I think you mean “jibe.”
Then why even bring those beliefs into it, given that you agree there are others for whom that would not be an issue and you don’t seem to have any reason to tie those beliefs to his lack of understanding?
I think you’re right. Urban dictionary does throw up one definition that, er, jibes with my use, but I suppose it could be someone making the same mistake.
It occurs to me that judges assigned to rule on the sincerity of those seeking exemptions might need expert advice, someone with a proven capacity to detect hypocrisy and insincerity. Would certainly help if such an expert had some legal training, as well as a open record of strict non-partisan objectivity.
Wherever will they find such a paragon?
I think it’s really cute that you think congresscritters actually write the laws they vote upon!
It’s the only outlier I can think of that might be responsible.
No. In fact, the use of an expert in that way would invade the province of the jury.
The jury, or the judge in a bench trial, is the finder of fact. Expert testimony can be used to analyze facts when such analysis is outside the ken of an ordinary juror, but experts cannot opine on any question of ultimate fact. In simpler terms, an expert cannot offer his opinion that another witness is lying. Determining to what extent a witness is telling the truth is reserved for the jury, or the judge in a bench trial.
Don’t lie detector experts do exactly that?
Nah, he just didn’t like being teased, so he mustered up his dignity and delivered an After School Special lecture on courtroom procedure and protocol. Its the use of tedium as vengeance.
In which court is lie detector evidence admissible?
Also, not that if the results were admissible, they would not be the opinion of anyone. They would be a measurement.
Ugh. “Note”, not “not”.
No. Even if their testimony were admissible, and it almost universally is not, they’d be testifying to whether the accused lied in front of them, not whether he’s lying in his testimony to the jury.
Jerry Springer Paternity Court. Where else? 
Okay, so as a forensic expert, you can’t say “he lied when he said he wasn’t there”, but you can point out that you found his DNA, fibers from his clothes, his fingerprints, and have a video of him entering the place. Then the jury decides he must be full of shit. Is that it?
Yep, that’s about it.
I think the specific barrier to Lobohan’s understanding, is that giving a product as compensation, that may be used in a way you don’t like isn’t a reflection on your religious beliefs.
It’s really quite simple. I deny that HL is actually being oppressed. I think they’re purchasing an omni product that can be used in a way they don’t approve of.
Consider, that they currently pay money which can also be used in ways they don’t like. They suck that up because they have no alternative.
Every dollar they pay to Kaiser supports birth control because money is fungible.
I’ve said this before, and you never address it, so I doubt it’ll be different now.
Sure I have. But since I have answered you repeatedly, and your last sentence indicates you don’t remember it, there’s some kind of basic cognition issue in play. I am guessing it arises from your deep-seated hostility towards religion, but that’s only a working theory. What’s factual is: I say it, you don’t accept it.
Money is fungible. But spending money in the particular way at issue here: giving it to an insurance company to purchase contraception insurance that include Plan B, Ella, and IUDs, is sinful in their religion.
You seemingly believe it can’t be sinful, because of reasons that make sense to you.
And you completely fail to understand that whether the reasons make sense to you, or not, is completely irrelevant. Their religious determinations are not made by you. You are not the authority that determines what is sinful. They are convinced that this action is sinful. They are confident that paying money to an insurance company to cover those types of contraception insurance is morally wrong, even though paying an equal amount of money to their employees is not sinful…even though the employees might buy IUDs with that money. One is sinful, one is not. You think that this doesn’t make sense. But they think it does make sense.
The law protects what they think is sinful. It does not work by asking you what you think is sinful, and then applying that to their actions.
What you think burdens them, or doesn’t burden them, is not relevant. That is a factual statement of how the RFRA operates. It’s not an opinion. It’s what the law says, in plain letters on plain paper.
It can’t be said much clearer than that. Yet if past experience is any guide, you will again argue that their religious exercise is not being burdened, because you have some basic learning disability that prevents you from learning that they, and not you, get to decide what their religious beliefs are.
There are many people who cannot afford contraception ,nor afford a large family that because of their religious beliefs they have more children than can be cared for, look to Haiti as an example, and notice the hardships they endure. Many people who are the working poor do not have the financial means to afford contraception or many health aids and in many cases contraception is indeed a health aid to them, Many are neglected or abused by a parent who take their frustration out on an unwanted child.
So, is it psychologically beneficial to be able to have sex without concern for the significant additional sex might entail if it causes a pregnancy?
Religion is an evil on society. I do think that. However, I accept a person’s right to live according to whatever made-up creed they might like. A Catholic is just like a person deciding to live by the Jedi code. Except the Jedi probably knows he’s being a goof.
Paying for insurance at all supports those products, because the money they spend for bunion removal goes into supporting the same industry and workers that do their forbidden practices.
Also, they aren’t paying for Plan B. They’re paying for health insurance, that has as a possibility the use of Plan B. That possibility is dependent on their worker choosing to get it.
There is no stretch of the imagination where someone else’s choice can reflect on you. To reiterate, because your delusional love of the J has clouded your mind: They currently pay workers in money. Money can be exchanged for sinful goods ans services. The ten dollars they pay Susy Promiscuous can be used to feed her cats, or to purchase Plan B. They are as much supporting Plan B though their wages as they are through the health insurance they purchase.
They have decided that they should get a pared down version of health insurance that doesn’t include the possibility of sin. That decision is silly. Since they keep their doors open with sin capable money going to their workers. In other words, don’t own a business if you think that people choosing to sin with what you compensate them with is a bad idea.
No, I believe it isn’t sinful because it branches from their beliefs to adding burdens to others for acting in ways that HL finds sinful. That’s not about *practicing *your religion, it’s about inflicting it.
See above.
See above.
I will grant that because of the split decision in the court that’s what the state of the current US law is. However, the five Catholic men who made that decision were wrong to do so. For reasons I’ve mentioned above.
You, like they, give so much deference to religion that it ceases to be about the worshipers, but rather about the worshiper’s ability to inflict his beliefs on others. Which is pretty much normal, considering how the Christians in America work every day to deny birth control rights to other people.
No, you don’t get it. I’m saying that what someone else does cannot be a sin you commit. What are they, their employees keeper?
Well, Bricker certainly called that. I don’t think it’s a learning disability though. I think it’s an “I’ve painted myself in a corner, now that the facts are laid out, and I won’t give up the ghost at this point” position. It can’t possibly be that difficult to understand what the law says, no matter what one’s opinion is on it.