Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: cynwoody

“for reasons of conscience, including a religious belief”

vs

“conflicts with tenets and practices of the church or religious denomination of which the applicant is a member”

Seems pretty different to me. Not only do you have to be a “member” for that to work, it has to go against the “tenets and practices” of that particular church or denomination...otherwise find an Alaskan doc that says it will hurt you.


4 posted on 09/12/2011 11:07:46 PM PDT by icwhatudo ("laws requiring compulsory abortion could be sustained under the constitution"-Obama official)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]


To: icwhatudo
Not only do you have to be a “member” for that to work, it has to go against the “tenets and practices” of that particular church or denomination

But I can be a church or denomination of one, complete with whatever tenets and practices I receive via divine revelation (i.e., dream up). Or, if I can't, then the state is arrogating the right to establish a religion, which is illegal under the Constitution.

On some other thread, someone mentioned that the reason the Texas law was opt-out was that opt-in would have disqualified the opt-inners from insurance coverage. Whereas, of course, those who didn't want it could opt-out for free. They just needed to read their mail. So, arguably, Perry's only victims in the Gardasil thing were the insurance companies.

14 posted on 09/12/2011 11:41:41 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson