The last time I checked, religious ideas and practices were protected by the constitution.

I'm 99% certain she's a trucker, though anecdotal. I don't really care if she takes wiener or not, nor do I care how often she does it, however its absurd that she'd sign-on to healthcare that precludes it from a Catholic/Jesuit university. If you don't like the religion, don't sign on to it's programs.

What purpose does the ultra-sound serve?

This is the pain of being an atheist Republican.

The original wording of the Pledge of Allegiance did not include "under god". Until 1954, when the Republican Party added it.

The current Republican Party seems willing to be led by those factions within it that are intent on turning this nation into one that recognizes Christianity as the national religion, above all others.

Well, this time we are good, seeing as how Mitt is not really a Christian, right?

1: Presupposing that Wal-Mart does not posses a monopoly on outpatient goiter treatment, and that it could provide some reasonable justification for doing so (eg, by demonstrating that treatment of goiters by laser was in conflict with the established doctrine and traditions of whatever religious faith Sam Walton and his family professed to practice) then yes, I would find this acceptable.


B: See my post # 54 in this thread, starting with "Obviously it's possible to dream up hypothetical scenarios to justify (or refute) pretty much any imaginable point of view."


III: I find it interesting to see members of this forum who, in general, argue against government meddling in its citizens freedom of choice and the operation of capitalist enterprise in general adopting arbitrarily contrarian viewpoints in this particular thread, and instead arguing that the federal government should force commercial entities to sell certain products and perform certain services. Such behavior is suggestive of the fundamental tenets of Marxist-Leninism as they pertain to directive economic planning.


0100: If you look hard enough, it's possible to find something to be offended by pretty much anywhere. Personally speaking, one of the burdens which I bear is the difficulty of finding shoes which fit me. I have found that the department store Kohls, for instance, carries no men's shoes at all in size 14 except for athletic shoes (eg: basketball shoes.)

Now, the size of my feet is no less genetically predetermined than my race, gender, eye-color and sexual orientation. So I suppose that if I really wanted to, I could attack Kohls in the courts and claim that they are discriminating against me by unjustly perpetuating the stereotype that men with large feet are all mindless jocks who belong only on the basketball arena and have no need for office-appropriate footwear.

Or, as an alternative, I could decide not to be a douchebag and simply take my shoe-buying money elsewhere. In doing so I forfeit the opportunity to have pancakes photoshopped onto my head, but such is the nature of life.


Abe Lincoln: Suppose that a hypothetical person whose last name is Perez is a member of an ethnic group whose traditional holiday cuisine includes numerous dishes made from pork (eg: lechon, chorizo, empanadas, croquetas, etc.) In preparation for the Navidad feast, this person goes to a kosher deli owned by a Jewish family to buy food. The proprietors of this establishment refuse to sell him any pork products, and claim that this is because their religion decrees that pork is unclean and that is cannot be handled or eaten by righteous persons.

Has Mr. Perez been discriminated against? Would he be justified in arguing that the owners of the kosher deli have insulted him and disparaged his heritage? Should he address Congress and argue that since the USDA recognizes pork as a staple food in the United States and sanctions its production and butchering, the owners of all Delis should be obligated to supply pork to their customers? What if Mr. Perez intended to use federally-provided food stamps to pay for the pork- would that make any difference one way or the other?


Tricia Helfer: Suppose that I have no particular education or job skills, and I am reduced to working in the fast-food industry. The local economy isn't all that good, and the only place I can find a job is at some joint called Chick-for-all that sells chicken sandwiches and peach tea. Because I need to support a large family, I am desperate for all the hours that I can get. The owners of Chick-for-all claim to be of a certain religious belief, and as such, they close their restaurant on Sunday.

Am I justified in claiming that Chick-for-all is unfairly imposing the religious beliefs of its owners upon me by forcing me to conform to their customs and not allowing me to fry chicken on Sunday? Has the state government sanctioned this imposition of religion by the fact that they have granted a business license to Chick-for-all? What about the fact that the city granted a tax break to Chick-for-all in order to encourage business development in the downtown area- does that make the city also culpable in sanctioning a certain religion?

Oh, and the bicycle thing- that was clever. :D

Ya think she'd pay for my vasectomy?

Not if they are funded by federal cash and blatantly discriminatory.

I can use federal money to start my own college, and refuse entry to blacks, right? My religion says they're bad, so I'll take tax dollars, and use them to enforce my doctrine.

yes, acutally.

Why not? There are all-black or all women's schools

2ndGearRubber, did you miss the part where Georgetown is a private University?

Unless you consider Federal student aid to constitute "funding" then this argument is groundless, and in that case, I ask you to resolve the paradox which you have just created for yourself under sections "Abe Lincoln" and "Tricia Helfer" of my last post above.

I'm not quite up on what the law is nowadays.

I think in certain states you can be a minor and get an abortion without your parent's consent.

With the new ruling, will the nurse's office at grade school be handing out the morning after pill?

So, since when do you need insurance for falling down some stairs?

TLDRwhole thread, but Grove City v. Bell (as well as substantial later decisions, but I don't have the time I need to sit down and do a full treatment on this right now. This is just a quick and dirty explanation.) clearly establishes receiving federal student aid is receiving federal funding. (Sidenote: Also, receiving state student aid is receiving state funding with all the restrictions involved.)

You can establish a private college, and so long as it receives *no* subsidies *or* funding whatsoever from the state or federal governments, you can do whatever the fuck you want with it. The second it receives even so much as a dime from either, though, it creates restrictions. You can see this example in, for instance, all women's colleges - but they don't even offer federal or state student aid in order to be able to operate as such. This is tied to why so many colleges became co-ed and/or desegregated over the past ~50-60 years.

Fair enough.

1: Remember that this isn't about Georgetown itself. It's about a private health insurance plan.

2: While I haven't researched it, I'm going to go out on a limb and posit that said healthcare plan probably does not pay for contraceptives for men, either. (eg, condoms, vasectomies, RISUG/VasalGel, etc.) If true, then this policy is non-discriminatory.

3: If the Jewish owner of a kosher deli refuses to sell me a pork chop on the grounds that pork may not be handled or consumed by righteous persons, has he insulted me / discriminated against me / uttered a slur against my heritage? (My culture espouses the frequent consumption of pork at holiday celebrations.) Presupposing that I normally use food stamps to pay for purchases which I make at this deli, and in light of the fact that the USDA (a federal agency) sanctions and regulates the sale of pork, does that mean that the deli is being federally subsidized?

1: You asked about financial aid and federal funding.

2: Actually, vasectomies can be covered under insurance if certain medical conditions are met, Joe (Similar medical conditions that are required for birth control, even!). The rest of your argument is inherently fallacious and makes me wonder what you have been smoking - it doesn't meet the smell test of your typically extremely well researched and well thought out posts.

3: See above. Not a goddamn thing to do with the topic I was discussing, and even then of only extremely questionable relevance. It would be a question of if the Deli refused to serve you as a non-Jew, not that the Deli refused to stock non-kosher items.

Ok, so we're basically just making arguments that aren't relevant to the thread.

this should be blaen's sig.

ftfy