Religious Exemptions -- That Slippery Slope

I was disgusted, but not surprised, when I heard yesterday that the Senate was entertaining something called "the Toomey amendment," which would allow employers to discriminate against LGBT employees because of their -- pardon the expression -- religious values.

Not surprised because the religious tyranny wing of the republican party was able to get away with this lame rationalization for religious groups when in June the Obama administration allowed religious groups to exercise a religious exemption by not covering contraception, which would be somehow covered by other means.  Good deal, right?

Not good enough for the rabidly religious.  This was a mere victory en route to the next battle.  That next battle was that employers, whether a religious group or not, should not have to pay for contraception if it conflicts with their religious beliefs.  Nor should they have to pay the penalty for failing to cover this required benefit.  And the D.C. Appeals Court did in fact last Friday, strike down the requirement.

And of course, there is the battle raging over whether a pharmacist should have to fill a prescription for contraception if it burdens their conscience.  Even a waffling bill which allows an employee to refuse to fill as long as there is someone at the pharmacy who will do so has been unable to make it through Congress.  And why should it?  Refusing outright has been the raison d'etre of our current republican legislators.

What does contraception have to do with LGBT rights?  That religious exemption is the key to wiping out a whole lot of our civil liberties.  Because the same god who thinks women should not have protection from pregnancy believes that being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender is wrong.  According to the god who talks to these folks, a person of faith (i.e. christian) should be able to deny workplace rights to any of the above based on the perversion known as their "conscience."

So let's just look ahead down that slippery slope.  If the law and the courts agree that based on religious freedom an employer should not have to provide contraceptive care, or give LGBT persons employment equality, and businesses have the right to refuse to provide contraception based on their religious beliefs, some other likely god-fueled battles are:

Refusal to marry an interracial couple.

Refusal to allow adoptions by certain racial or religious groups.

Refusal of a restaurateur to seat people who are LGBT.

Refusal to allow members of certain groups service.

Segregated proms.

Signs in windows exercising business owners' rights:

Two things about the above examples.  First of all, check out the dates on the links.

Secondly, notice the language in defense of these horrific acts of discrimination.  They all positively flow with the blood of protecting religious freedom.

So here's the thing.  If we don't all join together to fight these injustices, we are all going to be living in a country in which the only freedom is granted to those who are white, wealthy, and claim to be christian.

The only way to protect our individual freedoms, and our freedoms as members of minority groups, is by uniting and not allowing any discrimination of any one of us by any person (or business or church).  If you can't see the problem with refusing to fill a prescription for birth control, I guarantee, your rights will be next in front of the firing squad.



  

Both Sides of Eric Cantor's Mouth

Eric Cantor is suddenly concerned about who's in the doctor's office with us:

"The doctor's office is the last place anyone would want to find the IRS."

I believe his concern stems from the fact that, particularly for women, the doctor's office has been getting crowded.

For decades we have had to make room for all the representatives of private insurance companies; in the heyday of managed care, there were all kinds of folk, from nurses to administrators, and even occasionally a doctor.

But Eric Cantor's proud contribution to the "manning" of the doctor's office has been all his votes to criminalize abortion.  He has voted every which way to limit a woman's rights when she is in her doctor's office, from forcing her to watch a sonogram to controlling how many weeks to who pays for the visit to where she can go.

And all these bills, should they become law, require personnel.  More enforcement personnel, in fact, than it would take to stand arm-in-arm guarding the Mexican border.

So I would like to take this opportunity to put Mr. Cantor's mind to rest (and I do believe a little rest would be good for such a panicky little man).

Only an idiot would think that the IRS is going to be involved in medical decisions.  The IRS would have lots less to do with medical decisions than does the insurance industry, to which Cantor would like to return all control by repealing the Affordable Care Act.

Obviously, this is another "keyword" mind game.  The IRS has become the fall guy for, well, everything, but it started with the "scandal" that right-wing groups were having applications for tax-exempt status denied.  In fact, political groups on both sides were being denied, as they should have been.  But Democrats being Democrats, instead of saying, "Yeah, what of it?" they cowered and allowed "IRS" to become yet another bad word eliciting knee-jerk rage like Benghazi.

I would like to hear Eric Cantor's defense of those votes which would place law enforcement solidly in the doctor's office with American women, and then he can explain why he thinks one more guy would make a difference in there.