How should the courts test whether a person really has a religiously based objection to vaccines or birth control coverage?

[Maxdeath]

Oh my god are you so totally out of it you are unable to comprehend anything. You were the one that brought up birth control.
All the court has to do is look at the religious practices. They do not need sworn affidavits. They do not need to understand the religion in detail. Funny thing about this country it was founded on freedom of religion and it is still a held Belief. No matter if you want it to be or not.

 

[2aguy]

How high should the bar be set? When is it okay to tell a business that their alleged religiously based objection or imperative is bullshit?

They shouldn't.......if someone says their religious beliefs mean they don't get the shot, they don't get the shot.

 

[whitehall]

Accept their word?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

How high should the bar be set? When is it okay to tell a business that their alleged religiously based objection or imperative is bullshit?

Never

Decisions of conscience should be paramount.

The question you have an asked yourself is why should government have that kind of control?

 

[struth]

Yes, I know. But on what basis do they decide if it's a deeply held and sincere belief? What do you think the basis should be?

they listen to the person, and the judge….on the bases of if they believe the person has a deeply sincere belief

 

[BS Filter]

How high should the bar be set? When is it okay to tell a business that their alleged religiously based objection or imperative is bullshit?

As long as the business isn't breaking any law, they can run their business as they see fit. It's their business. If you don't like it, then don't patronize them or work for them. What the hell is wrong with you creatures?

 

[Sunsettommy]

Off topic. This is about courts carving out religious based exceptions to laws that are otherwise left in place as valid. You are talking about laws being fully invalid on the whole.

BULLSHIT!

Here is YOUR thread title YOU posted:

How should the courts test whether a person really has a religiously based objection to vaccines or BIRTH CONTROLS?


Then you asked this LOADED QUESTION,

"How high should the bar be set? When is it okay to tell a business that their alleged religiously based objection or imperative is bullshit?"



You seem to want loaded answers.......

​

 

[Stormy Daniels]

As long as the business isn't breaking any law, they can run their business as they see fit. It's their business. If you don't like it, then don't patronize them or work for them. What the hell is wrong with you creatures?

Okay, sure. But the issue is that the business would be breaking a law. For example, the ACA required businesses to provide health insurance that included birth control coverage. If the business refused, they'd be breaking the law. So they got pro-active and asked the court to recognize an exception to the law based on religious belief.

My question is what basis should the courts use to determine whether a person's religious belief warrants making an exception?

 

[Stormy Daniels]

BULLSHIT!

Here is YOUR thread title YOU posted:

How should the courts test whether a person really has a religiously based objection to vaccines or BIRTH CONTROLS?


Then you asked this LOADED QUESTION,

"How high should the bar be set? When is it okay to tell a business that their alleged religiously based objection or imperative is bullshit?"



You seem to want loaded answers.......

No, I want straight forward answers. It's really pathetic that some of you are instantly put so bent out of shape over this. I'm just trying to have a discussion. How should the courts test whether a person really has a religiously based objection to vaccines or birth control coverage?

 

[Stormy Daniels]

they listen to the person, and the judge….on the bases of if they believe the person has a deeply sincere belief

Listen to the judge? The judges are the ones making the decision.

 

[eagle1462010]

No, I want straight forward answers. It's really pathetic that some of you are instantly put so bent out of shape over this. I'm just trying to have a discussion. How should the courts test whether a person really has a religiously based objection to vaccines or birth control coverage?

Make them pick the Holy Grail............lmao

Who are they to judge on this.........if the argument fits they must take the ones asking at face value........Unless you can prove they were witch doctors dancing the other day.

lol

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Never

So, are you saying that the courts never should have carved out religious exceptions to the ACA requirement to cover birth control? Or that the military should not provide religious exceptions to vaccine requirements for service members?

Decisions of conscience should be paramount.

The question you have an asked yourself is why should government have that kind of control?

But that's not the topic of this thread. Right or wrong, the government clearly DOES have the power to create religious exceptions to laws. Don't get me wrong, whether the government should have that kind of power is a worthy topic. This just ain't the thread.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Unless you can prove they were witch doctors dancing the other day.

And what if they are witch doctors?

 

[eagle1462010]

So, are you saying that the courts never should have carved out religious exceptions to the ACA requirement to cover birth control? Or that the military should not provide religious exceptions to vaccine requirements for service members?

One word answer..........for both............Catholics.

 

[eagle1462010]

And what if they are witch doctors?

lmao.............so they are witch doctors and Christians.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

lmao.............so they are witch doctors and Christians.

Are you saying that religious exceptions should only apply for Christians?

 

[eagle1462010]

Are you saying that religious exceptions should only apply for Christians?

No...........but I'd say most are Christians applying here.............Catholics on Abortion says no..........even though the pope said it's ok on the jabs........The research did come from baby parts then synthetic after.

I was military but would have refused this jab............because I consider it BS........no matter what the military says about it. It's not like you are in a fire fight and they come up to you and say TAKE THE JAB......AND HERE'S SOME AMMO.........

The jab allowed you to get the virus............and the vast majority of younger people walked right through it.

 

[Lastamender]

That is an entirely different subject.

No it isn't, it is about government control.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

This is America. The court shouldn't have any role in deciding the profundity of my convictions...

That is an entirely different subject.

That cuts to the very core of your subject.

Your OP was asking about how strict the requirements ought to be for objections/exceptions to mandates that government never had any vestige of legitimate authority to impose in the first place.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

That cuts to the very core of your subject.

Your OP was asking about how strict the requirements ought to be for objections/exceptions to mandates that government never had any vestige of legitimate authority to impose in the first place.

No, that's not what I'm asking.