User talk:Amp888


 * 09:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

So if you're reading this, I need help. I have discovered that I am holding hypocritical beliefs, and thus something must change so that I am not hypocritical. 1. I believe that government should be able to force religious institutions to pay for birth control for all employees as per the ACA, also known as Obamacare, even if it goes against the institutions beliefs; the 'hobby lobby' decision by the supreme court was wrong. 2. I believe that government should not be able to force religious institutions to perform marriage ceremonies that go against their religious beliefs; if a church doesn't want to marry a homosexual couple, that couple must go elsewhere.

I believe I am being hypocritical by holding both of these beliefs at once. Show me where I am wrong, and how to be 'right', as far as there actually being a 'right' in this situation. 05:39, 20 October 2014‎


 * I don't see that to be very hypocritical. If that is hyprocritical, then not allowing Jews to stone people when their kids are rebelling, while allowing them to celebrate Hannukah is hypocritical. My 2 cents though is that the ACA isn't exactly the best bill to begin with.I won't go far as saying that it promoted RFID chipping (it does NOT contrary to what Religious people are saying), or it's communist (which I'm not against), but I personally disagree with the first point, for the reason that I personally don't like the ACA, and we're already allowing them TAx exemptions. maybe if we remind them of that, and give them another exempt from some thing they'll shut up about being persecuted?--Tsunadi (talk) 06:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Those Jew-baiting analogies aren't useful or accurate. The real difference is: situation 1 is about an employee's rights & entitlements from their employer, which - in a society that nominally respects freedom of religion - shouldn't be predicated on their employer's religious views.  Whereas situation 2 is about a religious organisation performing something which (despite its legal & civil functions) is still widely regarded as religious in nature.  The principle of freedom of religion tends to favour the church being able to perform marriages according to its own creed & not being forced to sanctify marriages which its followers see as unholy.  The church-user is in a better position to 'go elsewhere' for their marriage as you said above than an employee whose employer limits worker rights on a religious basis.   09:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The main thing same-sex couples want is for the government to recognise their unions as legal marriages at the Federal level, not to force specific churches to perform services for them. The legal institution of marriage confers an enormous number of benefits: did you know, for example, that hospitals can and have prevented people in same-sex relationships from having their loved ones present while they were dying because they did not have a legal right of visitation? King Skeleton (talk) 09:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)