What job could actually impact their religious freedom? Pornography? Executioners? No. It’s usually about someone else having access via insurance to something they don’t believe in like birth control or IVF. Neither of which is any of their business.
i mean, as a vegan you wouldn't take a job as a butcher and then refuse to butcher meat because of your beliefs (wait for it, someone will try that) so why the hell choose to work in an industry you don't support
Now J.D. is trying to be the big smiley face, bring his brand of light and joy to the team (since TFG's smile is so creepy) to offset the authentic joy in Kamala's Tim's team.
The problem is, that big moon face smile on him looks so painful, like he's not used to having to do it. You see the underworked smile muscles are pushing hard against the fat resistance in his cheeks.
As opposed to Kamala, Tim and even -- especially -- old Handsome Joe, who all have genuine million dollar smiles that come easily. Yay us!!
If you don't want to provide IVF, don't get a job in an IVF clinic! Genius! (Just asking for a friend ... once the fetus is implanted/baby born is it still against their religion to provide medical care???)
By gad, sir, you are a character, that you are. There's never any telling what you'll say or do next, except that it's bound to be something abominable!
"Before I work here, I should inform you that I have a very specific set of beliefs. I believe that fertilized eggs are human beings, so I can't be involved in handling anything to do with IVF or any other procedure that uses fertilized eggs. I won't even touch the paperwork. Also, artificial insemination involves masturbation, so that's out. In fact, the only approach I find acceptable is coaching infertile couples in the rhythm method. Now, have I got the job?"
Does she mean the companies that provide health insurance would ostensibly have to cover their employee's procedure and they may have a cough religious cough opposition? Like a Hobby Lobby birth control situation?
I bet these FAMBLY VALOOZ companies make you use FMLA for maternity leave too.
Corporations don't have religion. You never see them in church. I bet none of them tithe.
Even if the people running a corporation have religious beliefs is irrelevant. After all, the reason to incorporate is to shield and separate the assets of the corporation from the individuals who run it. That separation logically means that the religious beliefs of the people who run the corporation have no impact on the corporation itself, which cannot have or hold beliefs, being a legal person only in a legal sense.
A corporation can't give a fuck if the employee benefits it offers pays for contraception coverage or IVF.
Plus, here's a good opportunity to point out that conservative thought, so-called, is nothing but pseudo-intellectualism masking a racist authoritarianism:
It's simply not "conservative" to make laws allowing or banning a medical procedure. Under the supposed tenets of "conservative thought," the practice of medicine is already regulated -- requiring education, licensing, etc., and the law has created a space in which those admitted to the practice of medicine can, well, practice.
In this space, says WFBuckley's id, those who have passed the government's hurdles to gain admittance have a zone of freedom in which to apply their own discretion -- and pursue new solutions and innovation -- unhindered by further intrusions by the state.
No true conservative lawmaker -- or judge -- would say it is the legislature's or the judiciary's job to get so granular as to allow or prohibit *specific* courses of treatment developed by duly credentialed members of a regulated profession. So should the allegedly conservative Alabama Supreme Court have said.
Now of course as non-conservatives -- we know all the foregoing is poppycock. We know that the the framers of the Constitution of the United States had more than a little suspicion of the human species -- the Constitution is covered with phrasing that presumes that, of course, this and that government official will lie, cheat, steal; that voters will elect incompetents and crooks; that some of the people, while also being the sovereigns in our system of government, will riot, foment insurrection, and commit acts of rebellion and treason.
And so the Constitution recognizes, over and over again, human failings and weakness, and tries to design a system which both limits the government's power to infringe on rights BUT ALSO allows one portion of the populace or one or more branches of government, to save the entire system by giving it powers to block that a portion or branch that has fallen into error, selfishness, expedience or criminality.
Given that, we know that even credentialed people will invent pseudo-scientific "conversion (or "reparative") therapies" -- and that their medical licenses shouldn't protect them from an open, transparent democratic process that assembles legislative majorities acquires executive assent to make good laws that protect people from those abusive holders of PhDs, MDs, and etc.
The task this era is to extinguish an (again) resurgent march toward full autocracy in the United States. Each cycle is characterized by charismatic leaders, their simultaneous misuse and condemnation of the Constitution, and the many marriages of evil convenience between American fascists and Wall Street money, Main Street "middle class" whites and backroad poor whites.
"That one was me." Bernie Sanders, in Presidential Candidate debate.
Call me a Bernie Bro if you want to. The USA PATRIOT Act (talk about a mis-nomer) was written, by both the House and the Senate, as a way to improve domestic security after the 9-11 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Both House and Senate acts were carefully written to preserve civil liberties while allowing collaboration between agencies, but they did differ, as all bills do, in specific wording.
Then the bills go into the Reconciliation Committee, where Senators and Representatives hash out the differences so a unified bill can go to the President to sign (or not). They get rewritten a bit along the way, of course.
But for the USA PATRIOT Act (yes, it's an acronym, and yes, it's a horrible one even by the standards of typical Congressional crap), the Reconciliation Committee just threw out both House and Senate versions, replaced them with the total wish-list of every authoritarian cop, and said, "This is it, vote for or not."
Senator Sanders said not. Ninety-five other Senators said for. In this matter I think he was right, and history has largely vindicated his contrary opinion.
A reminder: Hillary Clinton WON the popular vote. She got 2.9 million more votes than DonOLD. Something Bernie Bros refuse to admit happened. All they do is wail that Bernie would have won. I like Bernie but the electoral college could have fucked up the popular vote with him as well.
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse. 🔥 🔥 🔥
https://x.com/senwhitehouse/status/1838637940265599016?s=61&t=d57_wdu2mp3jUpQgi28A5Q
I am so sick of idiots on parade. That's what these so-called Republicans are, whores for the rich with no values or ethics.
trump is an ignorant sociopath and a pathological liar--he lies the same way he breathes, he cant help it
jd vance is a calculating, devious, educated liar--now i really hate him--
he's even more dangerous than trump
Hypocrites as well as fabulous Harris/Walz campaign talking points. Thanks GQP!
that whole my job impacts my religious freedom lie is so tedious - no ones faith requires them to be a bigot or hate filled asshole
What job could actually impact their religious freedom? Pornography? Executioners? No. It’s usually about someone else having access via insurance to something they don’t believe in like birth control or IVF. Neither of which is any of their business.
it will be along the lines of 'i should be able to work anywhere i want and have my special snowflake status catered to' entitlement bull dust
If their job impacts their "religious freedom", they need to get a different job.
i mean, as a vegan you wouldn't take a job as a butcher and then refuse to butcher meat because of your beliefs (wait for it, someone will try that) so why the hell choose to work in an industry you don't support
Now J.D. is trying to be the big smiley face, bring his brand of light and joy to the team (since TFG's smile is so creepy) to offset the authentic joy in Kamala's Tim's team.
The problem is, that big moon face smile on him looks so painful, like he's not used to having to do it. You see the underworked smile muscles are pushing hard against the fat resistance in his cheeks.
As opposed to Kamala, Tim and even -- especially -- old Handsome Joe, who all have genuine million dollar smiles that come easily. Yay us!!
If you don't want to provide IVF, don't get a job in an IVF clinic! Genius! (Just asking for a friend ... once the fetus is implanted/baby born is it still against their religion to provide medical care???)
Did Katie Britt explain her opposition in her fundy baby voice?
TBH she did get a send up from scarlett johansson...
By gad, sir, you are a character, that you are. There's never any telling what you'll say or do next, except that it's bound to be something abominable!
𝘛𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘸𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘢𝘯 𝘐𝘝𝘍 𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘤 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘦.
Yeah. Were they honest during the job interview?
"Before I work here, I should inform you that I have a very specific set of beliefs. I believe that fertilized eggs are human beings, so I can't be involved in handling anything to do with IVF or any other procedure that uses fertilized eggs. I won't even touch the paperwork. Also, artificial insemination involves masturbation, so that's out. In fact, the only approach I find acceptable is coaching infertile couples in the rhythm method. Now, have I got the job?"
Does she mean the companies that provide health insurance would ostensibly have to cover their employee's procedure and they may have a cough religious cough opposition? Like a Hobby Lobby birth control situation?
I bet these FAMBLY VALOOZ companies make you use FMLA for maternity leave too.
Corporations don't have religion. You never see them in church. I bet none of them tithe.
Even if the people running a corporation have religious beliefs is irrelevant. After all, the reason to incorporate is to shield and separate the assets of the corporation from the individuals who run it. That separation logically means that the religious beliefs of the people who run the corporation have no impact on the corporation itself, which cannot have or hold beliefs, being a legal person only in a legal sense.
A corporation can't give a fuck if the employee benefits it offers pays for contraception coverage or IVF.
“I thought I was applying for a job at Dollar Tree”
Ta, Robyn. Lots and lots of inaction on the R side of things.
That's a lot of campaign ads right there.
I assume that once Marsha Blackburn waddles out to pasture, Katie Britt will take her place as the dumbest woman senator ever elected.
Not dumb--dishonest
GQP -"Foot, meet bullet".
Plus, here's a good opportunity to point out that conservative thought, so-called, is nothing but pseudo-intellectualism masking a racist authoritarianism:
It's simply not "conservative" to make laws allowing or banning a medical procedure. Under the supposed tenets of "conservative thought," the practice of medicine is already regulated -- requiring education, licensing, etc., and the law has created a space in which those admitted to the practice of medicine can, well, practice.
In this space, says WFBuckley's id, those who have passed the government's hurdles to gain admittance have a zone of freedom in which to apply their own discretion -- and pursue new solutions and innovation -- unhindered by further intrusions by the state.
No true conservative lawmaker -- or judge -- would say it is the legislature's or the judiciary's job to get so granular as to allow or prohibit *specific* courses of treatment developed by duly credentialed members of a regulated profession. So should the allegedly conservative Alabama Supreme Court have said.
Now of course as non-conservatives -- we know all the foregoing is poppycock. We know that the the framers of the Constitution of the United States had more than a little suspicion of the human species -- the Constitution is covered with phrasing that presumes that, of course, this and that government official will lie, cheat, steal; that voters will elect incompetents and crooks; that some of the people, while also being the sovereigns in our system of government, will riot, foment insurrection, and commit acts of rebellion and treason.
And so the Constitution recognizes, over and over again, human failings and weakness, and tries to design a system which both limits the government's power to infringe on rights BUT ALSO allows one portion of the populace or one or more branches of government, to save the entire system by giving it powers to block that a portion or branch that has fallen into error, selfishness, expedience or criminality.
Given that, we know that even credentialed people will invent pseudo-scientific "conversion (or "reparative") therapies" -- and that their medical licenses shouldn't protect them from an open, transparent democratic process that assembles legislative majorities acquires executive assent to make good laws that protect people from those abusive holders of PhDs, MDs, and etc.
The task this era is to extinguish an (again) resurgent march toward full autocracy in the United States. Each cycle is characterized by charismatic leaders, their simultaneous misuse and condemnation of the Constitution, and the many marriages of evil convenience between American fascists and Wall Street money, Main Street "middle class" whites and backroad poor whites.
Let's keep working.
"It wouldn't have mattered. The vote was 95-1!"
"That one was me." Bernie Sanders, in Presidential Candidate debate.
Call me a Bernie Bro if you want to. The USA PATRIOT Act (talk about a mis-nomer) was written, by both the House and the Senate, as a way to improve domestic security after the 9-11 attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Both House and Senate acts were carefully written to preserve civil liberties while allowing collaboration between agencies, but they did differ, as all bills do, in specific wording.
Then the bills go into the Reconciliation Committee, where Senators and Representatives hash out the differences so a unified bill can go to the President to sign (or not). They get rewritten a bit along the way, of course.
But for the USA PATRIOT Act (yes, it's an acronym, and yes, it's a horrible one even by the standards of typical Congressional crap), the Reconciliation Committee just threw out both House and Senate versions, replaced them with the total wish-list of every authoritarian cop, and said, "This is it, vote for or not."
Senator Sanders said not. Ninety-five other Senators said for. In this matter I think he was right, and history has largely vindicated his contrary opinion.
For those of us that don't see the world in black and white: Bernie wasn't worth it, Bro.
To be fair, I am somewhat colorblind (red/green). So there ;-P
Instead the Democrats nominated Hillary Clinton, and you got as President Donald Trump. What was that worth, hmm?
I talked to a few Trump supporters in 2016. Many of them said they'd be fine with Bernie Sanders. But o lord they loathed Hillary Clinton.
A reminder: Hillary Clinton WON the popular vote. She got 2.9 million more votes than DonOLD. Something Bernie Bros refuse to admit happened. All they do is wail that Bernie would have won. I like Bernie but the electoral college could have fucked up the popular vote with him as well.
They might be fine with Bernie but they were still going to vote for Trump.
"Many of them said they'd be fine with Bernie Sanders."
(Lol, to you.)
Months of Bernie-Bros bad mouthing Hillary before the election (because they thought SHE was the real enemy) was SO helpful!
Calling me a "drama queen" about the SCOTUS was SO helpful!
We will have to agree to disagree, (the rules keep me from saying anything else).
I do not believe I called you a "drama queen" about the SCOTUS.
But you are correct in that. We shall agree to disagree. Thank you.