D
Deleted member 7164
Guest
I'm completely against granting people any kind of freedoms in state services that are tied to their religion. Religion is a human invention and although it's structured and defined, etc. essentially every religious person has a subjective interpretation which makes its views an entirely unique world of My Little Pony. I don't give a frying fuck about what goes on in your head, do the job you're paid for.
I don't know the English word for a state service and a certified person that marries two people. So it's not a Church marriage. Can I enroll there for the job and then refuse to wed people because they didn't ask a permission from clergy first, and I'm a Christian?
The universal health care is both state (large part) and private (small part). While it should be 100% state. Did I say 100 percent? Sorry, I meant 101 percent, no profits from the human health. We used to have such a system, it was possible because we also had a comparatively large pharma and med equipment industries at home. There is no health insurance plan in liberalized health markets that would cover even a quarter of the projected costs for a treatment akin to what I had between roughly 1989 and 1996.
I don't know the English word for a state service and a certified person that marries two people. So it's not a Church marriage. Can I enroll there for the job and then refuse to wed people because they didn't ask a permission from clergy first, and I'm a Christian?
The universal health care is both state (large part) and private (small part). While it should be 100% state. Did I say 100 percent? Sorry, I meant 101 percent, no profits from the human health. We used to have such a system, it was possible because we also had a comparatively large pharma and med equipment industries at home. There is no health insurance plan in liberalized health markets that would cover even a quarter of the projected costs for a treatment akin to what I had between roughly 1989 and 1996.