Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Hobby Lobby Refusing to pay for conrtaceptives because they dont believe in it(Despite the owner investing in company that makes them)

Thats not forcing their religion down someone else's throat. Thats someone else forcing THEM to pay for something against their beliefs.

Christian student organizations also often have school policies conflict with their beliefs. Such as policies which prevent discrimination based on religion and sexual orientation in selecting student leadership for that club. Allowing someone with opposing characteristics to have leadership positions in those clubs would basically destroy the point of that club.

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Hobby Lobby Refusing to pay for conrtaceptives because they dont believe in it(Despite the owner investing in company that makes them)

Thats not forcing their religion down someone else's throat. Thats someone else forcing THEM to pay for something against their beliefs.

Give it up Frazzie...

The argument stems whether or not corporations/groups can have beliefs.

The SCOTUS ruled the one argument is correct. (see Citizens United and Hobby Lobby cases).

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Hobby Lobby Refusing to pay for conrtaceptives because they dont believe in it(Despite the owner investing in company that makes them)

Thats not forcing their religion down someone else's throat. Thats someone else forcing THEM to pay for something against their beliefs.

Except as said, the guy in hobby lobby is more than happy to have a stake in a company that does.
They are a company and should follow he law, if they dont like the law, they are more than welcome to close their doors.

Except it was held that they can indeed claim exemption in this case.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Hobby Lobby Refusing to pay for conrtaceptives because they dont believe in it(Despite the owner investing in company that makes them)

Thats not forcing their religion down someone else's throat. Thats someone else forcing THEM to pay for something against their beliefs.

Except as said, the guy in hobby lobby is more than happy to have a stake in a company that does.
They are a company and should follow he law, if they dont like the law, they are more than welcome to close their doors.

The Government should also follow the law.

Hence why we have the courts.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Christian student organizations also often have school policies conflict with their beliefs. Such as policies which prevent discrimination based on religion and sexual orientation in selecting student leadership for that club. Allowing someone with opposing characteristics to have leadership positions in those clubs would basically destroy the point of that club.

Then either.

a. stop discriminating

or

b. make a club not supported by a public, non-religious, entity.

Again, not "Christians under attack".

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Christian student organizations also often have school policies conflict with their beliefs. Such as policies which prevent discrimination based on religion and sexual orientation in selecting student leadership for that club. Allowing someone with opposing characteristics to have leadership positions in those clubs would basically destroy the point of that club.

Then either.

a. stop discriminating

or

b. make a club not supported by a public, non-religious, entity.

Again, not "Christians under attack".

I do agree that Obama isn't "attacking" Christians... nor is he has done/advocated as much.

However, you cant ignore that in these last few years, Christians has taken a beating socially. Hence the "Christians under attack" memes...

So Christian students can't have religious clubs? By the way, student clubs are almost always entirely self-funded. And every religious club has been that way too. I've never been in a club that received any funding from the school.

So you rent the room that the club takes place in to you? Just because you aren't getting financial support, doesn't mean you aren't getting support.


edit: And, yes Christian students can have religious clubs, they just have to follow the same rules as everybody else.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
So you rent the room that the club takes place in to you? Just because you aren't getting financial support, doesn't mean you aren't getting support.

So... wait, you pulling a "separation of church vs state" thing here?

How's this on-topic?

Must have missed something...

So you think that just because a club uses a room on the school grounds gives them the right to discriminate against our clubs practices?

Thats pretty crappy dude. Especially when there is an Atheist club which can do 100% equivalent activities, and they don't run into issues.

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
So you rent the room that the club takes place in to you? Just because you aren't getting financial support, doesn't mean you aren't getting support.

So... wait, you pulling a "separation of church vs state" thing here?

How's this on-topic?

Must have missed something...

Black Templar was coming about Christian school clubs (which is to say, school clubs about Christianity, not school clubs in a christian school) not being able to discriminate based on religion or sexual preference/identity. My response is, basically, "don't expect special treatment". If people want to make a private religious club (also called a church) they can discriminate all they want, but if you are making a club in a school, you have to follow their rules, no matter your religion. The only real ways is things that don't negatively effect other people, like Sikhs being allowed turbans, stuff like that. Not "you can't be part of this club because you are gay".

And it's not on-topic a all, it was a tangent based on the "Christians under attack" thing.

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Christian student organizations also often have school policies conflict with their beliefs. Such as policies which prevent discrimination based on religion and sexual orientation in selecting student leadership for that club. Allowing someone with opposing characteristics to have leadership positions in those clubs would basically destroy the point of that club.

Then either.

a. stop discriminating

or

b. make a club not supported by a public, non-religious, entity.

Again, not "Christians under attack".

I do agree that Obama isn't "attacking" Christians... nor is he has done/advocated as much.

However, you cant ignore that in these last few years, Christians has taken a beating socially. Hence the "Christians under attack" memes...

Probably because alot of what their doing is trying to regress us as a nation?

So why can Atheist clubs discriminate? Club leadership is required to espouse their club's constitution. Atheist clubs have a charter espousing non-belief in any deity. Christian clubs have charter's espousing belief in God and the divinity of Jesus christ.

Which the former ok and the latter not?

 Grey Templar wrote:
So you think that just because a club uses a room on the school grounds gives them the right to discriminate against our clubs practices?

Thats pretty crappy dude. Especially when there is an Atheist club which can do 100% equivalent activities, and they don't run into issues.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. If you make a club in a school, you are bound by their rules. It was your choice to make/join the club. When the club started, it agreed to be bound by those rules. Don't like them? Make a club not in the school. It's a simple as that.


And if the Atheist club is doing that, complain, as they should not be allowed to do that any more than you.

 Grey Templar wrote:
So why can Atheist clubs discriminate? Club leadership is required to espouse their club's constitution. Atheist clubs have a charter espousing non-belief in any deity. Christian clubs have charter's espousing belief in God and the divinity of Jesus christ.

Which the former ok and the latter not?

Both are Ok, but when one actively trys to discriminate, going against the schools missions statement, thats when it is bad.

 Grey Templar wrote:
So why can Atheist clubs discriminate? Club leadership is required to espouse their club's constitution. Atheist clubs have a charter espousing non-belief in any deity. Christian clubs have charter's espousing belief in God and the divinity of Jesus christ.

Which the former ok and the latter not?

I was still replying to whembly before I saw your post

Check up a bit to see my answer.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
So you think that just because a club uses a room on the school grounds gives them the right to discriminate against our clubs practices?

Thats pretty crappy dude. Especially when there is an Atheist club which can do 100% equivalent activities, and they don't run into issues.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. If you make a club in a school, you are bound by their rules. It was your choice to make/join the club. When the club started, it agreed to be bound by those rules. Don't like them? Make a club not in the school. It's a simple as that.


And if the Atheist club is doing that, complain, as they should not be allowed to do that any more than you.

People have complained and pointed out the hypocrisy. Nothing is done.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Hobby Lobby Refusing to pay for conrtaceptives because they dont believe in it(Despite the owner investing in company that makes them)

Thats not forcing their religion down someone else's throat. Thats someone else forcing THEM to pay for something against their beliefs.

Except as said, the guy in hobby lobby is more than happy to have a stake in a company that does.
They are a company and should follow he law, if they dont like the law, they are more than welcome to close their doors.

What if the law permits requires discrimination against Asians?

Having said that, we are seriously going down the rathole and probably should get back OT.

Agreed. this is going is circles.
That said, why is it people still ask for obamas birth certificate?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Christian student organizations also often have school policies conflict with their beliefs. Such as policies which prevent discrimination based on religion and sexual orientation in selecting student leadership for that club. Allowing someone with opposing characteristics to have leadership positions in those clubs would basically destroy the point of that club.

Then either.

a. stop discriminating

or

b. make a club not supported by a public, non-religious, entity.

Again, not "Christians under attack".

I do agree that Obama isn't "attacking" Christians... nor is he has done/advocated as much.

However, you cant ignore that in these last few years, Christians has taken a beating socially. Hence the "Christians under attack" memes...

Probably because alot of what their doing is trying to regress us as a nation?

What does this even mean?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

That said, why is it people still ask for obamas birth certificate?

You mean, why are people taking a Hillary Clinton's 2008 campaign birther question to heart?

You mean now? Like Trump?

I got nuthin.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
So you think that just because a club uses a room on the school grounds gives them the right to discriminate against our clubs practices?

Thats pretty crappy dude. Especially when there is an Atheist club which can do 100% equivalent activities, and they don't run into issues.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. If you make a club in a school, you are bound by their rules. It was your choice to make/join the club. When the club started, it agreed to be bound by those rules. Don't like them? Make a club not in the school. It's a simple as that.


And if the Atheist club is doing that, complain, as they should not be allowed to do that any more than you.

People have complained and pointed out the hypocrisy. Nothing is done.

Which is wrong. If I were in that school, I would have given an earful to whoever is in charge. That is wrong, and should not be tolerated (besides the fact that I think a club for being atheist is incredibly stupid, it's just not believing in something, not something that needs a club).

I have nothing against religious clubs vs any other club, they should all be treated equally. Same for people, plenty of people I know believe in some religion or other. I don't care. The only time I care about something like that is when people use it to harm others, force their view one others, or get special treatment which is a burden or harmful to others (so a Sikh's turban [not burdensome or harmful], as opposed to an atheist club discrimination against religious people [harmful]).

So how is a Christian club only wanting its leadership to be Christian harming anyone?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Agreed. this is going is circles.
That said, why is it people still ask for obamas birth certificate?

Why do people still think the moon landings were fake?

Why do people think 9/11 was an inside government job?

Why has the US not put up a 50 tall wall around New Mexico to protect us from the radzone muties?

Because people are stupid.

Discrimination, probably. I assume that's what the schools rule is. I personally think that part is a bit silly, I'm more concerned with the sexual identity/preference thing. Besides, aren't most clubs leadership position decided by a mini-election or something in the club? That's how we did it at out school, although we had a pretty small population (graduating class of less than 200, woo!) so it mostly came down to "alright we have 6 positions we have to fill, and 5 of us, who wants to do all the actual work?".

Although I thought you were talking about letting people into the club. Bit of crossed wires there (i.e. I'm an idiot ).

 Grey Templar wrote:
Especially when there is an Atheist club which can do 100% equivalent activities

Such as?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Especially when there is an Atheist club which can do 100% equivalent activities

Such as?

Promotion of their beliefs on campus, requiring their leadership to conform to their beliefs, etc...

Basically, they can require their leadership to be professing Atheists. The Basketball club can require their leadership to be active on the Basketball team. But the Christian club cannot require their leadership to be professing Christians.

Do note that there are no membership requirements. Only requirements for running in the election for club leadership.

 Grey Templar wrote:
You are still ignoring that the law is requiring someone to violate their beliefs. Thats totally and 100% wrong.

This is not an absolute. For example, a closely held company with Christian Scientist beliefs, that does not believe in anything but prayer for the provision of healthcare, cannot simply decide that it will not provide any healthcare at all. A Hindu owned company could not refuse to provide benefits to a Dalit-caste descended employeee.

Additionally, there are non-contraceptive uses for contraceptive pills, particularly in management of menstruation and a number of associated conditions. LIkewise, Hobby Lobby would cover things like Viagra and Vasectomies for men...

True, but this example isn't even close to something that extreme.

As for the pills, I'm not sure if you could discriminate based on the prescription type. If thats possible then that seems like an ok compromise. IE: You'll cover prescriptions for the non-contraceptive uses, but will not cover contraceptive prescriptions.