Religious Exemption Laws

[CowboyX]

I dont see the relevance of your comment to the discussion. Nor do i recognize it as an obviously true comment. Seems more of a natrative you would like to push rather than something really part of the discussion.

What part? That we have a secular government? That's self-evident.

[MindTrap028]

I'd say it was "unjust" in general as in its not the government's business if an adult wants to drink alcohol.

Well that isn't consistent with the merijana ruling linked by Sig.
So...
Unless you want to argue that alcohol is different in a significant way.

But to be clear, I am referring to the modern controversy of "religious exemption". I'm not saying there was never a case where a law unjustly infringed on one's religious beliefs and one legitimately sought to not have to obey that law for that reason (but then, as I argue, NO ONE ELSE should be compelled to follow it either so the solution is not religious exemption but to just get rid to the law) but what i am saying is that such instances are not occurring today.

So I have a few issues with this reasoning, as I understand it.

First, it seems to be a kind of self selecting. Maybe because I don't understand your objection to gov regulation of a specific product when a compelling gov interest is at hand.
namely While prohibition didn't actually work, that didn't doesn't mean it wasn't "just" or "justified" in it's passing as a law.

I mean, if no religion existed, then maybe the law would have succeeded, because the church exemption played a roll in the black market.

The second, is that it disregards any example that isn't current. Which seems arbitrary. I don't think it is fair to say you can't think of a good example of this being applied, and then you discount every past example and demand one within the last 5 years (or whatever), that doesn't seem to be very reasonable.
Especially when the conclusion we reach would extend indefinatly into the future.

As far as I can tell, every attempt at religious exemption today is an attempt to not have to obey just laws because one doesn't want to (even if the reason they don't want to is because they feel that it goes against their religion to follow it.)

They all seem to be about like prohibition to me.
It isn't all black and white.

First off federal law trump states law and she had a clear legal obligation to grant marriage licenses. There was absolutely no legal jurisdiction issue here.

false. Unless you can show that she got a memo, she has no personal burden to be up on the latest ruling by the fed.
She works for the state, not the fed. So she is equally justified in obeying state law or the law as she understands it.

And as I understand it, it was her decision to not the let the office grant marriage licenses. So yes, she could have stepped aside and let someone else take the counter and grant those marriage licenses but she chose to not let that happen either and refused to let her office grant marriage licenses (eventually granting NO marriage licenses to anyone to avoid granting them to same-sex couples). In her defense, it was mentioned that applicants could have just gone to a different office to get their licenses which clearly indicates that her office was refusing to grant them, not just her as the person at the counter.

I'm not clear about the issue so I can't comment. She could have been the only one there IE she was the office. No telling.

So she was clearly in the wrong and was refusing to honor a legal and just law due to her personal beliefs.

I disagree, it certainly wasn't clear in the moment.

But it's not a religious exemption. Anyone can apply for conscientious objector status regardless of their faith.

That is a category error IMO.
Because it is a direct appeal by everone to the religoius exemption.
Your adding a distinction that the const doesn't IMO.

And as far as prohibition goes, the law was unjust and therefore there should be no religious exemption because there should not have been prohibition to begin with. I am referring to just laws.

That is your reasoning now, but that is not the reasoning at the time of how things work out.


----

What part? That we have a secular government? That's self-evident.

None of it, it isn't relevant to the discussion as far as I can tell.
I won't be addressing it further.

[mican333]

Well that isn't consistent with the merijana ruling linked by Sig.
So...
Unless you want to argue that alcohol is different in a significant way.

You'll need to directly state your objection to my argument to challenge it. Referring to someone else' argument will not suffice.

So I have a few issues with this reasoning, as I understand it.

First, it seems to be a kind of self selecting. Maybe because I don't understand your objection to gov regulation of a specific product when a compelling gov interest is at hand.
namely While prohibition didn't actually work, that didn't doesn't mean it wasn't "just" or "justified" in it's passing as a law.

I mean, if no religion existed, then maybe the law would have succeeded, because the church exemption played a roll in the black market.

The second, is that it disregards any example that isn't current. Which seems arbitrary. I don't think it is fair to say you can't think of a good example of this being applied, and then you discount every past example and demand one within the last 5 years (or whatever), that doesn't seem to be very reasonable.
Especially when the conclusion we reach would extend indefinatly into the future.

Then let me make it clear.

1. I argue that ALL religious exemption is invalid no matter when it happened. Just because there was a religious exemption in the past does not mean that there should have been one - to argue otherwise is to engage in the is/ought fallacy. So I disagree with the religious exemption for prohibition for reasons stated in the OP - namely if the law infringes unjustifiably on a religious belief, then the law should not exist at all. And if the law does justifiably infringe on religious beliefs (such as not allowing religious killings), then there should be no religious exemption. Either allow everyone, religious and irreligious alike to do it or don't allow anyone to do it. But there is no legitimate reason to say "No on can do it except those doing it for religious reasons". So per my argument, there should have been no religious exemption for prohibition and if it was necessary to allow wine to be used in a religious ceremony, then there should be no prohibition on the consumption of wine.

2. You mentioned the concept of religious exemptions in practice having beneficial effects by "shining a light" on unjust laws and therefore helping to do away with them. For example, you forwarded that perhaps the religious exemption for alcohol may have had an effect on ending prohibition and therefore was a good thing. I don't know if I agree with that but regardless, I think prohibition was an unjust law so if your hypothesis is correct, then I would agree that perhaps at times seeking religious exemption has a positive effect. And what I'm saying is that I can't think of any current examples of THAT happening - of people like Kim Davis actually doing us some good by fighting unjust laws via religious exemption.

They all seem to be about like prohibition to me.
It isn't all black and white.

Except prohibition was an unjust law and I don't see any opposition to unjust laws today.

Of course I am judging by my own standards of what is just and unjust but regardless, if you are going to argue that today attempts of religious exemption is doing some good, there needs to be an example of this "goodness". Otherwise, I reject that notion.

false. Unless you can show that she got a memo, she has no personal burden to be up on the latest ruling by the fed.
She works for the state, not the fed. So she is equally justified in obeying state law or the law as she understands it.

Here is a summary of what happened:

"Davis was elected Rowan County Clerk in 2014. A few months later, the Supreme Court decided Obergefell v. Hodges, and all county clerks in Kentucky were ordered to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Citing personal religious objections to same-sex marriage, Davis began denying marriage licenses to all couples to avoid issuing them to same-sex couples.[2][3] A lawsuit, Miller v. Davis, was filed, and Davis was ordered by the U.S. District Court to start issuing marriage licenses. She appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the application to appeal was denied. Davis continued to defy the court order by refusing to issue marriage licenses "under God's authority";[2] she was ultimately jailed for contempt of court."

So by the time she actually got into legal trouble (jailed) she had directly refused a federal court order to issue marriage licenses. There can be no doubt that she was not confused on what her legal duty was at that time.

That is a category error IMO.
Because it is a direct appeal by everone to the religoius exemption.
Your adding a distinction that the const doesn't IMO.

It is not a religious exemption. If a non-religious person can get it (and one can) then it, by definition, is not a religious exemption.

Maybe decades ago the exemption was limited to only religious convictions but that is surely not the case now. And if they didn't allow non-religious people conscientious objector status back then, then they were engaging in religious discrimination and were in the wrong back then and should have allowed the irreligious to attain it as well.

That is your reasoning now, but that is not the reasoning at the time of how things work out.

So what? To argue that they were right then because they did what they did is to forward the is/ought fallacy.

I am arguing from my perspective and it's perfectly legitimate for me to judge past laws from my perspective and you are free to disagree with me but then you need to offer your own reasoning for disagreeing, not appealing to what people back then did.

[MindTrap028]

So what? To argue that they were right then because they did what they did is to forward the is/ought fallacy.

I am arguing from my perspective and it's perfectly legitimate for me to judge past laws from my perspective and you are free to disagree with me but then you need to offer your own reasoning for disagreeing, not appealing to what people back then did.

Then..
so what?

your not arguing for anything anymore, your just stating your opinion.
If you want to argue then you are going to have to be familiar with the issues at work when applying this.
If you are ignorant of past occurrences, and the justifications, then your claim that "Non are justified" is not an argument.. it's just a claim.
And so I reject it as unsupported.

I'm not challenging you to support it. I respect your right to have an opinion.

It is not a religious exemption. If a non-religious person can get it (and one can) then it, by definition, is not a religious exemption.

Maybe decades ago the exemption was limited to only religious convictions but that is surely not the case now. And if they didn't allow non-religious people conscientious objector status back then, then they were engaging in religious discrimination and were in the wrong back then and should have allowed the irreligious to attain it as well.

Only in your personal definition. Not as was apparently applied anywhere that I am aware.
Your just stating your opinion again.. Which is fine.
I reject it.

1. I argue that ALL religious exemption is invalid no matter when it happened. Just because there was a religious exemption in the past does not mean that there should have been one - to argue otherwise is to engage in the is/ought fallacy. So I disagree with the religious exemption for prohibition for reasons stated in the OP - namely if the law infringes unjustifiably on a religious belief, then the law should not exist at all. And if the law does justifiably infringe on religious beliefs (such as not allowing religious killings), then there should be no religious exemption. Either allow everyone, religious and irreligious alike to do it or don't allow anyone to do it. But there is no legitimate reason to say "No on can do it except those doing it for religious reasons". So per my argument, there should have been no religious exemption for prohibition and if it was necessary to allow wine to be used in a religious ceremony, then there should be no prohibition on the consumption of wine.

No, your not arguing it.. Your just stating it. There is no reason to accept your claim over what has actually happened in the past.
so I reject it.

Except prohibition was an unjust law and I don't see any opposition to unjust laws today.

Of course I am judging by my own standards of what is just and unjust but regardless, if you are going to argue that today attempts of religious exemption is doing some good, there needs to be an example of this "goodness". Otherwise, I reject that notion.

As you are appealing to your personal opinion, and not some principle that we can discuss.
I reject your opinion.


---clarification---

2. You mentioned the concept of religious exemptions in practice having beneficial effects by "shining a light" on unjust laws and therefore helping to do away with them. For example, you forwarded that perhaps the religious exemption for alcohol may have had an effect on ending prohibition and therefore was a good thing. I don't know if I agree with that but regardless, I think prohibition was an unjust law so if your hypothesis is correct, then I would agree that perhaps at times seeking religious exemption has a positive effect. And what I'm saying is that I can't think of any current examples of THAT happening - of people like Kim Davis actually doing us some good by fighting unjust laws via religious exemption.

I was not arguing that the effect was good.
I am saying that the const limitation of the gov to respect religion, is itself a justification for calling a law "unjust" when it is shown to be violated.

So, I would not argue that prohibition was unjust due to my opinion alone, but that it violates the religious exception is actual evidence that it is an unjust law. (as evidenced in the history)
And from that I am in agreement with you (ATM) that such laws should be done away with for all.

For further clarification, I reject the distinction you are making in attempting to establish "secular" morals. I would recognize that as a "religious" moral. It would just be the religion of secularism.

[CowboyX]

None of it, it isn't relevant to the discussion as far as I can tell.
I won't be addressing it further.

You've argued that any type of morality is a "religion" and I've shown that that simply isn't true. Secularism isn't a religion in any sense.

---------- Post added at 10:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:40 PM ----------

I mean, if no religion existed, then maybe the law would have succeeded, because the church exemption played a roll in the black market.

Where did you get this idea from?

[mican333]

Then..
so what?

your not arguing for anything anymore, your just stating your opinion.
If you want to argue then you are going to have to be familiar with the issues at work when applying this.
If you are ignorant of past occurrences, and the justifications, then your claim that "Non are justified" is not an argument.. it's just a claim.
And so I reject it as unsupported.

I am not ignorant of past occurrences not their justifications. I just don't agree with the justifications.

And it's your argument I was addressing.

Again, just because something was done in the past does not justify doing it nowadays and therefore the argument that I should agree with the principles that justified what occurred in the past is not supported.



And this "it's just your opinion" is kind of a red herring. This debate is very much principled-base and while one can always subjectively agree and disagree with any principle forwarded (since it's a moral question and no is ever obliged to agree with any moral position, including "don't murder"), I do forward certain principles as "true" for the purpose of this debate and you should either accept the principle as valid or reject it and center the debate around our disagreement on the legitimacy of the principle. But just saying "it's your opinion, rejected" does neither and does not forward the debate.

And to be clear, the primary principle I am forwarding and generally basing my argument on is "The legal system should treat the religious and irreligious equally under the law".

So going back to Conscientious Objector status of yesteryear, assuming that CO status was restricted to religious objection only, the law violated the principle mentioned above and therefore was incorrect and certainly should not be applied to today's reasoning if the draft were to happen in the future.

Only in your personal definition. Not as was apparently applied anywhere that I am aware.
Your just stating your opinion again.. Which is fine.
I reject it.

No, I'm stating legal fact. While one can be a CO because of religious belief, one can do it for other reasons. In support:

"A conscientious objector is an "individual who has claimed the right to refuse to perform military service" on the grounds of freedom of thought, conscience, or religion."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector

No, your not arguing it.. Your just stating it. There is no reason to accept your claim over what has actually happened in the past.
so I reject it.

I'm not saying that what happened in the past didn't happen.

I'm saying the fact that it happened doesn't mean that it's right.

And if you don't accept my claim that everyone, religious and irreligious alike, should be treated equally under the law, then go ahead and make your argument against that.

And if you are just going to blow off my entire argument and not address it because it's "opinion", then I guess you don't really have anything to contribute to the debate.

As you are appealing to your personal opinion, and not some principle that we can discuss.
I reject your opinion.

That is completely incorrect. I am indeed forwarding principles that can be discussed. Let me put this in a logic chain.

1. PREMISE - Religious people should be treated as legal equals to the irreligious
2. THEREFORE - The laws should always treat both the religious as the irreligious as legal equal
3. FACT - Giving religious people exemptions for obeying laws gives them legal advantages over the irreligious.
4. THEREFORE - Religious exemptions should not be allowed.

So there is an actual argument based on a principle (point 1). Of course the premise is subjectively accepted by me and I assume most people (probably you as well). So assuming you agree with the first premise and all that follows, you should accept my argument, not reject it. And if you don't accept the first point, then there is a principle that we can debate. Or if you accept the initial premise but think I made a logical flaw in leading to the conclusion, you can challenge my argument that way.

So let me say that for everyone who actually agrees with point 1, I HAVE supported my argument against religious exemptions.

So if you want to debate any of this, then offer a rebuttal. If you don't want to debate any of this, then I'll see you on another thread in the future.

[Sigfried]

Punishing the wicked is not a synonym for religious conviction.

Yet many seem to feel their religious conviction means they must deny their products and services to others, a form of punishment for what they thing is behavior against their religion. The merchant is passing judgment on others and then doing them harm as a result of that judgment.

Who says? And what does that mean?

The laws say. The laws say you cannot discriminate in the public market against peoples race, creed, sex, or sexual orientation. And that means you must offer them the same considerations as anyone else.

And the rules of the public are constitutionally obligated to respect the religion of the business owner/operator etc.

No, they are not. There is no laws that say the general public must respect your religion. At least, none that I know of. (Short of inciting violence at least.)

This clearly violates the const as written and as laid how in the links.

I say you are wrong, that is the subject of this argument so far as I'm concerned. If you think you are correct you can try to persuade me.

What do you mean "baring from participating from public commerce"

I mean denying someone the ability to buy and sell your products or services based on the attributes of classes protected by law. AKA the 7 protected classes under federal law (and often others protected at the state level)

Sure, but then the gov did that with alcohol too.
and in the end the problem was that the gov shouldn't have been making those kinds of laws to begin with.
And in the case of Cocaine, I would argue that the gov has no business the same way it had no business with beer.

Well, we agree on that policy, but I'm arguing that the brief you shared does not truly reflect the government's legal view because there are clear cases where they do the exact opposite of what that document claims they will do. AKA that document is not earnest about the government's real position. Their real position is they will protect religious liberty when it suits their social views, and won't when it doesn't. They will consider religious conviction earnest when it is Christian and not if it differs markedly from Christian views. They won't say that, but it is what the current administration actually does. (we might include other "major" religions here too but mostly Christian is the focus)

Your just picking something that would happen and assuming it is consistent with the const and the meaning of it's expression.

I picked an example that happens a lot. It was easy to find because it is quite a common issue and has been for a long time now. And again, all to the point that the document from the Attorney General is disingenuous. It is politically aimed at supporting Christian religious objections to equal opportunity laws and participation in insurance that can cover reproductive medicine. The proof of this is that they don't evenly apply these standards in other situations where Christian viewpoints disapprove of the activities being discriminated against. There is not an even application of the law, but a double standard at play.

The gov can be inconsistent, especially in the courts

Exactly my point. And thus, pointing to this standard and saying "this is the law of the government" is not that strong an argument because it is not applied consistently and thus cannot be a very good standard to judge by.

And there you have it, you don't actually respect others religions that you don't agree with, so they must bend to your wishes.

Yes. Religious groups are not allowed to force their beliefs on me or others. This is one of the two pillars of religious liberty. the other is that I cannot tell them how or when to practice their faith.
It is just like other liberties. Your liberty to do as you wish ends when what you wish does me practical harm.

Therefore these rights have limits, when you impose your personal belief on others and do them harm, that's where the limits are.

So the gov has the responsibility to protect the right of commerce, but it has a const obligation to execute that in the least intrusive way (see that link and quotes again).

Either your business does or does not serve people you have a religious problem with.

The penalty for failing to do so is generally a fine of some kind. This is not especially intrusive I think. If you have a business where normal operation, serving the public is going to go against your religious beliefs, then perhaps you could find another business that won't put you in that position. Or, you can make your business private so you won't face this difficulty. Or, just pay the fines when they happen. You have lots of choices.

These people don't want to make any compromises. They want us all to accommodate them, and they will accommodate no one. It's selfish and obstanant and frankly, not at all Christian.

[Ibelsd]

But most of the proposed exceptions aren't about speech.

The only one that seems to be about speech is the wedding cake one.

The sought exemptions for covering birth control in company insurance, or not filling out prescriptions for birth control or morning after pills, or not servicing gay couples for adoption, or renting out facilities to gay or mixed-race couples, is people arguing that they should not have to follow a particular law due to conflicts with their religious faith - that following the edicts of their faith overrides whatever legal responsibility they may have to do those things.

I think this goes to the meaning and scope of the 1st amendment which isn't solely about speech. Freedom of expression and association are in there too.


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

^[3]"

What does it mean to exercise one's religion? I'd think it includes the right to be Christian (or whatever religion) wherever one may be and to freely choose with whom to associate. What is the meaning of speech? In your list of items, perhaps we'd agree that some of those things aren't (or shouldn't) be protected by the 1st amendment. The question asked, though, was whether there should be special exemptions for religious beliefs. And to that, it sounds like we both agree that the answer is no. What I'd argue for most items on the list is whether the law is proper. Does it meet a significant state interest or is it protecting the safety of its citizens. Again, for laws against murder, there can be no 1st amendment exemptions. For certain types of discrimination, let's say with black people, there is a historical reason why this law serves a compelling state interest. However, I'd also argue that such a reason is less compelling today than it was in 1957. So, we should always be asking whether we can eliminate laws which infringe on basic rights. Sometimes the answer will be no. Sometimes, the answer will be yes.

And I'm arguing that that is a false argument.

Seems a bit pompous, but you're entitled to your opinion.

Taking the renting the facilities situation. If one wants to argue that NO ONE should be forced to rent out their facilities if they don't want to, then we can discuss whether people have a right to that with their property and if we agree that they should have the right to refuse to rent, then there is no need for religious exemption. And if we determine that they don't have the right to pick and choose who they rent to, then there can be no religious exemption (just like there can't be for murder).

I do not disagree with this (except where you equivocate it to murder). I think if we want a law that landlords can be compelled to rent to people whom they do not like (for any reason), then the state must show either
a) Protection from serious harm (i.e. murder laws)
b) A compelling state interest (i.e. undoing the impact of slavery)

So, I'd have little problem with a law that prevents discrimination based on racial preference. I am not sure the two prongs noted above could be properly applied to any other type of discrimination. I am certainly open to be persuaded. Also, I don't think laws that prevent racial discrimination in renting should exist forever. At some point, slavery just won't be as compelling a reason as it once was. I don't know when that will ultimately be. I wouldn't be entirely opposed to getting rid of racial discrimination laws either however. So, I'm kinda on the fence already.

So while I see no problems with what you are arguing, I don't think it really addresses the argument that I'm presenting.

I think where we disagree, and what you are opposing, is the idea that removing exemptions could be or should be replaced by a more liberal interpretation of the 1st amendment which would not allow for restricted expression based on anything the state claims it has an interest in restricting (i.e. commercial speech).

For example, why can't an insurance company claim to have a religious belief that prevents it from endorsing or paying for birth control? So long as it is up-front with its coverage, where is the compelling state interest that abridges the company's right to associate with a specific consumer base that is composed of people who share a similar belief regarding birth control? Is it speech? Arguably. It is most definitely a choice of association which is also protected by the 1st amendment. I am just as ok with a company that doesn't want to provide coverage for birth control as I am ok with a company that wants to automatically include birth control coverage in all of its riders. In both cases, the company and its consumers are making a free choice to associate with each other which should be protected.

[CowboyX]

For example, why can't an insurance company claim to have a religious belief that prevents it from endorsing or paying for birth control? So long as it is up-front with its coverage, where is the compelling state interest that abridges the company's right to associate with a specific consumer base that is composed of people who share a similar belief regarding birth control? Is it speech? Arguably. It is most definitely a choice of association which is also protected by the 1st amendment. I am just as ok with a company that doesn't want to provide coverage for birth control as I am ok with a company that wants to automatically include birth control coverage in all of its riders. In both cases, the company and its consumers are making a free choice to associate with each other which should be protected.

What about where that decision is being made by a company owner for their employees?

[Ibelsd]

What about where that decision is being made by a company owner for their employees?

Obviously, when you choose to work for a company, you accept their terms of employment and benefits. If the benefits of that company don't suit your needs, then work somewhere else. What else can I tell ya? Life's not fair. You can't always get what you want. Practice abstinence. Ask the company to pay into a flexible health saving account and buy your own birth control. It's a job. You're always free to go look for another.

[MindTrap028]

Yet many seem to feel their religious conviction means they must deny their products and services to others, a form of punishment for what they thing is behavior against their religion. The merchant is passing judgment on others and then doing them harm as a result of that judgment.

your opinion is noted. I don't think it refelct realty.

The laws say. The laws say you cannot discriminate in the public market against peoples race, creed, sex, or sexual orientation. And that means you must offer them the same considerations as anyone else.

Moving the goal posts.
You claimed that you can't run your buisness to the detrement of others.
Then you point broadly to discrimination laws..
They are not equal and you are simply assuming them to be so.

So.. again, who says you can't run your buisness to the detrement of others.
That is a general claim.
Can walmart run their buisness to the detrement of Taret? what if walmart puts target out of buisness? Is that not detrmental?

No, they are not. There is no laws that say the general public must respect your religion. At least, none that I know of. (Short of inciting violence at least.)

Equivocating again.
look, we can't have a conversation if your going to change the meaning of what is being referred to.
I didn't say the public had to respect religion, I said the RULES ... OF... THE... PUBLIC.
Two very different things.

So, you can curse out any christian you like or any religion you disagree with. But THE LAW CAN'T!

---
I'm cutting off my response here because we have to speak the same language to have a conversation.. and you clearly aren't being consistent with your responses.

---------- Post added at 07:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:34 PM ----------

I do forward certain principles as "true" for the purpose of this debate and you should either accept the principle as valid or reject it and center the debate around our disagreement on the legitimacy of the principle. But just saying "it's your opinion, rejected" does neither and does not forward the debate.

False, and stupid.
You are forwarding them as true based only on your opinion, and have rejected similar on that very same basis.
so .. I too reject yours as your opinion.
You are welcom to them, but that is all the rebutal that is needed.

As to forwarding the debate, it is what is known as a "defeater" in that your position is invalidated as nothing more than your personal opinion.
Being a free country, you are welcome to it. But it is indeed a valid rebutal.

so unless you retract your own use of the rebutal earlier in the thread, this one stands.

No, I'm stating legal fact.

Is/Ought fallacy.
This is the fallacy you called when I appealed to past legal action or "Legal facts".
So, I don't need to address any of the assumptions or the reasoning for the legal ruling, all I need to do is call it an is/ought fallacy.
..Like you did.
If you retract your use of it, then I will consider re-engaging.

--
and I'm ending my reply to that, because that pretty much summed up the exchange.
You can't possibly stay consitent in your position. and are simply going to special plead your way around the same objections you use to reject positions that are contrary to your opinion.

[mican333]

False, and stupid.

I think you are beginning to get a little rude here. Let's keep it civil, please.

You are forwarding them as true based only on your opinion, and have rejected similar on that very same basis.

No, I am not forwarding them as true. I put "true" in quotes as in "accepted for the purpose of this debate" and did not mean that it's actually factual. So you are incorrect about that.

so .. I too reject yours as your opinion.
You are welcom to them, but that is all the rebutal that is needed.
As to forwarding the debate, it is what is known as a "defeater" in that your position is invalidated as nothing more than your personal opinion.

Assuming by "defeater", we mean "something that shows that the argument is wrong or incorrect", it's not a defeater to point out that the argument is based on a subjective premise.

Subjective premises are neither right nor wrong.

Of course one can personally discount another's opinion and not accept an argument that is based on that opinion, but that does not defeat the argument. It really is just a non-response, not a defeater. If one does not attempt to show how it's wrong, then they cannot make the case that it's wrong and therefore defeat it.

And if you are going to argue that I have taken a different approach to this issue in past debates:
1. It is irrelevant to whether my above statement is correct. Even if something I said before completely contradicts what I just said, it does not effect whether what I just said is accurate or not.
2. You would need to actually support that I said otherwise in a past debate. I think you are misinterpreting the position I've taken in prior debates and therefore would need to support that I actually said X before it can be accepted that I did. And considering how frequently we've debated in the past, you should have no problem finding an appropriate example of what you are talking about.

---------------------------------------------------------

But if you actually want to debate this but don't want to address an argument based on a subjective premise, I can re-state the argument in a non-subjective fashion.

So this is my re-stated OP with no opinion included for you personally:

For those who agree that the religious and irreligious should be treated as legal equals, there should be no religious exemptions since such exemptions would violate the principle that the religious and irreligious should be treated as legal equals.

So if you have a rebuttal to that, feel free to present it.

Is/Ought fallacy.
This is the fallacy you called when I appealed to past legal action or "Legal facts".
So, I don't need to address any of the assumptions or the reasoning for the legal ruling, all I need to do is call it an is/ought fallacy.
..Like you did.
If you retract your use of it, then I will consider re-engaging.

No, I did not forward Is/Ought because I did not argue that something OUGHT to be just because it IS. I was just pointing out that you were incorrect when you said CO status was restricted to religion.

I said you were engaging in an IS/OUGHT fallacy because it looked like you were saying that we SHOULD have certain religious exemptions today because such exemptions were allowed in the past.

and I'm ending my reply to that, because that pretty much summed up the exchange.
You can't possibly stay consitent in your position and are simply going to special plead your way around the same objections you use to reject positions that are contrary to your opinion.

I'll tell you what. Find ONE example of me declaring that I actually defeated an argument of yours because your argument was based on subjective criteria (which is different than saying the argument is not supported).

Seriously, put up or shut up. I should not have to put up with these personal attacks based on your misunderstanding of what I've argued.

[CowboyX]

Obviously, when you choose to work for a company, you accept their terms of employment and benefits. If the benefits of that company don't suit your needs, then work somewhere else. What else can I tell ya? Life's not fair. You can't always get what you want. Practice abstinence. Ask the company to pay into a flexible health saving account and buy your own birth control. It's a job. You're always free to go look for another.

They could also just pay you the cash equivalent of the insurance and let you buy your own. Sounds like freedom and individual choice to me.

[Ibelsd]

They could also just pay you the cash equivalent of the insurance and let you buy your own. Sounds like freedom and individual choice to me.

Sounds fine if that's what the company and its employees agree to. When you start your business, this is certainly something you may offer to your employees.

[CowboyX]

Sounds fine if that's what the company and its employees agree to. When you start your business, this is certainly something you may offer to your employees.

So since there are alternatives the appeal for that kind of religious exemption is invalid.

[Ibelsd]

So since there are alternatives the appeal for that kind of religious exemption is invalid.

I am not following your logic.

[CowboyX]

I am not following your logic.

The argument is that they shouldn't have to provide a type of coverage that violates their religious beliefs. They don't have to. They can simply just pay their employees what it would cost for them to buy insurance on their own. No religious exemption needed.

[Ibelsd]

The argument is that they shouldn't have to provide a type of coverage that violates their religious beliefs. They don't have to. They can simply just pay their employees what it would cost for them to buy insurance on their own. No religious exemption needed.

So, the 1st amendmdent only applies if there are work-arounds?

[CowboyX]

So, the 1st amendmdent only applies if there are work-arounds?

Sure, in this case if there aren't work-arounds. Are you saying the first amendment allows you to foist your religion on others?