3 of 4
3
SCOTUS Abandons Sanity, Rules in Favor of Hobby Lobby
Posted: 04 July 2014 11:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3153
Joined  2011-08-15

Religions that are anti contraceptive.


Query, which religions aren’t?

Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 July 2014 11:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

I don’t know about Judism, but the Unitarians aren’t anti-contraceptive.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 July 2014 12:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
Handydan - 04 July 2014 11:25 AM
VYAZMA - 04 July 2014 11:04 AM
Handydan - 04 July 2014 10:46 AM

The reason the ruling does not hold water is because the Supreme Court has now officially awarded additional freedoms to one religious ideology over other religious ideologies and has therefore violated the first amendment. And, they did it with the leverage of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act put in place by the GOP as well as W. Bush’s appointees, Alito and Roberts who were groomed for the court by corporate donors to increase the power of corporate America.

What part of the ruling favors one religion over the other? I must have missed that?

Religions that are anti contraceptive.

So religions that are anti-contraceptive can’t have their day in court when they feel their rights are being violated according to the RFRA?
The RFRA is a Federal Law, the ACA/HHS is a Federal Entity.
Why bother using hyperbole in your agitation? Just stick to the facts.

The court didn’t make a ruling that decided between religions that are for contraception verses religions that are anti contraceptive.
Another religion that felt it’s rights were being violated under the RFRA could equally sue.

So if a private jewish elementary school(that received federal dollars) sued the HHS because they started mandating pork chops in elementary school, and the jewish school won in court, would you say: “The court officially awarded additional freedoms to one religion over another.”?

[ Edited: 04 July 2014 12:12 PM by VYAZMA ]
 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 July 2014 12:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14

Yes the court did rule that a ‘closely held company”(5 stockholders or less) can be interpreted as having a “religious bent”.
There’s tons of BS in this ruling. But the Scotus didn’t rule in favor of one religion over another.
That would be blatantly obvious and unconstitutional-and ridiculous to conceive nowadays.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 July 2014 12:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
Thevillageatheist - 04 July 2014 11:44 AM

Religions that are anti contraceptive.


Query, which religions aren’t?

Cap’t Jack

They all could or couldn’t be as far as this ruling is concerned.
The worst part about the ruling is…corporations are people, and they are people who can be religious too. LOL

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 July 2014 12:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2188
Joined  2007-04-26
VYAZMA - 04 July 2014 12:08 PM

Yes the court did rule that a ‘closely held company”(5 stockholders or less) can be interpreted as having a “religious bent”.
There’s tons of BS in this ruling. But the Scotus didn’t rule in favor of one religion over another.
That would be blatantly obvious and unconstitutional-and ridiculous to conceive nowadays.

I think you are correct that the specific content of this decision may have not favored one religion over another but one has to wonder how this ruling would have come down if this were a Jehova’s Witness corporation suing for the right to deny coverage for transfusions and transplants for their employees. If the court would not make the same decision with a case of Jehova’s Witnesses then this may indeed be a decision in which they favored one religion’s beliefs over others. Its also interesting that the judges who voted in favor of Hobby Lobby were all Roman Catholic while 3 of the 4 of those voting against were Jewish. Its impossible to know what went on in the mind of the judges but its hard to believe that religious convictions did not play a role in this decision.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 July 2014 12:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  249
Joined  2014-03-12
VYAZMA - 04 July 2014 12:08 PM

Yes the court did rule that a ‘closely held company”(5 stockholders or less) can be interpreted as having a “religious bent”.
There’s tons of BS in this ruling. But the Scotus didn’t rule in favor of one religion over another.
That would be blatantly obvious and unconstitutional-and ridiculous to conceive nowadays.

Obviously, you did not read the decision or the dissent. You have a lot to say about something you haven’t read, wouldn’t you say?

 Signature 

“expectation is the mother of disappointment”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 July 2014 01:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
Handydan - 04 July 2014 12:59 PM
VYAZMA - 04 July 2014 12:08 PM

Yes the court did rule that a ‘closely held company”(5 stockholders or less) can be interpreted as having a “religious bent”.
There’s tons of BS in this ruling. But the Scotus didn’t rule in favor of one religion over another.
That would be blatantly obvious and unconstitutional-and ridiculous to conceive nowadays.

Obviously, you did not read the decision or the dissent. You have a lot to say about something you haven’t read, wouldn’t you say?

Sure I did. It’s 95 pages long. Was there something you wanted to dispute?
RFRA are the first words in the syllabus.
Just bring up the decision here, you can get it at the SCOTUS website. Copy and paste any parts that you feel don’t mesh with what I’m saying.
Or just wing it….What part of the Decision ruled in favor of one religion over another?

Copy and paste the whole decision up here and point it out.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 July 2014 01:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
macgyver - 04 July 2014 12:58 PM
VYAZMA - 04 July 2014 12:08 PM

Yes the court did rule that a ‘closely held company”(5 stockholders or less) can be interpreted as having a “religious bent”.
There’s tons of BS in this ruling. But the Scotus didn’t rule in favor of one religion over another.
That would be blatantly obvious and unconstitutional-and ridiculous to conceive nowadays.

I think you are correct that the specific content of this decision may have not favored one religion over another but one has to wonder how this ruling would have come down if this were a Jehova’s Witness corporation suing for the right to deny coverage for transfusions and transplants for their employees. If the court would not make the same decision with a case of Jehova’s Witnesses then this may indeed be a decision in which they favored one religion’s beliefs over others. Its also interesting that the judges who voted in favor of Hobby Lobby were all Roman Catholic while 3 of the 4 of those voting against were Jewish. Its impossible to know what went on in the mind of the judges but its hard to believe that religious convictions did not play a role in this decision.

Well that’s another can of worms Mac. I’ve heard this repeated alot since the decision. The prejudice of the Justices and so forth.
Me personally, I won’t go there. I hear ya. It’s possible. They definitely used alot of wiggle room in the “corporations are people department”.
HHS argued unsuccesfully that corporations can’t “do religion or “be” religious” so to speak. The conservatives said they could, if they are “closely held companies”.
Other religions have already successfully used the RFRA to win in court where they thought their religion was being unnecessarily hindered by govt.
So, I don’t see any discrimination. Another religion simply has to come forward and test their rights in court to find the answer to that question.
It won’t definitively answer the question, but as of right now we know they have the right to sue. We can’t make unfounded claims of religious prejudice within the courts until it happens.
The only whackjobs that go to court are the christians it seems. Squeaky wheels get the grease…I don’t know.
I think you and others might have some confirmation bias because of it.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 July 2014 04:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

Since corporations are people, doesn’t it concern the SCOTUS that with these contraception restrictions that one of them might get pregnant? 

I also wonder if corporations that are closely held by a Jewish family could insist that all male employees be circumcized.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2014 04:51 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3153
Joined  2011-08-15

We may not have to wait long in order to see the overall effects of this decision. The floodgates are open so to speak and the court may hand down decisions on at least 49 other cases of corporations limiting women’s rights to contraception. Many, but not all of the plaintiffs have Catholic backgrounds and SCOTUS will have to deal with their religious claims (if the corporations can successfully prove that their claims are actually religiously based) as well. As to Hobby Lobby stating that their religious tenets were violated, what about their investment in companies who produce the very drugs that they’re protesting and the fact that they buy cheap goods from China in which abortion is allowed? Once again, religious hypocrisy and the justices backed it hook, line and sinker.


http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-expanded-hobby-lobby-20140702-column.html#page=1


Cap’t Jack

 Signature 

One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.

Thomas Paine

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 July 2014 05:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
Thevillageatheist - 05 July 2014 04:51 AM

We may not have to wait long in order to see the overall effects of this decision. The floodgates are open so to speak and the court may hand down decisions on at least 49 other cases of corporations limiting women’s rights to contraception.
Cap’t Jack

Good. This seems to be just the next stepping stone towards direct, non-employer involved, universal healthcare.
That’s how I see it.
The government can’t show in this case that it has a compelling interest in over-riding religious entities objection to provide birth control to their
insured members, employees etc…because the government can provide the birth control another way. A less burdensome way.

That’s all. I don’t see these rulings as steps backwards-I see them as steps forward.
Think positive.  Religion is dying. And they are their own worst enemy.
They are forcing the people to further socialize their own government.

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2014 09:53 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  430
Joined  2012-02-02

Well, this should prove entertaining.

Lawyers for two Guantanamo Bay detainees have filed motions asking a U.S. court to block officials from preventing the inmates from taking part in communal prayers during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. The lawyers argue that – in light of the Supreme Court’s recent Hobby Lobby decision – the detainees’ rights are protected under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).

The motions were filed this week with the Washington D.C. district court on behalf of Emad Hassan of Yemen and Ahmed Rabbani of Pakistan. U.K.-based human rights group Reprieve said both men asked for the intervention after military officials at the prison “prevented them from praying communally during Ramadan.”

 Signature 

“There will come a time when it isn’t ‘They’re spying on me through my phone’ anymore. Eventually, it will be ‘My phone is spying on me’.” ― Philip K. Dick

The Atheist in the Trailer Park

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2014 06:18 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2188
Joined  2007-04-26
VYAZMA - 05 July 2014 05:38 AM

That’s how I see it.
The government can’t show in this case that it has a compelling interest in over-riding religious entities objection to provide birth control to their
insured members, employees etc…because the government can provide the birth control another way. A less burdensome way.
.

If the ACA had required employers to provide their employees with vouchers to purchase health insurance this could have all been avoided. Hobby Lobby wouldn’t have had much of an argument to prevent their employees from using the voucher to purchase plans that covered contraceptives just as they can not restrict them from using their paycheck to do the same.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2014 12:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  506
Joined  2014-06-20

I wonder if we could make a case that OUR religious rights are being infringed upon if everyone is not provided with contraceptive services.

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 4
3