If a law should apply, it should apply regardless of how people feel about following it. If the law infringes on liberty, it should be repealed.

  • MTLion3@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    1 year ago

    The concept was originally one I could get behind as I believe initially it was to avoid religious persecution, but look at all the dumb shit we’ve experienced from religious groups in the last decade or two - but especially during COVID. Sucks to see the Christian community so resistant and spiteful in the face of saving lives because they just couldn’t get with the program.

    • snooggums@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      Isn’t it depressing how many things that sound like reasonable accommodations for different people are either twisted into something negative or were designed that way from the start?

      Exemptions to do things in private settings that don’t impact others is one thing, but using religious exemptions to allow discrimination is completely wrong. Honestly, if the exemptions negatively impacts someone else for any reason it should not be am exemption.

      • MTLion3@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s insane. It’s like the idea behind communism a everybody works towards a greater whole where nobody is supposed to be fundamentally better or more powerful than the rest of their brethren in the commune. Then we see every example of communism in the world and go “Oh… Well that’s fucked up”

  • davehtaylor@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    1 year ago

    Exactly.

    There’s a massive fucking difference between “usually we don’t allow weapons here, but Sikhs wearing a kirpan is fine” and “we’re giving you carte blanche to discriminate because you claim your faith demands it”, and exemptions almost universally exist because of the latter. If we as a society have decided that discrimination is wrong, then you don’t get to claim “But I really need to discriminate because God demands it.” You either abide, or you don’t get to open the business/school/whatever.

    And that goes especially for people like public servants and medical professionals. If your faith says that you can’t serve all people equally, then find a new fucking job.

      • cnnrduncan@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Plenty of Christian groups pull that shit too - just look at the food company Sanitarium and how they avoid paying their fair share of taxes simply because they spend money on “advancing religion”

      • qyron@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        We have that covered in my country.

        You can refuse to be vaccinate. No need to justify; your choice, you’re cool.

        However…

        If you opt for not vaccinate your children, then your children can not go to school. Any school. And although you can homeschool, nevertheless you are required to have your children enroled at your local school, in order for them to have formal evaluations and follow ups. But because the children are not vaccinated they don’t meet the requirements to enroll at a school, as they pose a threat to other children by possibly carrying diseases with high contagion risk.

        And if your children don’t go to school, you’re criminally responsible for it, as it is considered gross negligence.

        So…

        And getting a medical exemption is a very hard task, as the medical professional attesting it is mandated by law to prove why a child or individual can not be vaccinated. If demonstrated false, if gets very ugly for the physician.

        Religious exemptions don’t go very far here. Even JWs can’t do a thing if one is carried to an hospital in a life or death situation and doctors need to admnister blood or plasma: saving a life comes first. And if they refuse life saving procedures, they do it at their own responsability and are required to sign a term of responsability.

        The logic here, boiled down, is: do whatever you want with your life, as long you do not trample others.

        And it works.

  • BitOneZero@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    My problem with laws is that people rarely pay attention to their growth and creation, and if they do, it’s often with the intention of adding more.

    There never was supernatural laws, yet people still largely want to regulate how their neighbors dress, marriage approval, etc. I really don’t think religion came from the sky, I think it absorbed what people already wanted. And I think there are modern-day meme systems that are just as much a force as any classic easily-identified religion from 1500 years ago or older.

  • reverendsteveii@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    “Religious exemptions” are just conservatives doing exactly what conservatives do: setting up one set of laws for one class of citizens and another set of laws for everyone else. Try denying two Christians their marriage certificate in the name of Lord Satan, or refusing to make a cake for Christians because you don’t believe in Christianity, or any number of the other freedoms they’ve claimed for themselves. Not only will you not be offered the same rights the Christians have, but when they get violent you’ll be told you brought it on yourself.

    • Macros@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Good laws infringe on liberties of individuals or small groups to ensure greater liberty for all.

      E.g. you can’t go around murdering people so that other people have to liberty to live. We limit CO₂ emission so future generations do not suffer from the freedom limiting consequences of climate change. We require royalties and enforce copyright so that people can choose to be an artist without fearing for their income.

      Bad laws inhibit the freedom of many while giving it to few. E.g. copyright for 70 years after the death of the artists benefits only the few rights holders of popular old works.

      The struggle of a good government is to find the sweet spot for difficult positions. E.g. how long should copyright last? Which music volume should be allowed at night so that people can party, but others can sleep?

      • theluddite@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I can do whatever I want, with or without guns, whenever I want, preferably in a giant truck, and if gas is over 4 USD/gallon, that is communism.

    • sapo_peta@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      You’re technically free to do whatever you want. Murder, steal, go over the speed limit… Laws only establish fines and penalties if you’re caught.

  • HubertManne@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Its seems at the least a religious exemption should result in the law being scrapped. If for some reason one person does not have to do it then no one should.

  • PostmodernPythia@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    So we should be able to force Muslim and Jewish inmates to eat pork in prison simply because that was the cheapest thing the state could foist on them that week?

    Quakers and Mennonites should be forced to sign up for the draft?

    I don’t think as much actual policy is based on rationality, science, and evidence as you think it is. Even the non-religious exemption stuff.