50PoundHead
Hessmania Forever
As a taxpayer, I'm forced to pay for a bunch of crap on which I have no choice.
9-0
- Thread starter BedellBrave
- Start date
As a taxpayer, I'm forced to pay for a bunch of crap on which I have no choice.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
My point is that "religion" is chosen all the time. Before and after. ACA chose a religion and enforced it upon businesses. I know you'll argue otherwise. But really don't need to bother. Just adopt you a few Hobby Lobby employees. It'll make you feel better.
No, not particularly because I'm not really convinced that the government ought to mandate that someone else provide condoms, pills, or what have you to anyone. You do, so the ruling bothers you. I get it.
You really ought to be happy. This will add ammo for the call for Government, single payer. I doubt President Obama is really upset. You shouldn't be.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
True, but does that mean we ought to advocate for more stuff to be forced on others, in violation of their consciences? When it was easy enough to carve out exemptions and make other allowances? Why must we continue at full throttle down this road?
We need to move away from Employer provided insurance anyway, imho.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
Anyway, I think this is a pretty decent quick assessment. Maybe a little less need for hyperventilating? Link
That’s my first read on today’s opinion in the Hobby Lobby case: narrow and pretty much as expected. Indeed, Justice Alito’s opinion for the Court says as much (“our holding is very specific”). It’s a 5-4 decision; a 5-2 decision on one important point. Still, a win’s a win, and Hobby Lobby, its lawyers, and those who filed amicus briefs in its behalf have a right to be pleased–as do all those who value religious freedom.
"Some first impressions:
The Court does not address Hobby Lobby’s First Amendment claims; Hobby Lobby wins on RFRA grounds. No surprise there.
In holding that a for-profit corporation can exercise a religion for RFRA purposes, the Court takes the route that Chief Justice Roberts suggested at oral argument. It expressly limits its holding to closely-held corporations like Hobby Lobby and declines to discuss whether large, publicly traded corporations also can exercise a religion for RFRA purposes. That, as lawyers say, is a question for another day. (Self-promotion alert: this is what I predicted). The vote was 5-2 here; two dissenters, Justices Breyer and Kagan, would not have reached the issue.
The Court makes clear its ruling does not mean it will necessarily rule the same way in other cases where employers seek relief under RFRA, for example, where employers object to covering immunizations. Different governmental interests could be involved in those cases, the Court says.
The Court goes out of its way to say that its holding would not allow employers to justify racial discrimination on religious grounds. It says nothing about other sorts of discrimination, however. Surely this is intentional. As everyone knows, a major lurking issue is whether RFRA allows employers to discriminate on the basis of sexuality, especially homosexuality. The Court obviously wishes to avoid any allusions to that issue–perhaps to keep Justice Kennedy on board. The dissent does raise the issue, though.
The qualifications in the Court’s opinion are obviously meant to answer the dissent’s “parade of horribles.” Seems a pretty good answer to me–but the dissenters are not impressed. The Court’s logic extends to publicly traded corporations, Justice Ginsburg writes, and there is little doubt, notwithstanding the Court’s reassurances, that RFRA claims will “proliferate” in future. In particular, the dissent raises the issue of religiously-based objections to sexuality. As I say, the Court studiously avoids that issue.
In its least-restrictive means analysis, the Court notes that an accommodation of the sort the government has offered to certain religious non-profits would have achieved the government’s end in this case as well, and would have imposed less on Hobby Lobby’s religious exercise. That is, an alternative to the mandate exists (other alternatives exists as well). Is the Court hinting at what it thinks about the Little Sisters of the Poor case? I don’t think so; the Court went out of its way to reserve that issue. But the language here is a bit opaque and may cause trouble in future.
Not clear what the point of Justice Kennedy’s concurrence is, except to highlight that he sees this as a close case, to say nice things about the dissent, and to expound a little more about his view that religious liberty is about protecting people’s “dignity and … striving for a self-definition shaped by their religious precepts.”
I’ll have further analysis as I digest the opinion a little more. But, bottom line: a narrow decision and a win for religious liberty."
That’s my first read on today’s opinion in the Hobby Lobby case: narrow and pretty much as expected. Indeed, Justice Alito’s opinion for the Court says as much (“our holding is very specific”). It’s a 5-4 decision; a 5-2 decision on one important point. Still, a win’s a win, and Hobby Lobby, its lawyers, and those who filed amicus briefs in its behalf have a right to be pleased–as do all those who value religious freedom.
"Some first impressions:
The Court does not address Hobby Lobby’s First Amendment claims; Hobby Lobby wins on RFRA grounds. No surprise there.
In holding that a for-profit corporation can exercise a religion for RFRA purposes, the Court takes the route that Chief Justice Roberts suggested at oral argument. It expressly limits its holding to closely-held corporations like Hobby Lobby and declines to discuss whether large, publicly traded corporations also can exercise a religion for RFRA purposes. That, as lawyers say, is a question for another day. (Self-promotion alert: this is what I predicted). The vote was 5-2 here; two dissenters, Justices Breyer and Kagan, would not have reached the issue.
The Court makes clear its ruling does not mean it will necessarily rule the same way in other cases where employers seek relief under RFRA, for example, where employers object to covering immunizations. Different governmental interests could be involved in those cases, the Court says.
The Court goes out of its way to say that its holding would not allow employers to justify racial discrimination on religious grounds. It says nothing about other sorts of discrimination, however. Surely this is intentional. As everyone knows, a major lurking issue is whether RFRA allows employers to discriminate on the basis of sexuality, especially homosexuality. The Court obviously wishes to avoid any allusions to that issue–perhaps to keep Justice Kennedy on board. The dissent does raise the issue, though.
The qualifications in the Court’s opinion are obviously meant to answer the dissent’s “parade of horribles.” Seems a pretty good answer to me–but the dissenters are not impressed. The Court’s logic extends to publicly traded corporations, Justice Ginsburg writes, and there is little doubt, notwithstanding the Court’s reassurances, that RFRA claims will “proliferate” in future. In particular, the dissent raises the issue of religiously-based objections to sexuality. As I say, the Court studiously avoids that issue.
In its least-restrictive means analysis, the Court notes that an accommodation of the sort the government has offered to certain religious non-profits would have achieved the government’s end in this case as well, and would have imposed less on Hobby Lobby’s religious exercise. That is, an alternative to the mandate exists (other alternatives exists as well). Is the Court hinting at what it thinks about the Little Sisters of the Poor case? I don’t think so; the Court went out of its way to reserve that issue. But the language here is a bit opaque and may cause trouble in future.
Not clear what the point of Justice Kennedy’s concurrence is, except to highlight that he sees this as a close case, to say nice things about the dissent, and to expound a little more about his view that religious liberty is about protecting people’s “dignity and … striving for a self-definition shaped by their religious precepts.”
I’ll have further analysis as I digest the opinion a little more. But, bottom line: a narrow decision and a win for religious liberty."
57Brave
Well-known member
You (royal) did in fact have a choice. Obama and (D) were very clear going into the 2008 elections on their intentions to create a national health care system.
The same SCOTUS you applaud today deemed ACA legal.
But on the other hand you did give me something else to do tonight while listening t the game. Look up the legal definition of "should"
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
I think the Liberal response reveals how religious this issue is...
AerchAngel
<B>Secretary of Statistics</B>
I just don't dig the government forcing me to pay for idiots mistakes. Like I said, if they are too stupid to open their damn legs, they are too stupid to have kids, so snip them if they want to hoochie cooch around and if there is an "oops" you pay for it.
Might as well be the first leg of an Equilibrium society.
57Brave
Well-known member
Your logic is Lester Maddox was right. He just used the wrong argument
?
Because if you replace a few words (2014) with a few other words (1966) that is pretty much what you get.
As of today, for profit corporations picking from the public labor pool have the same rights as a non profit religious organization.
Disregard which "shirt" you wear in this discussion -- but objectively, you think this is a good thing?
?
Because if you replace a few words (2014) with a few other words (1966) that is pretty much what you get.
As of today, for profit corporations picking from the public labor pool have the same rights as a non profit religious organization.
Disregard which "shirt" you wear in this discussion -- but objectively, you think this is a good thing?
57Brave
Well-known member
Why weren't you this worked up over the government losing $3B in cash and overall couple trillion in Iraq.
Does your wife use contraception -- daughters -- aunts --cousins -- your mother ever use contraception? are you just another man making rules for womens bodies and how they use them? do you think condoms should be given to men? Because you know, that little pool could be ...
Do you rail constantly on the overpopulation in inner cities
you cant have both ends of the rope
57Brave
Well-known member
sort of a "destroy the village to save it" mentality. There is a word that defines when religion is permitted to dictate to the moneyed end of a nation.
But hey, a win is a win is a win
///
For all the years of jokes about corporations being people, the United States has never actually seen corporations as being capable of exercising their own personal faith. Indeed, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals explained last year that courts have “long recognized the distinction between the owners of a corporation and the corporation itself.” Ruling that “a for-profit corporation can engage in religious exercise” would “eviscerate the fundamental principle that a corporation is a legally distinct entity from its owners.”
Alito added, “Any suggestion that for-profit corporations are incapable of exercising religion because their purpose is simply to make money flies in the face of modern corporate law.”
Which brings us back to Ginsburg: “[A]pproving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be ‘perceived as favoring one religion over another,’ the very ‘risk the Establishment Clause was designed to preclude.’ The Court, I fear has ventured into a minefield.”
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/corporations-are-people-who-can-oppose-contraception
But hey, a win is a win is a win
///
For all the years of jokes about corporations being people, the United States has never actually seen corporations as being capable of exercising their own personal faith. Indeed, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals explained last year that courts have “long recognized the distinction between the owners of a corporation and the corporation itself.” Ruling that “a for-profit corporation can engage in religious exercise” would “eviscerate the fundamental principle that a corporation is a legally distinct entity from its owners.”
Alito added, “Any suggestion that for-profit corporations are incapable of exercising religion because their purpose is simply to make money flies in the face of modern corporate law.”
Which brings us back to Ginsburg: “[A]pproving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be ‘perceived as favoring one religion over another,’ the very ‘risk the Establishment Clause was designed to preclude.’ The Court, I fear has ventured into a minefield.”
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/corporations-are-people-who-can-oppose-contraception
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
Oh, btw, Hobby Lobby was/is providing 16 out of the 20 contraceptives in the mandate...
But let's keep up the weeping and gnashing of teeth.
But let's keep up the weeping and gnashing of teeth.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
Who are you replying to?
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
You're response makes little sense to me. You'll need to flesh it out a little more for me to try and give a meaningful and hopefully respectful response. I was 1 in 1966, btw. So, you'll need to give me specifics so I can see if your analogy seems plausible or not.
Your next to last sentence is an overstatement.
Your next to last sentence is an overstatement.
57Brave
Well-known member
I don't like public entities using "religion" to cherry pick what laws they will and will not adhere to.
I see a corporation as a public entity.
We disagree on when life begins.
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
And this one ^^^ - is it a response to me or AA?
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
So? If a prospective employee wants one of the 4 contraceptives that Hobby Lobby doesn't cover then they could:
A. Not take the job. Or,
B. Pay for it out of pocket. Or,
C. Appeal for someone else to pay for it. Again, here's an opportunity for those who are really bothered that these 4 contraceptives aren't being covered, to put their money where their mouthes are. Help a woman out.
You may not like non-governmental agencies having that choice, but you certainly like the government picking its religious sensibilities in forming its law mandating its choices.
Again, the anger of the Left is tellingly religious. And as I've said before, free, unfetter access and provision for abortion is paramount in this "faith." And abortion is the holy sacrament. Other peoples consciences be damned.
There is little disagreement on when human life begins (or at least there shouldn't be scientifically). The disagreement is over when will that life be afforded rights.
goldfly
<B>if my thought dreams could be seen</B>
well than, obviously they know better than the private choice between the person and doctor
BedellBrave
It's OVER 5,000!
That does not follow. It just means that they will provide 16 out of those 20. If the employee and the doctor think one of the other 4 is the bee's knees then well good and fine. Go forth and purchase.
AerchAngel
<B>Secretary of Statistics</B>
Umm, I was against the war and I ragged Bush much more than Obama, so try again. I lost a cousin to that war so I will forever dislike that administration.
My wife does not use birth control, never have and never will.
As for making rules, if they want to have unprotected sex and have an oops, they should pay for it out of their own pocket. I did not have choice in them being stupid. Easy decision, no sex, no babies. ITS A CHOICE... Let me repeat ITS A CHOICE. I should have a choice for not paying for their mistake but the government is TRYING to force me. Orwell should be proud that 1984 is happening.
rinse and repeat.