He's writing an article for a newspaper, not a book of case law. The article itself was already quite long. The type of analysis you're looking for would easily add another 5 pages of textual analysis. Instead, he just links to the various cases so that intelligent readers can follow through and read for themselves.

Your biases are getting the better of you. The more you type, the more they show through.

Loving the "your biases are getting the better of you" theme btw, definitely keep that up. Especially in situations where the passage fits you to a tee.

Well the saga isn't quite over, but presuming things stand as they are now, everyone ITT should be happy. Marriages are continuing, so that harm is removed. And her religion is accommodated in that she doesn't have to sign anything with her name any longer. One can debate the exact role of who should have done what at what time in the saga to get to this place, but is seems largely correct. Of course the woman is still upset, but then she is a blithering idiot.

If a government worker wants an accommodation because he or she doesn't want to participate in an execution people are, and should be, understanding. That's also true though somewhat less so if she doesn't want to be part of abortions. However if her religion forbids her to take part in racial intermarriage, she will get very little sympathy even if she wins a court case.

It seems that most liberals are putting this lady in one of the first two categories rather than the third. Again I ask why?

As cute as your little efforts to try and insinuate that liberals are inconsistent are, can you point to someone actually doing what you accuse? Both views are disgusting, but we don't need to constantly be affirming the right response to your hypotheticals to have consistent world views. Anyways, the same basic logic applies. Even if repulsed, genuinely held religious beliefs ought to have religious accommodations if those beliefs are sufficiently unharmful. The analysis of harm changes from case to case.

The only thing that still bugs me is it does feel like religious people are given special privilege over the non religious. If a religious person has a moral issue with something at work they can keep their job by playing the religious card. Not so much for us non religious. They have to suck it up and quit, go against their moral or get canned. Where is my card....

it seems very plausible that the RFRA would be far superior if it had instead provided for accommodations for people with sincerely held moral or religious objections.

This is very similar to an argument I made in the other thread.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...0&postcount=78

Is it possible for an atheist to claim an objection to contraceptives in the same way that a religious person can? I do not see how this can be done successfully.

That being said, it's simply not true that they can always keep their job playing the religious card. The entire point of the original article was to articulate the boundaries of religious accommodation laws. Just having a sincerely held belief is insufficient to grant a religious accommodation.

Maybe not always keep their jobs but sometimes and sometimes is more then id get.. could be wrong though since i know very little about this.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendl...s-even-better/

I don't believe George Takei is correct in his First Amendment analysis. One can perhaps argue this if there had been a selective refusal to issue licenses, but since the decision was made to cease all licenses (presumably, even for marriages that fit her concept of a marriage), this argument seems to fail. There is no religious establishment because no religious view is actually favored.

In the elaboration of his viewpoint, he makes similar errors:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...amendment.html

This, of course, does not say that someone arguing Kim Davis' position on First Amendment grounds is correct, either. The only grounds that I see this being properly argued is on religious accommodation grounds.

It probably is more than you would get. There is simply not an equivalent belief structure for the atheist that can be called upon in the same manner that religious people can.

But isn't that exactly what the atheists around here spend lots of time defending? That atheism entails absolutely nothing beyond a lack of belief in God?

My moral structure comes from the same place as the religious as far as i can tell. The human mind.

Also i dont think its just atheists. Agnostic, deists and those who consider themselves spiritual but not religious might get caught up in it too.
My atheism does only entail my disbelief and lack of belief about the different Gods.

My morals dont come from my disbelief and lacking of belief in God. They come form thinking about moral questions.

"As far as [you] can tell" is a key phrasing. Claiming that morals originate from the human mind alone is already making a metaphysical type of claim about the nature of morality.

But in fact, even ignoring that, religious morals come from a historical place that people who do not accept the religious perspective are not privy to.

Sure. But that's because these viewpoints similarly do not entail any particular specific beliefs. An "agnostic" doesn't even claim to believe anything. Similarly, deism doesn't really entail anything specific, at least with regard to moral judgments and religious commitments.

Which is precisely why your moral perspectives are not protected in the same way that religious beliefs are. They simply aren't religious beliefs.

At this point, it's important to emphasize that a religious person's moral objection to something does not automatically entail that it is a religious objection. Consider the religious vegetarian that's a vegetarian for "moral" reasons. Those vegetarian beliefs are not protected as a religious belief.

That historical place was form the human minds from that place. Again as far as i can tell or what id guess.

Yeah that was my point. If they or i have a moral objection at work, no go. But through out the word religious in front of morals "it goes against my religious morals" and you got a shot.

I know and i think its unfair. A bit...i dont care that much.

Alright.

I don't see why giving accommodations to delusional people is any more problematic than giving accommodations to people for other types of disabilities.

The implicit premise ("atheists can't be religious") is wrong, so your reasoning is fallacious.

To make matters worse, the other implicit premise ("some religious objections to contraceptives are successful") is tenuous and likely hinges on a quite tailored definition of "successful".

Actually, I hold that atheism can be understood as a religion for some purposes, but I don't see how the argument proceeds on for this purpose.

Successful in the court of law as demonstrated in multiple court cases.

Sure, you can keep holding to that claim, but it still stands as a metaphysical claim. That historical place creates facts that an atheist would not be able to appeal to to bolster an argument that someone who ascribes to a religion can.

Ok but again its not just atheists. Its al lot on non religious. And even theists who believe in God like deist.

Sure. And different religions clearly have different things that they can appeal to.

But clearly, a Christian's value statement of "the value of life" that draws from both a Biblical perspective and a historical US cultural/political perspective of American Christianity identity gives them access to make the anti-contraception argument in a way that the atheist and deist simply can't.

And I'm not sure that a new-age religion person can simply say "But I believe life is just so special" and get the same treatment. (It would make an interesting test case, though.)

To the people that have their panties in a wad because this clerk in Kentucky
won't do her job:

Why weren't you screaming bloody murder when Obama decided that he had the
authority to not enforce the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, signed into LAW
by Bill Clinton? Why were you not screaming about that law not being enforced?

Funny how that works...

The main problem is that there is this distinction, in the law, between someone who has strong moral convictions on a subject for explicitly religious reasons, and for any other reason. I don't hate the idea of requiring some level of minimally harmful accommodations in cases of a sincerely held objection to some action, but as written this accommodation is required asymmetrically depending on the religious nature of the objection or not. Note this is a legal commentary, it doesn't depend on ones philosophical views on what, exactly, morals are when you do or do not accept God, or anything like that. That is, and should be, irrelevant for the courts.

the objection here isn't refusing to obey a law one finds unconstitutional (as Obama correctly predicted) and/or morally wrong (rosa parks), it is the hideous nature of her views and actions. Besides, there is a difference between her and a president.

Prior to the Supreme Court decision, I would have applauded someone who refused to give out marriage licences until gays could get licences. The courts, of course, have an obligation to uphold the law including the order to sign them and the contempt charges, but we can still praise or condemn actions not based on whether they are legal, but where their civil disobedience is one we agree with. Edward Snowden was a debatbly morally virtuous while being clearly legally wrong .

Atheism can't be understood as religion for the same reason theism can't be understood as a religion. Atheists and theists can, however, be religious. If this confuses you, consider that an american machine isn't a car, but an american machine can be a car.

Regardless, you said this: "Is it possible for an atheist to claim an objection to contraceptives in the same way that a religious person can?" Those are your words and they clearly imply that an atheist can't be religious. Perhaps you merely spoke to hastily.

<sigh> This has been resolved already, and you're simply on the wrong side of it. I can't help your ignorance. Only you can do that.

No, I'm quite certain I meant exactly what I said. They simply don't have the same force behind their arguments in the court of law.