Mister Incorrect

Enjoying America as it disappears.
Enjoying the world before it's radioactive.

[Mister Incorrect @MRincorrection]

@chkrosp That's an interest take on the case. The way I see it, if a Christian Scientist (the guys who don't believe in medicine) said they would refuse any medicinal care, like prescriptions, should employees be able to challenge that?

[Mister Incorrect @MRincorrection]

See above and fight me, @chkrosp or @darw

[Mister Incorrect @MRincorrection]

@darwintojesus It really would be interesting to look at the evidence itself and the criticisms thereof instead of hand-waving it off.

[Mister Incorrect @MRincorrection]

@darwintojesus You should give Genesis a peek some time if you're looking for contrived and ridiculous.

[Mister Incorrect @MRincorrection]

@goodlifenvibes Aren't most theories about our origins at some point speculative?

[Mister Incorrect @MRincorrection]

@chkrosp There is a secular court system that ruled that it would be an infringement on the owners' religious rights to provide a service that conflicted with their beliefs and practice.

How is that not the ideal outcome?

[Mister Incorrect @MRincorrection]

@Icemanhasit @Asmongold @McJuggerNuggets Man, not once in my 40 years as a messy dude have I ever lived in legit trash, much less gone viral for it.

So still a leg up over your internet daddy.

[Mister Incorrect @MRincorrection]

@Beomfloat88 @Rad2156778 @JayDyer @dash_eats Man, just scorching me with these fire comebacks.

[Mister Incorrect @MRincorrection]

@chkrosp Depends; if we're talking about genome mapping/designer genes? Kinda a moral grey area.

But violently exterminating people sounds pretty much like harm to me. Falls under the same dominance category, albeit fur different reasons.

[Mister Incorrect @MRincorrection]

@chkrosp And I'm aware this society will never exist, even though it would not be hard to do.

Hence why I'm focused on the conceptual harm. What dims their faith or injures their belief? They already live next to or amongst those with different worldviews.

[Mister Incorrect @MRincorrection]

@chkrosp I would agree, if it's a winner take all situation. But letting secular people and religious people live their lives in accordance with their own beliefs doesn't require coercion. It's just asking people to do what they're already doing, mostly.

[Mister Incorrect @MRincorrection]

@chkrosp As proselytizing goes, I don't know of any cases where talking about religion at work is banned. So, if there's a case against it, I'd need to see that and if it indeed exists, I would disagree with it. But I do not see the 1A being violated in favor of secularism.

[Mister Incorrect @MRincorrection]

@chkrosp What I find odd about this argument is that I feel this doesn't happen to an alarming degree. There's the bakers from the gay wedding cake case, Hobby Lobby denying birth control, protesting abortion clinics--all in favor of their religious beliefs.

[Mister Incorrect @MRincorrection]

@chkrosp Fair point, I'll amend that going forward to keep the definitions clear.

[Mister Incorrect @MRincorrection]

@chkrosp That's why I'm for cooperative coexistence. Let the ideas compete. And if an idea can't take hold--as long as it's not forcibly suppressed--then, oh well. There's plenty of metaphysical ideas I value that have no purchase in today's world. Them's the breaks. (6/6)

[Mister Incorrect @MRincorrection]

@chkrosp 2. If it is morally acceptable to dominate your neighbors to force them to follow your beliefs, then it can't be said to be immoral or wrong if it is done to you. So why, then, would it be wrong for a secular society to limit practice or vice versa? (5/x)