone else for any reason it should not be am exemption.
Exactly.
There’s a massive fucking difference between “usually we don’t allow weapons here, but Sikhs wearing a kirpan is fine” and “we’re giving you carte blanche to discriminate because you claim your faith demands it”, and exemptions almost universally exist because of the latter. If we as a society have decided that discrimination is wrong, then you don’t get to claim “But I really need to discriminate because God demands it.” You either abide, or you don’t get to open the business/school/whatever.
And that goes especially for people like public servants and medical professionals. If your faith says that you can’t serve all people equally, then find a new fucking job.
deleted by creator
Plenty of Christian groups pull that shit too - just look at the food company Sanitarium and how they avoid paying their fair share of taxes simply because they spend money on “advancing religion”
But tax evasion is part of my deeply held beliefs
as a Scientologist!
deleted by creator
We have that covered in my country.
You can refuse to be vaccinate. No need to justify; your choice, you’re cool.
However…
If you opt for not vaccinate your children, then your children can not go to school. Any school. And although you can homeschool, nevertheless you are required to have your children enroled at your local school, in order for them to have formal evaluations and follow ups. But because the children are not vaccinated they don’t meet the requirements to enroll at a school, as they pose a threat to other children by possibly carrying diseases with high contagion risk.
And if your children don’t go to school, you’re criminally responsible for it, as it is considered gross negligence.
So…
And getting a medical exemption is a very hard task, as the medical professional attesting it is mandated by law to prove why a child or individual can not be vaccinated. If demonstrated false, if gets very ugly for the physician.
Religious exemptions don’t go very far here. Even JWs can’t do a thing if one is carried to an hospital in a life or death situation and doctors need to admnister blood or plasma: saving a life comes first. And if they refuse life saving procedures, they do it at their own responsability and are required to sign a term of responsability.
The logic here, boiled down, is: do whatever you want with your life, as long you do not trample others.
And it works.
“Religious exemptions” are just conservatives doing exactly what conservatives do: setting up one set of laws for one class of citizens and another set of laws for everyone else. Try denying two Christians their marriage certificate in the name of Lord Satan, or refusing to make a cake for Christians because you don’t believe in Christianity, or any number of the other freedoms they’ve claimed for themselves. Not only will you not be offered the same rights the Christians have, but when they get violent you’ll be told you brought it on yourself.
My problem with laws is that people rarely pay attention to their growth and creation, and if they do, it’s often with the intention of adding more.
There never was supernatural laws, yet people still largely want to regulate how their neighbors dress, marriage approval, etc. I really don’t think religion came from the sky, I think it absorbed what people already wanted. And I think there are modern-day meme systems that are just as much a force as any classic easily-identified religion from 1500 years ago or older.
Separation between church and state goes both ways. The church should not be allowed to control the state, and the state should not be allowed to control the church.
Don’t all laws, by definition, infringe on liberty?
Good laws infringe on liberties of individuals or small groups to ensure greater liberty for all.
E.g. you can’t go around murdering people so that other people have to liberty to live. We limit CO₂ emission so future generations do not suffer from the freedom limiting consequences of climate change. We require royalties and enforce copyright so that people can choose to be an artist without fearing for their income.
Bad laws inhibit the freedom of many while giving it to few. E.g. copyright for 70 years after the death of the artists benefits only the few rights holders of popular old works.
The struggle of a good government is to find the sweet spot for difficult positions. E.g. how long should copyright last? Which music volume should be allowed at night so that people can party, but others can sleep?
Define liberty for me, please.
I can do whatever I want, with or without guns, whenever I want, preferably in a giant truck, and if gas is over 4 USD/gallon, that is communism.
You’re technically free to do whatever you want. Murder, steal, go over the speed limit… Laws only establish fines and penalties if you’re caught.
deleted by creator
So you would agree then that people with no expertise should have no say in governance? That the only people who have the right to vote should be people that have attained some degree of expertise, and they should only be allowed to vote in the areas that they have expertise in?
Nowhere in his comment did he make that statement or say anything to indicate he believes in limiting voting.
deleted by creator
Voting, done irresponsibly, harms others at a mass level. Take, for example, Trump cultists.
Speech, done irresponsibly, harms others at a mass level. Take, for example, Stormfront.
Religion, done at all, harms others at a mass level. Toke, for example, every goddamned one of them.
deleted by creator
Taking away voting overall harms at a more massive level
Debatable. I think that most people want a tyrant as a ruler, as long as that tyrant that does what they believe is just/fair. That’s why Trump cultists support Trump; he was hurting the people they wanted to hurt, and the rule of law was irrelevant to them. Hitler and Mussolini both gained power through elections, so I don’t you can safely say that voting is always the lesser of two evils.
Likewise, dictators aren’t necessarily harmful, although they often are. But it’s not requirement. You could argue that it would be authoritarian to forbid people from deadnaming people, using racial slurs, or otherwise being assholes, and it would be. But it would be pursuant to a greater good, i.e., letting marginalized people feel safe®.
In the US, we DO have laws that regulate speech already to a degree where mass harm
Not really. The ‘fire in a crowded theater’ is a myth, and it was a non-binding opinion that supported the idea that opposition to the draft (in WWI) was not protected speech. That decision was largely overturned by Brandenburg; the superceding decision said that speech was not lawful if it incited to imminent unlawful action. Lying for political gain is absolutely covered by 1A rights; look at George Santos. He’s going to get in trouble for fraud and campaign finance violations, not all of the lies he told to get elected. Or MJT, the pedophile Matt Gaetz, Barbie Boebert, etc.
Fraud is illegal. Defamation (slander, libel) are covered under tort law, and are not criminal. Keep in mind that all the harmful things repeated by Fox talking heads about the election and Dominion Voting Systems was not criminal, despite the harms they did to society; that’s why it required a law suit instead of DoJ involvement.
Obscenity is illegal presumably because the creation of obscene materials requires real harm being done to someone or some thing. (Although there was the case of Boiled Angel, but that was likely a loss for the artist because he couldn’t afford to fight it in right-wing courts.)
Calling someone the “n-word” is a great way to lose your job, get punched, etc.
You’ve just hit the critical distinction. It’s legal to call someone a racial slur, but it’s not socially acceptable. (Nor should it be!) My workplace can absolutely tell me that I can’t carry a gun when I’m on the job, and if I violate that rule, they’ll fire me. If I pull a gun on someone while I’m on the job, I’ll get fired, and if I’m not legally justified in doing so, I’ll also lose my carry permit and be criminally prosecuted.
The distinction here is what the gov’t can dictate, and what a private group can dictate. Facebook can censor your speech because–rightly or wrongly–they own the platform that you’re using for speech; the gov’t can not. (Fun fact: a gov’t official using an official gov’t account on Twitter or Facebook generally can’t ban you from interacting with that page, because that would be gov’t censorship.)
Its seems at the least a religious exemption should result in the law being scrapped. If for some reason one person does not have to do it then no one should.
I agree with you wholeheartedly.
So we should be able to force Muslim and Jewish inmates to eat pork in prison simply because that was the cheapest thing the state could foist on them that week?
Quakers and Mennonites should be forced to sign up for the draft?
I don’t think as much actual policy is based on rationality, science, and evidence as you think it is. Even the non-religious exemption stuff.
