Bumping Up Against Other's "Religious Liberty"

The Supreme Court is making some "interesting" rulings in the last few years, notably when somebody's rights conflict with other's religious liberty. Or so they claim. Is it religious liberty to be able to demand others follow your beliefs? Because that's what I see happening.

Take Hobby Lobby. They won a case allowing them to deny health care insurance coverage for reproductive choices. We're not even talking abortion here. Just birth control. In effect, that rule mandated that their employees either had all the babies that chance decreed might start from any sex act because they wouldn't get coverage for birth control, or somehow found the funds to pay for it themselves. It may not seem like much, but did you imagine that Hobby Lobby employees were paid enough to be able to make that expense decision freely? Especially when you compare those employees against other company's employees making the same income, looking at just how much is left in the budget for medical coverage after making all the same other purchases. Comparatively, other employees were free - literally - to choose their own reproductive situations. Hobby Lobby chose for their employees. The owners of Hobby Lobby had a religiously informed viewpoint and were given the freedom by the Supreme Court to impose it on their employees, in every store, across the entire country. They didn't even have the possible standing of an actual religious institution to do so.

Note that only the comparatively wealthy employees, possibly due to a generous second family income or other factors, had real freedom from Hobby Lobby's religion.

There are so many other cases where some supposedly religiously based bigotry is given rein to force other's behaviors. We're not talking about murdering somebody here. But let's think about how historically recent divorce was legally allowed in this country. Or even how it's forbidden in other countries, or a privilege given only to husbands. Religion forces others all too often to go along whether or not they believe in that religion's tenets. I believe I should be free to divorce a husband for a wide variety of reasons, including abuse of me and/or my children. I did so. It was allowed only because of how relatively recent it was. 

Gender issues are the ones bumping up against other's "religious" bigotry these days. We've barely gotten homosexuality decriminalized, nevermind being broadly accepted. Adoption is still a cusp issue, where religions insist the only fit parents are a heterosexual couple. Even single parents are preferred over the benefits a second parent of the same gender can provide. If I were in a place to adopt or foster a child, and in a same sex relationship no matter how loving and nurturing, my odds would still be extremely low, no matter how many children still need stable homes with loving adults. It's a battle still in process.

The latest religious bugaboo is the practical demonization of transgender people. Where religion is the alleged reason for the bigotry and fear, laws are rapidly being enacted about sports eligibility and bathroom use. Listen, when I gotta pee, I really gotta pee, and when your religion decides I can't do it here and now, your so-called religious liberty is simply cruelty under another name. While I'm not transgender, I got my fill of bathroom challenges when I was working in a uniform that was gender-free. (Translation: they were designed for men because mostly men were hired for that job. Even the shirt buttons were on the "man's" side.) I get a glimmer of what transgender people are up against because somebody else thinks it's their religious freedom being denied if they can't be an asshole because they haven't personally inspected somebody's birth certificate and current genitalia. Or even if they have, however that came about.

Let me warn you, the older I get, aside from the legal issues here, the more often you decide you have the right to challenge my use of a bathroom, the more likely your only gain will be a puddle on your floor! Happy mopping, jerk! It I ever have to bump up against your version of religious liberty, one way or another you're going to lose. Whatever my gender is, however my body is formed, it's none of your business unless I choose to make it so, say, by deciding whether or not to have an intimate relationship with you. Your religion doesn't get a say except in whether you decide you want an intimate relationship with me. And by the way, I'm taken, so it's never going to be relevant.

It shouldn't have a say in whether and when I reproduce, or with whom, or how, and you shouldn't get a say about whether you can get cheaper insurance for me because you don't wish for me to use certain parts of what that insurance covers for everybody else. (Would you really want me to decide which medical procedures I want to fund for you to be able to have and call it religion? Really?) You shouldn't get a say in whether I can be a parent to a needy child based on anything other than what kind of parent I can be, and certainly not on whom I love or what my body is like so long as I'm healthy enough to do the job. As long as I use bathroom facilities behind a closed door for privacy, it shouldn't be your decision which door is the "right" one. 

Your religion has whatever rights you give it to affect your behavior. Not mine. I cede none of my rights when I bump into yours. Swing that religious fist all you want to. You have that right. But it stops just before my nose.