I should have mentioned Australia and Canada too.

Exactly. Which is why it make sense for a free-market Republican like Rubio to oppose imposing monopolies. Christies supported the monopoly - not surprising for a liberal Republican.

The problem is that the devils are in the details either way. Everyone would love for the government to stop manufacturers from doing things we don't like, but when you start making up regulations you create new details for the devil to hide in.

Name another country that has experience as much terrorism from an identifiable ethnic group and hasn't done all it can to exterminate said ethnic group?

Israel puts up with a horrendous level of violence. A barbarian country would have done a final solution long ago.

And you're fine with that? I would like to see taxes reduced to what's minimally necessary. Then I could respond to your complaints about paying taxes by saying that we're only taxing the minimum necessary to achieve what are undeniably compelling government aims.

Republicans opposed the giving of government handouts to Tesla. Competition is fine, but it's not a free market if some companies are given discount loans by the government while others aren't.

Not quite true about "women". It's true Republicans do poorly with unmarried women. Once they get married, and especially once they have kids and have a stake in the future, they swing pretty heavily towards conservative politics.

It's not so much that Republicans have a "woman" problem. Democrats have a problem attracting men and married women.

There is no irony because the Republican party has a strong free market belief. Just as Tesla shouldn't benefit from government handouts, the car dealerships shouldn't benefit from government protection. Both should compete on their own merits in the free market. Anyone who can't see how Republicans oppose Tesla's handouts while supporting Tesla's right to compete is either just isn't trying or is brainwashed by the whole "conservatives are evil big business whores' nonsense pushed by so many news organizations and movies.

Of course you have religious beliefs, everyone does. You can't say the draft is wrong unless you do. Otherwise it is just survival of the fittest.

If that were the approach the government took, we wouldn't have a problem. But when the government starts demand certain behaviors (not just demanding that you refrain from certain behaviors, but demanding that you commit certain behaviors).

So you only want to get rid of part of the first amendment. At least you're honest about it.

By your religion, sure.

If we take that approach, then what significance does the 1st amendment have? It doesn't say "free worship", it says "free exercise".

Taken literally, the 1st amendment could be read to say that if a new law violates anyone's religion, then it is unconstitutional. Want to make a law saying you can't wear a hat during your driver's license piture? Unconstitutional! Want to make a law requiring business owners to pay for contraceptives? Unconstitutional! That seems crazy. But if you don't allow the government to make reasonable accommodations, then you force a choice between the two extremes of that literal interpretation and no 1st amendment at all.

This was much less of a problem back when most of the people were of the similar religion and the government didn't try to control every aspect of your life. Those who want to fix the by restraining government are in the minority. There are many people who want to fix the problem by making everyone the same religion again by in effect making everyone no religion, or at least none that matters since you can't actually exercise it.

We need another way. Reasonable accommodation is it. And it has long precedent.

I would assume that in boardrooms, making money makes you popular. Also the quick adoption of gay marriage benefits by so many major corporations would suggest that boardrooms aren't as religiously zealous as you seem to imagine.

I don't have time to do a lot of research, but I'll give you an opportunity to read this: http://townhall.com/columnists...

It would be great if the government hardly ever had to worry about whether its actions were interfering in some religious beliefs. But there are only two ways to make that happen - limit the government's scope of control so that it no longer tries to run so many aspects of our lives, or scrap the 1st amendment. Personally I would like to do the former, but given America's change from a freedom loving people to a hand-out loving people I don't think a return to limited government will occur in my lifetime. I cannot accept the latter - we need to keep the 1st amendment. All that remains is to figure out how to accommodate an continually more controlling government with religious freedoms.

Obviously ignoring religious freedom altogether as Scalia appears to suggest in the ruling on Peyote is abhorrent. But letting anyone pretend to have a religious belief just so they can break any inconvenient rule or law is unworkable as well. So we need to make reasonable accommodations with "reasonable" depending on things like how serious the belief can be shown to be and how disruptive the accommodation is.

For example, if someone wants to avoid the draft due to a religious pacifism, it makes sense to do so. But too many people would claim such an exemption simply to avoid the dangers of war. So we would need to scrutinize carefully whether the person can demonstrate that they have really been practicing pacifism or did they suddenly discover it when the war started? A high bar would need to be reached.

On the other hand, if someone wants to cover their hair for a driver's license or in school it should be sufficient to say "I'm Jewish" or (for a man) "I'm Sikh" or (for a woman) "I'm Muslim".

As the government takes over more and more of our lives it is inevitable that there will be increasing clashes between government and freedom of conscience. We need to figure this out. And no,the answer isn't to have the government simply ignore the 1st amendment. Republicans prefer to quote the exact text, "religion...free practice thereof" while Democrats prefer to quote "Separation of Church and State". Neither says "Subjugation of Church to State".

The response in most boardrooms would be very strongly in favor of paying for the contraceptives. Those against would be a very small minority of religious people (and who, after all, is the constitution supposed to protect if not minorities).

The threat of gender and racial discrimination lawsuits strike fear into the deepest parts of American business leaders. The effects are ruinous even if the business "wins" because of the high legal fees they'll have to pay. To guard against this, they go to extraordinary measures - even actively discriminating against white males - to get their numbers up (I've seen it happen and heard it discussed openly - even bragged about).

Most women want to use contraceptives at some point in their life and would like to have the illusion that it is free. If the company pays for it they have a better chance of recruiting more women and avoiding lawsuits.


Also, women tend to take a lot of time off when they get pregnant, often not coming back at all. From a business perspective it hurts a lot to have a productive employee who is familiar with ongoing operations have to leave for months at a time. The replacement won't be able to do as well - in fact by the time the replacement gets trained up (it can take many months in technical field) the person who get pregnant suddenly returns and has to be given her job back. Contraception appears to make excellent business sense.



You're right about how health decisions should be made. You're wrong about how they should be paid for.

And why would corporations want to deny contraceptives to female employees. If they are, as you say, soulless, why would they want to take away something that would keep their female employees at the office? Why would they want their valuable employees taking extended leaves of abscense while their cubes/offices go unused and their roles have to be filled by temps who don't know the business as well?

And it's not "denying" contraceptives anyway. Contraceptives are readily available if you pay for them yourself.
And what is the medical purpose of contraceptives anyway? Except on rare occasions, the _medical_ purpose it is to allow a person to enjoy sex without incurring the medical challenges that come with pregnancy. Ski bindings likewise allow a person to enjoy skiing without incurring the medical challenges that come with a broken leg. Why should the employer be forced to pay for one but not the other? Should the employer be forced to pay for my motion sickness pills if I decide to take a boat fishing in the ocean?