If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Is your religious liberty being repressed? Here's an easy quiz to determine if your beliefs are being put at risk by those godless liberals in the Government   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 103
    More: PSA, religious community, Unitarians, liberty  
•       •       •

3862 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Sep 2012 at 1:50 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



103 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-08 11:06:45 AM  
When most people here claim their religious liberty is being repressed, it's usually a dog-whistle for "We want theocracy".
 
2012-09-08 11:56:28 AM  
"If you answered "B" to any question, then not only is your religious liberty not at stake, but there is a strong chance that you are oppressing the religious liberties of others. This is the point where I would invite you to refer back to the tenets of your faith, especially the ones about your neighbors." you may be a stupid farking bigot
 
2012-09-08 12:23:23 PM  
Call me when they start locking up fundie nutjobs.
 
2012-09-08 12:32:09 PM  
2 would be true if I was gay, 5 is true, and people are trying to accomplish 8.
 
2012-09-08 12:32:44 PM  
A = true, I should note.
 
2012-09-08 12:48:15 PM  

GAT_00: 2 would be true if I was gay, 5 is true, and people are trying to accomplish 8.


Could you be more specific? 5 is " Being a member of my faith means that I can be bullied without legal recourse."

In some parts of the US, some religions are discriminated against, but I'm not aware of cases where they don't have legal recourse.
 
2012-09-08 12:52:47 PM  

FloydA: GAT_00: 2 would be true if I was gay, 5 is true, and people are trying to accomplish 8.

Could you be more specific? 5 is " Being a member of my faith means that I can be bullied without legal recourse."

In some parts of the US, some religions are discriminated against, but I'm not aware of cases where they don't have legal recourse.


I'm about 99% sure I could be fired for being an atheist and that is legal.
 
2012-09-08 01:16:37 PM  

GAT_00: FloydA: GAT_00: 2 would be true if I was gay, 5 is true, and people are trying to accomplish 8.

Could you be more specific? 5 is " Being a member of my faith means that I can be bullied without legal recourse."

In some parts of the US, some religions are discriminated against, but I'm not aware of cases where they don't have legal recourse.

I'm about 99% sure I could be fired for being an atheist and that is legal.


You're only 99% sure, yet you claim that the A answer for that question is without a doubt true.

Oh okay, GAT.
 
2012-09-08 01:27:25 PM  

GAT_00:

I'm about 99% sure I could be fired for being an atheist and that is legal.



I am 100% sure that you could be fired for being an atheist, but I am equally sure that it is completely illegal and you have legal recourse if it were to happen.

"For purposes of Title VII, religion includes not only traditional, organized religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, but also religious beliefs that are new, uncommon, not part of a formal church or sect, only subscribed to by a small number of people, or that seem illogical or unreasonable to others"... " An employee's belief or practice can be "religious" under Title VII even if the employee is affiliated with a religious group that does not espouse or recognize that individual's belief or practice, or if few - or no - other people adhere to it..."
and
"These protections also extend to those who profess no religious beliefs."

From the EEOC COMPLIANCE MANUAL: Section 12 (esp. §12-A-1)

That doesn't mean that atheists aren't or won't be discriminated against, they are and they will be. But they do have recourse to legal action when it occurs. Your boss might fire you for being an atheist but, if so (depending on the nature of the job and your contract), you can sue his ass off for violation of Section 12 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
 
2012-09-08 01:32:02 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: GAT_00: FloydA: GAT_00: 2 would be true if I was gay, 5 is true, and people are trying to accomplish 8.

Could you be more specific? 5 is " Being a member of my faith means that I can be bullied without legal recourse."

In some parts of the US, some religions are discriminated against, but I'm not aware of cases where they don't have legal recourse.

I'm about 99% sure I could be fired for being an atheist and that is legal.

You're only 99% sure, yet you claim that the A answer for that question is without a doubt true.

Oh okay, GAT.



Oh he certainly could be fired for being an atheist. There's no question that there is some employer out there who would fire any employee who did not accept a religious belief. That part of it is "without a doubt true." He could be fired for having red hair or listening to gamelan music or enjoying books about dogs [Note: I have no idea if these traits apply to GAT_00]. He could be fired for anything at all.

Where GAT_00 is mistaken in the answer to question 5 is that he does in fact have legal recourse if such a violation took place.
 
2012-09-08 01:43:27 PM  

FloydA: The My Little Pony Killer: GAT_00: FloydA: GAT_00: 2 would be true if I was gay, 5 is true, and people are trying to accomplish 8.

Could you be more specific? 5 is " Being a member of my faith means that I can be bullied without legal recourse."

In some parts of the US, some religions are discriminated against, but I'm not aware of cases where they don't have legal recourse.

I'm about 99% sure I could be fired for being an atheist and that is legal.

You're only 99% sure, yet you claim that the A answer for that question is without a doubt true.

Oh okay, GAT.


Oh he certainly could be fired for being an atheist. There's no question that there is some employer out there who would fire any employee who did not accept a religious belief. That part of it is "without a doubt true." He could be fired for having red hair or listening to gamelan music or enjoying books about dogs [Note: I have no idea if these traits apply to GAT_00]. He could be fired for anything at all.

Where GAT_00 is mistaken in the answer to question 5 is that he does in fact have legal recourse if such a violation took place.


He's also incredibly off base as far as his response for question 2. If he were gay, there's NO reason to assume that most religious communities would bless the relationship, since we're clearly seeing that it's religious groups trying to keep it illegal in the first place.
 
2012-09-08 01:47:14 PM  
To use the same line of thinking as an arizona judge: If you weren't dumb enough to be here believing that shiat in the first place none of this repression would happen to you.
 
2012-09-08 01:49:39 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer:

He's also incredibly off base as far as his response for question 2. If he were gay, there's NO reason to assume that most religious communities would bless the relationship, since we're clearly seeing that it's religious groups trying to keep it illegal in the first place.


I think we must have read that question (and GAT_00's answer) differently.

There are some religions that do perform wedding ceremonies for same sex couples. If GAT_00 was gay and a member of one of those gay friendly religions, s/he could get his/her commitment sanctified by his/her church, but still not have it recognized as a marriage.

That's still the case in most states (even here, until November).

(GAT_00, I don't mean to be talking about you here. If I'm misrepresenting your point, please correct me.)
 
2012-09-08 01:55:01 PM  
It's amazing how few articles there are today, now that the Admins seem to have turned down the conservative butthurt a little.
 
2012-09-08 01:57:02 PM  
good article but fark is now a few days behind my facebook it seems....
 
2012-09-08 01:58:12 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: He's also incredibly off base as far as his response for question 2. If he were gay, there's NO reason to assume that most religious communities would bless the relationship, since we're clearly seeing that it's religious groups trying to keep it illegal in the first place.


Dude, I like you, but now you're just splitting tiny, tiny hairs on bacteria.

That, and FloydA is right here.
 
2012-09-08 01:59:14 PM  

GAT_00: FloydA: GAT_00: 2 would be true if I was gay, 5 is true, and people are trying to accomplish 8.

Could you be more specific? 5 is " Being a member of my faith means that I can be bullied without legal recourse."

In some parts of the US, some religions are discriminated against, but I'm not aware of cases where they don't have legal recourse.

I'm about 99% sure I could be fired for being an atheist and that is legal.


I was assured by the atheist community that it wasn't a faith.
 
2012-09-08 02:00:10 PM  
DNC Chair says "What's that? I can't hear you over the sound of my Christian privilege."
 
2012-09-08 02:01:32 PM  
I'd make a comment about being discriminated against as a former Catholic, now Buddhist but for the life of me, I can't think of a single instance. Most just go "oh? You're Buddhist? How interesting"

I also haven't gone into public politics as a Republican yet, so there's that too

/then again, I also don't normally make it known what my faith is, since, you know, it's mine and fark you for asking me
//terrible Buddhist
 
2012-09-08 02:02:44 PM  
The only people who repress my religious beliefs are religious.
 
2012-09-08 02:02:50 PM  

somedude210:
//terrible Buddhist


Best kind.
 
2012-09-08 02:03:42 PM  

friday13: The My Little Pony Killer: He's also incredibly off base as far as his response for question 2. If he were gay, there's NO reason to assume that most religious communities would bless the relationship, since we're clearly seeing that it's religious groups trying to keep it illegal in the first place.

Dude, I like you, but now you're just splitting tiny, tiny hairs on bacteria.

That, and FloydA is right here.


Those are called cilia.
 
2012-09-08 02:04:07 PM  

somedude210: I'd make a comment about being discriminated against as a former Catholic, now Buddhist but for the life of me, I can't think of a single instance. Most just go "oh? You're Buddhist? How interesting"


Have you ever been offended when you say "Make me one with everything" and the guy taking your order doesn't laugh?
 
2012-09-08 02:05:35 PM  

FloydA: somedude210:
//terrible Buddhist

Best kind.


hahaha, that's what I figured. It's better to understand the tenets of Buddhism then to force it down other's throats.

though I have to say, the Ikko Ikki monks from Shogunate Japan really are a fascinating bunch. Nothing more oxymoronic then a Buddhist warrior monk

/What's a Buddhist's favorite thing to do?
//protest a war and have some BBQ
 
2012-09-08 02:06:28 PM  

sprawl15: somedude210: I'd make a comment about being discriminated against as a former Catholic, now Buddhist but for the life of me, I can't think of a single instance. Most just go "oh? You're Buddhist? How interesting"

Have you ever been offended when you say "Make me one with everything" and the guy taking your order doesn't laugh?


I really wish I got that joke...so I'm gonna go with no
 
2012-09-08 02:07:22 PM  

sprawl15: GAT_00: FloydA: GAT_00: 2 would be true if I was gay, 5 is true, and people are trying to accomplish 8.

Could you be more specific? 5 is " Being a member of my faith means that I can be bullied without legal recourse."

In some parts of the US, some religions are discriminated against, but I'm not aware of cases where they don't have legal recourse.

I'm about 99% sure I could be fired for being an atheist and that is legal.

I was assured by the atheist community that it wasn't a faith.


i224.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-08 02:10:41 PM  
Just pick "A" or "B" for each question.
...

Scoring key:

If you answered "A" to any question, then perhaps your religious liberty is indeed at stake. You and your faith group have every right to now advocate for equal protection under the law. But just remember this one little, constitutional, concept: this means you can fight for your equality -- not your superiority.

If you answered "B" to any question, then not only is your religious liberty not at stake, but there is a strong chance that you are oppressing the religious liberties of others. This is the point where I would invite you to refer back to the tenets of your faith, especially the ones about your neighbors.


Just pick A or B huh?

So either my religious liberties are at risk, or I'm a religious oppressor? Those are the two possibilities?

Really?

Really?

BULL MOTHER FARKING SHIAT
 
2012-09-08 02:13:02 PM  

darknys: friday13: you're just splitting tiny, tiny hairs on bacteria.

Those are called cilia.



i105.photobucket.com
Right, right, stop it. This thread's got cilia.
 
2012-09-08 02:17:24 PM  
Reverend Emily Heath's main point that the religious right have for too long tried to falsely equate what they consider to be their God-given right to persecute other people with other people trying to oppress them was well made.

The right to bully gay kids.
The right to harass other religions.
The right to prevent gay marriage.
The right to control women's bodies.
The right to force religious teachings into science class.

These are not rights.

These are wrongs.

And before any religious nutjobs asks...

NO, NOT YOURS.

CAN NOT HAZ!

/Who's down with UCC?
//Aw, you know me.
 
2012-09-08 02:17:39 PM  

Kumana Wanalaia: Just pick "A" or "B" for each question.
...

Scoring key:

If you answered "A" to any question, then perhaps your religious liberty is indeed at stake. You and your faith group have every right to now advocate for equal protection under the law. But just remember this one little, constitutional, concept: this means you can fight for your equality -- not your superiority.

If you answered "B" to any question, then not only is your religious liberty not at stake, but there is a strong chance that you are oppressing the religious liberties of others. This is the point where I would invite you to refer back to the tenets of your faith, especially the ones about your neighbors.

Just pick A or B huh?

So either my religious liberties are at risk, or I'm a religious oppressor? Those are the two possibilities?

Really?

Really?

BULL MOTHER FARKING SHIAT


Reading is fundamental.
 
2012-09-08 02:20:42 PM  
Um, the recent thing about the birth control was a question of who was being forced to pay for it.
 
2012-09-08 02:36:17 PM  
The government is repressing the shiat out of my Sanctified Church of Cocaine and Hookers.
 
2012-09-08 02:37:10 PM  

jigger: Um, the recent thing about the birth control was a question of who was being forced to pay for it.


The right originally claimed it was religious intolerance to force Catholic organizations to pay for birth control and that it was proof Obama was pushing an anti-religious agenda. It wasn't and the whole debate was so embarrassing for them they retreated to "well, I just don't want my taxes paying for somebody else!" even though that wasn't the case either.
 
2012-09-08 02:38:06 PM  
i22.photobucket.com
 
2012-09-08 02:38:30 PM  

jigger: Um, the recent thing about the birth control was a question of who was being forced to pay for it.


Because it's obvious that if you have a uterus then you aren't allowed full health care. NOT YOURS! So it's ok for employers to enforce their religious choices on their employees, because girlz don't count.
 
2012-09-08 02:42:32 PM  

sprawl15: I was assured by the atheist community that it wasn't a faith.


Non-faith is often taken by religious people to be a faith and treated the same.

FloydA: The My Little Pony Killer:

He's also incredibly off base as far as his response for question 2. If he were gay, there's NO reason to assume that most religious communities would bless the relationship, since we're clearly seeing that it's religious groups trying to keep it illegal in the first place.

I think we must have read that question (and GAT_00's answer) differently.

There are some religions that do perform wedding ceremonies for same sex couples. If GAT_00 was gay and a member of one of those gay friendly religions, s/he could get his/her commitment sanctified by his/her church, but still not have it recognized as a marriage.

That's still the case in most states (even here, until November).

(GAT_00, I don't mean to be talking about you here. If I'm misrepresenting your point, please correct me.)


I was more speaking in general that if I was gay and wanted to marry someone, I couldn't marry them. The objections to that are solely religious. That was the logic behind that.

FloydA: I am 100% sure that you could be fired for being an atheist, but I am equally sure that it is completely illegal and you have legal recourse if it were to happen.


At will state. I can be fired for being an atheist and nothing would happen.
 
2012-09-08 02:43:39 PM  

odinsposse: jigger: Um, the recent thing about the birth control was a question of who was being forced to pay for it.

The right originally claimed it was religious intolerance to force Catholic organizations to pay for birth control and that it was proof Obama was pushing an anti-religious agenda. It wasn't and the whole debate was so embarrassing for them they retreated to "well, I just don't want my taxes paying for somebody else!" even though that wasn't the case either.


The birth control issue is whatever Republicans want it to be. It's proof that Obama hates men. Or religion, or loves over regulating, or hates babies.

It's like a Rorschach test.
 
2012-09-08 02:43:51 PM  

jigger: Um, the recent thing about the birth control was a question of who was being forced to pay for it.


No it wasn't. The anti-woman religious bigots said it was, but they were lying.
 
2012-09-08 02:44:51 PM  

darknys: friday13: The My Little Pony Killer: He's also incredibly off base as far as his response for question 2. If he were gay, there's NO reason to assume that most religious communities would bless the relationship, since we're clearly seeing that it's religious groups trying to keep it illegal in the first place.

Dude, I like you, but now you're just splitting tiny, tiny hairs on bacteria.

That, and FloydA is right here.

Those are called cilia.


i could have said that, but then I would have confused half the people here.
 
2012-09-08 02:48:37 PM  
What religious oppression under the threat of gay rights looks like.
images.sodahead.com
 
2012-09-08 02:48:57 PM  

jigger: Um, the recent thing about the birth control was a question of who was being forced to pay for it.


Oh look, another person who doesn't know how insurance works!
 
2012-09-08 02:57:32 PM  

maddogdelta: jigger: Um, the recent thing about the birth control was a question of who was being forced to pay for it.

Because it's obvious that if you have a uterus then you aren't allowed full health care. NOT YOURS! So it's ok for employers to enforce their religious choices on their employees, because girlz don't count.


Why the fark are the womenfolk working in the first place?
 
2012-09-08 02:57:35 PM  

Epoch_Zero: What religious oppression under the threat of gay rights looks like.
[images.sodahead.com image 475x476]


Nice...I'll contribute this classic: 

25.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-09-08 02:58:38 PM  

Kumana Wanalaia: [i22.photobucket.com image 265x308]


came for this
 
2012-09-08 03:00:13 PM  

jigger: Um, the recent thing about the birth control was a question of who was being forced to pay for it.


No, it was about people who were already paying for health insurance and who wanted their BC pills to be covered like any other prescription and their insurers who also wanted that to be the case (because it ultimately saves them money) both being thwarted by religious groups trying to force their illogical, immoral religious beliefs down everyone's else's throat.

/100th person to respond to that troll gets their pick of any plush toy from the upper rack!
 
2012-09-08 03:00:40 PM  

jigger: Um, the recent thing about the birth control was a question of who was being forced to pay for it.


The insurance companies offered to provide it for free. Insurance companies offering free coverage = religious persecution.
 
2012-09-08 03:08:47 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: He's also incredibly off base as far as his response for question 2. If he were gay, there's NO reason to assume that most religious communities would bless the relationship, since we're clearly seeing that it's religious groups trying to keep it illegal in the first place.


Get out a little more. The only wedding I've been to between people of the same gender was a Christian wedding.
 
2012-09-08 03:10:13 PM  

quatchi: jigger: Um, the recent thing about the birth control was a question of who was being forced to pay for it.

No, it was about people who were already paying for health insurance and who wanted their BC pills to be covered like any other prescription and their insurers who also wanted that to be the case (because it ultimately saves them money) both being thwarted by religious groups trying to force their illogical, immoral religious beliefs down everyone's else's throat.

/100th person to respond to that troll gets their pick of any plush toy from the upper rack!


prior to the compromise, that's what it was about. Who was going to pay for the coverage of BC.
 
2012-09-08 03:14:10 PM  

GAT_00:
I was more speaking in general that if I was gay and wanted to marry someone, I couldn't marry them. The objections to that are solely religious. That was the logic behind that.


Understood.



FloydA: I am 100% sure that you could be fired for being an atheist, but I am equally sure that it is completely illegal and you have legal recourse if it were to happen.

At will state. I can be fired for being an atheist and nothing would happen.


Hmmm. Arguable. It's likely (depending on the judge and jury) that your employer could win if you chose to bring a suit (c.f. Hicks v. St. Mary's Honor Ctr. and Visser v. Packer Engineering Associates, Inc.), because the McDonnell Douglas formula for assigning burden of proof has basically been abandoned.

Legally, your employer cannot fire you for being an atheist, but since Visser, all your employer has to do is claim that he's an asshole and doesn't like you personally, and it's now up to you to prove that the firing was because of religious discrimination.

So, yeah, you have legal recourse, just not necessarily effective legal recourse. In practice, I can understand that it works out the same.

(The "at will" doctrine really needs to go. It's a perversion of justice, IMO.)
(Note: I am not a lawyer, so the above might be complete poppycock.)
 
2012-09-08 03:21:39 PM  
Atheism is not a faith. There is no code. It is simply the dismissal of organized religion.

However, protection of religious freedom is not limited to those who believe in religion, but also to those who do not. It is a fundamental pillar of our country that our differences should not be excluded but included.
 
Displayed 50 of 103 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report