Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SpindriftRascal t1_j18sq3a wrote

Reply to comment by _Hack_The_Planet_ in Suspended Mass. State Police troopers continue push to be reinstated by _Hack_The_Planet_

Nice use of giant font. Seriously, though, what’s the religious argument? I’ve never heard one that isn’t “Jesus doesn’t want me taking your lefty medicine.”

4

_Hack_The_Planet_ OP t1_j18t2zt wrote

The Christian Scientists and Jehovah's Witnesses believe that faith is the cure for everything. To submit yourself to any other treatment is a denial of that faith... (or something)

It sounds preposterous to anyone outside of their religion but it is their religion.

−1

SpindriftRascal t1_j18ttx7 wrote

I mentioned the Christian Scientists. You’re right about the Jehovah’s Witnesses; I forgot them. So I stick with my initial comment edited to include the Jehovah’s Witnesses. I’m still going with: fuck you, get another job.

3

_Hack_The_Planet_ OP t1_j18wk72 wrote

> I’m still going with: fuck you, get another job.

Also, you are a living, breathing example of horseshoe theory.

The Nazis had the same opinions about Jehovah Witnesses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_in_Nazi_Germany#Punishment

0

SpindriftRascal t1_j18y3ab wrote

This isn’t persecution. It’s a neutrally-applied reasonable job requirement that does not lend itself to religious accommodation. Religious freedom is powerful right in our system; it is not absolute.

Also, I think you just called me a Nazi. My only response to that is fuck you too.

7

_Hack_The_Planet_ OP t1_j191iea wrote

> My only response to that is fuck you too.

I'm sure you'd concentrate me in a camp if you could. People like you are notoriously uncompromising when it comes to disagreements on ideology.

0

_Hack_The_Planet_ OP t1_j18u6gx wrote

Of course, you hate the first amendment... except when it benefits you and allows you to propagate your opinions.

−2

SpindriftRascal t1_j18wz7u wrote

I don’t, and it’s an ironic comment coming from the person who accused me of evidence-free conclusion drawing.

No First Amendment right is absolute. In this case, because police have lawful authority to detain and confine others in their presence, members of the public cannot simply choose not to interact with police. For that and other reasons, it is the police who must conform themselves to the standards of public safety. There are all sorts of health and fitness standards for the MSP; this should be one of them. I’ll also note that I believe cops who don’t care enough about the public health to take a vaccine are people who shouldn’t be cops anyway.

4

_Hack_The_Planet_ OP t1_j18xjzk wrote

> First Amendment right is absolute.

Ignore everything before the "but"

−1

SpindriftRascal t1_j18y5os wrote

That is not now, and never has been, the law in the United States.

5

_Hack_The_Planet_ OP t1_j191mw1 wrote

You should always add "In my opinion" to these dumb statements.

1

SpindriftRascal t1_j193yha wrote

It’s not an opinion; it’s the law in the United States.

3

[deleted] t1_j195yi7 wrote

[deleted]

1

SpindriftRascal t1_j197kji wrote

No, that’s a First Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding vaccine requirements precisely because the First Amendment is not absolute. It articulates at least two variously applicable standards for review of a burden on constitutional rights, neatly proving my point, thank you very much.

4