Ah, yes, if only America had morals, then we could stone to death people who we disagree with. What a wonderful world that would be!
So sayeth Pat Robertson, who speaks for millions who watch his show and believe this feeble old man (who thinks that “homosexuals cause earthquakes” because God is so unhappy).
“I think you’ve got to remember from the Bible, you look carefully at the Bible, what would have happened in Jesus’ time if two men decided they wanted to cohabitate together, they would have been stoned to death,” he said. “So, Jesus would not have baked them a wedding cake, nor would he he have made them a bed to sleep in because they wouldn’t have been there.”
“But we don’t have that in this country here,” he said with a wistful look in his eye. “So, that’s the way it is.”
You all remember those parts of the Bible where Jesus spoke about how he hated gays, right? And how they should be stoned to death? You don’t remember those parts? Oh, that’s probably because they aren’t in there.
There actually are comments like that in the Old Testament, right next to the prohibitions against tattoos, ham sandwiches, shrimp, planting crops together, wearing clothing made out of more than one cloth, divorce, and allowing women to speak in church. But for some reason, there isn’t a huge Christian movement to ban bacon.
Based on the arguments presented at the Supreme Court today in the Hobby Lobby case, the conservative members of the Supreme Court once more appear ready to hold that corporations have more rights than people. This is not a surprise to anyone who follows the court.
It seems that corporations are people, and a corporation can have a religion. What’s more, their religion is more powerful than your religion, and if you work for them, they can force their religious views on you.
Where is this in the Constitution? Ha ha! Didn’t you read the word “corporation”? That’s all you need to know to determine how Scalia and his pals will vote.
The more liberal members of the Court (the three women especially) questioned how you could determine a corporation’s religion. “How does a corporation exercise religion?” Sotomayor asked. A poll of shareholders? What about shareholders that do not share the same religion as the CEO?
Opponents rightfully pointed out that this could lead to corporations deciding that they could use their religion to justify firing all gays, prohibiting women from working, and otherwise taking away our basic rights.
This has the possibility of rising to the level of “terrible decisions” reached only previously by the Citizen’s United decision which found two fictions to be law: that not only are corporations people, but money is speech — therefore corporations have the right to speech much greater than those of us poor individuals.
Well, it will be the most terrible decision until the Supreme Court tops it with the follow-up case later this year that holds that individual limitations on campaign contributions are also invalid … at which time it may just be easier to allow the billionaires to vote for us.
Tomorrow the Supreme Court will hear one of the silliest cases ever. Allow me to reprint my thoughts on this from a blog post months ago:
Hobby Lobby claims they are being discriminated against because they are being forced to provide health care which could provide birth control to those heathen women — you know, those hussies who can’t control their libido that Mike Huckabee warned us about.
Hobby Lobby claims to be a Christian corporation. They refuse to even sell Jewish merchandise in the store. (“Want Hannukah gifts? Go elsewhere, Christ-killer!”) They have no problem whatsoever in buying cheaply-made crap from China because after all, the Bible approves slavery.
Most importantly, they claim they have the right to force their religious views on their employees. Amazingly, a federal judge in Oklahoma agreed with them and held, for the first time that I can see, that a corporation can actually have a religious view.
Fortunately, this is now on appeal, and hopefully clearer minds will prevail. Many groups are filing briefs opposing Hobby Lobby.
The issue is whether a business can refuse to give health insurance to its employees because of religious reasons. I am shocked that some of my friends think that this is perfectly fine. What’s next? Will they refuse to give you your salary if you buy alcohol with it against their religious views? Will we have to reduce our own freedoms to make our employers happy?
Should I, as a business owner, be allowed to force my beliefs on my employees? What if my religion believes women should wear burkas and never speak? Should I make all my female employees wear burkas?
The lower court apparently believes employers have powers to ignore laws they don’t like. “If you work here, you have to live by my beliefs, not yours. Don’t like it? Tough!”
I think we instead should say to business owners, “These are people who work for you, who have the right to make their own decisions about health care. You will give them the option, because this is America where we value individual decisions. Don’t like it? Tough!”
Your religion does not give you the right to disobey the law. There are Jamaican religions that believe in smoking marijuana during their ceremonies — tough, that’s illegal. Animal cruelty in the name of religion is illegal. Refusing to give your child medicine in the name of religion is illegal. Religions shouldn’t be exempt from the law just because they “really really believe” something. That’s not what America is about.
Look, if you start a business in America, we expect certain things from you. You have to pay a minimum wage; you have to have a safe working environment; you have to pay business taxes; you have to pay for worker’s compensation; you have to provide health care. Keep in mind that your employees may decide to use their money or benefits to do things you personally disagree with. Don’t like it? Tough. Don’t open a business.
If you don’t like the fact that we have freedom from religion in America, then maybe you should open a business somewhere else, like Iran. I understand they have no problem with you forcing religion on people who work for you.
Creationists, upset that Neil DeGrasse Tyson’s “Cosmos” series talks about facts, have demanded “equal time” to argue for their mythology.
In return, I think they should give scientists equal time on the 400 Club and other religious shows. 
It only makes sense, after all. I further demand that all science professors get equal time during your church service to refute whatever the preacher is saying about creationism. Teach the controversy!
For that matter, let’s not discriminate when it comes to creationism. We must also teach the Hindu version of creationism, which states that we “devolved” from pure consciousness. And the Cherokee creation story, which holds that the earth was created by a water beetle expanding mud to create the flat earth. Or the Egyptian story, wherein the god Ra emerges from a cosmic egg rising out of the water. Or the central African story of Mbombo, who came to feel an intense pain in his stomach, which led to him vomiting up the sun, the moon, and stars.
What’s that? Most of those are myths? They used to be religions but it turns out that no one believes those things any more? How about that.
Next in line to demand equal time are astrologers, alchemists, and the flat earthers, who demand that their vision of the world be taught alongside actual, real things.
I love writing these posts! Here’s another Federal court decision striking down a state’s law against gay marriage (or as we like to call it, “marriage”). This time, it’s Michigan.
In the last year, we’ve had decisions in Illinois, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, and Virginia. Meanwhile, Hawaii, New Jersey and Rhode Island have removed the prohibition without a court decision.
This is a great map from Mother Jones that has yet to be updated to include this latest decision
Not one has gone the opposite way. It will be quite difficult for the Supreme Court to rule that all of these cases were wrongly decided when they are unanimous. This is especially true when all of these decisions rely upon and quote the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the Defense of Marriage Act to justify their rulings.
The best parts of these decisions have been when the judges point out that the arguments of those who want to deny this basic right are ridiculous. Judge Friedman, in this most recent case, called the witnesses “unbelievable” and called their so-called scientific studies “deeply flawed.” (It should be noted that Judge Friedman is a Republican who was appointed by Ronald Reagan, just in case someone wants to try to argue that this is a political decision instead of a legal one.) “In attempting to define this case as a challenge to ‘the will of the people,’ ” he wrote, “state defendants lost sight of what this case is truly about: people.”
ventrellaquest.com 