Why not regulate men's private parts too?

[giblets]

No, they just don't want to pay for other people's sex habits.

[Egbert]

Yeah, what laws are you referring to? The controversy so far is whether or not the first amendment protects the free exercise of religion.

Did the left fail high school biology or do they not understand the difference between haploid and diploid cells?

I don't understand the difference between haploid and diploid cells. I have no idea what a haploid cell might be. My knowledge of diploid cells equals my knowledge of haploid cells.

[N35t0r]

Over here, most medical insurance companies give out free contraception to women (with a prescription from the gynaecologist).

Since they'd end up footing (most of) the bill in the case the woman got pregnant, it's to their advantage.

[Felch]

Since they'd end up footing (most of) the bill in the case the woman got pregnant, it's to their advantage.

This. I have no problem with insurance companies charging Catholic organizations more, to offset the increased chance of expensive pregnancies. I do have a problem with the government prohibiting the free exercise of religion. One is a market response to a customer's demand, the other is a violation of the highest law of the land.

[kentonio]

This. I have no problem with insurance companies charging Catholic organizations more, to offset the increased chance of expensive pregnancies. I do have a problem with the government prohibiting the free exercise of religion. One is a market response to a customer's demand, the other is a violation of the highest law of the land.

Except it isn't. No-one is telling the Catholics they cannot believe whatever **** they want, but they were briefly told they couldn't deny their non-catholic employees decent healthcare based on their religious bull****. Oh and am I missing something or didn't Obama already give them an exception on this anyway?

****ing religious freedom.. The constitution guaranteed religious freedom because people back in Europe kept getting arrested, tortured and murdered because of their religious beliefs. It was never brought in to protect this kind of pathetic ****.

[Felch]

Yes, your United Kingdom did deny Catholics religious freedom, and in fact it still has laws on the books that are discriminatory against Catholics. I'm glad I live in a country that guarantees freedom of religion.

[kentonio]

Yes, your United Kingdom did deny Catholics religious freedom, and in fact it still has laws on the books that are discriminatory against Catholics. I'm glad I live in a country that guarantees freedom of religion.

Actually the only laws re Catholics are concerning the laws of royal succession and the only reason they still exist is because they would require consent from all the countries in the commonwealth. They've been pushing to change it for years. As the royal family is based on family inheritance however (and the royal family are largely ceremonial), this has nothing meaningful to do with everyday citizens lives.

In practical terms, we have an awful lot more religious freedom than you do. Seen the polls regarding running for congress as a muslim or an athiest recently? Here religion is basically a private matter, and that leads to a lot more 'freedom' than feeling like you have to thank god every 5 seconds to be considered a legitimate politician.

[Felch]

They've been pushing to change it for years.

Who? A majority of MPs? Or a minority?

[kentonio]

No I'm wrong..

The commonwealth already agreed to lift it back in October along with the male first rule. It'll be passing as soon as the government publish the legislation and put it through the house.

Chance of it not passing? Roughly zero.

[Felch]

Welcome to the 18th century.

[giblets]

Why should the UK let a Catholic become the head of the Church of England?

[kentonio]

Welcome to the 18th century.

Just remind me, when was your first female head of government again?

[regexcellent]

Freedom of religion has nothing to do with whether most of the people would be willing to vote for a Muslim.

Just remind me, when was your first female head of government again?

Why is this relevant?

[kentonio]

Freedom of religion has nothing to do with whether most of the people would be willing to vote for a Muslim.

You don't think that your religion determining your chances of success, especially your chances of participating in the political process might just be considered relevant? Funny how the same GOP crowd who spend so much time bleating about freedom of religion and 'persecuted' Christians, don't seem to share the same feelings when it comes to freedom to be a Muslim in America.

Why is this relevant?

In response to Felch saying 'Welcome to the 18th century' of course its relevant. The UK have been ahead of the US on many issues such as dissolution of slavery, emancipation of women, electing women to parliament and Prime Minister, and a ton of other issues. We're also close to legalizing gay marraige, we have strong equality laws on the books already, we let gays into the military long before you, the list just goes on.

In other words we're a 21st century democracy, unlike you ****ers who seem hellbent in turning the clock back to 1950.

[regexcellent]

If you were really ahead of us on the whole women thing then you would not give half a **** if your elected officials were male or female.

There is one thing I know for a fact you all are behind on and that's your economy. Ever since your first labor government was elected we've been lapping you.