Unintentional consequence of ruling for religious business against Obamacare

[Hayabusa Rider]

A dog cannot consent in any possible way

But it's a special relationship you aren't able to understand so you aren't qualified to say with absolute certainty. Perhaps they can't formally engage in a written contract but there are males who will hump the crap out of you. Therefore they consent. Down with gay marriages!

No that's not a serious argument but neither is one which links HL to the satanist claim, which the Atlantic article, which if one bothers to read shoots down just making any claim, but our "lawyers" won't let that stop them. The tactic is practiced by left and right, the "all my way or it's the end of the world. Nope.

 

[Victorian Gray]

But Statanists don't have that as a "belief", let alone something sincerely held, or included in thousands of years of doctrine. You cannot compare something arbitrary with something that has been part of a religious foundation for centuries...that's the ignorant part about this, and why I think its silly.

Sure, they have every right to be heard, but also, rejected.

And what authority are you to tell the rest of us what Satanists believe or don't believe?

 

[Victorian Gray]

The issue is that Satanism isn't a religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaVeyan_Satanism

Or is atheism now considered a religion? Seems like if you arguing that, that could create some interesting problems with other court rulings where atheists where butt-hurt about having to see items that mentioned religion.

dishonest as always I see.

"Satanist groups that appeared after the 1960s are widely diverse, but two major trends are theistic Satanism and atheistic Satanism. Theistic Satanists venerate Satan as a supernatural deity, viewing him not as omnipotent but rather as a patriarch. In contrast, atheistic Satanists regard Satan as merely a symbol of certain human traits.[4]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanism

 

[Victorian Gray]

Working to undermine the HL ruling has a real and positive effect on US law. That's not trolling.

There's trolling going on but it isn't by Satanists.

 

[glenn1]

It is a perfectly logical use of the HL ruling. SCOTUS acknowledged that the government had a compelling interest in the service of a generally applicable law. HL asked for, and was granted, the ability to deny their employees birth control based on religious grounds, exempting them from generally applicable laws. That's what the satanists here want.

Not exactly. HL wanted to be exempted from forms of birth control that they religiously believed to be abortive despite actual factual evidence that said they were wrong. Even in that case they weren't being forced to pay for anything, as a third party would have paid for it. They said even having to have someone else pay for it was an impermissible infringement on their religious liberty.

Your side got what you wanted out of the deal - the ability to say that the right is "waging a war against women." It's unseemly to keep going on about it after you achieved your objective. If and when you decide you want to start denying religious conscience objections equally and start levying fines against those who refuse to vaccinate and whatnot then we can talk.