Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Gherkins d'Resistance's avatar

"This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice."

Some would look at this part of the decision and think it means all other religio-fruitcase objections are invalid, but if you ask me, this is actually OPENING THE DOOR, arguable that this decision primarily <i>allows any 'religious objection'</i> to any other process, simply because that process doesn't fall into an "insurance-mandate" kind of structure.

I will wager Clarence Thomas' entire interracial porn collection that corporations will be definitely using this decision to fuck more people over, specifically in areas having nothing to do with "insurance mandates" or "illegal discrimination" because "that's the only thing this decision specifically limited."

And even more specifically, I'd say this decision will be used to allow any and all 'legal discrimination,' only now based on so called religious practices.

Expand full comment
Gherkins d'Resistance's avatar

IS[W]YD[T], you [sic]ko!

Expand full comment
20 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?