This. I once worked for a small business owned and run by a fundamentalist nutcase. He had his employee lunchroom littered with his religious pamphlets and conversation with him about...well...anything...was peppered with Jesus talk. He was careful to keep it away from most of his clients, but the employees got it constantly. He would hold regular lunchtime prayer meetings in the lunch room. He seemed to believe that since it was his business, he was entitled to barrage anyone who worked for him with his religion. And he made no bones about favoring the employees who went along with it over those who tried to keep it at arm's length while they worked.

If this case ever gets into the Federal Courts, expect all the usual suspects from the religious right to side with the Scientologists. Expect then to claim that it's everyone else who are harassing the Christians (according to their version of Christianity). If their religious beliefs require them to only employ other Christians, or promote members of their own church over employees who aren't, then when you complain about that you are harassing them. They are not harassing you when they try to impose their religion on you, they're trying to save your soul. They're doing it out of love. If you complain you are being hateful.

The argument has always been that a secular society that values tolerance and religious pluralism is necessarily hostile toward them. If you teach science in the classroom you are attacking their beliefs. If pharmacists can't pick and choose which prescriptions they will fill, and for whom, based on their beliefs you are attacking their beliefs. If landlords can't rent to, if businesses can't employ and serve, only members of their own religion, you are attacking their beliefs. Laws that protect everyone, them included, from discrimination, attack their beliefs because those laws don't allow them discriminate against everyone else. But repealing all the anti-discrimination laws would also be an attack on their beliefs, since that would allow other people to discriminate against them. The only way for them to be free from discrimination, is for everyone to embrace their beliefs whether we want to or not. And it's for our own good anyway.

It would be a Pyrrhic victory for Scientology if Diskeeper's argument won the day. But it's a safe bet that if this thing gets any further the Scientologists will be more then happy to buddy up with the Christian religious right since they both have common enemies in secularism and pluralism.

Yeah...I think these two things, having the 'Y' verses it being fully expressed, were getting confused in that reporters mind. Unless there is some environmental chemistry that's actually preventing eggs from being fertilized by sperm that carries the 'Y'. Is there really a statistically significant change in the male/female birth rates? Or is it just they're seeing somewhat less masculine males being born now. And...how are they judging masculinity anyway? What base line data do they have to compare to, for making the claim that males being born now are less masculine?