4 of 4
4
SCOTUS Abandons Sanity, Rules in Favor of Hobby Lobby
Posted: 09 July 2014 02:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 46 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  859
Joined  2014-06-20

Another thing—my religion is against war and against my taxes being used to fund it.  Can I reduce my tax bill accordingly? If companies can’t be forced to pay for contraceptive services in health insurance policies because their religion is against it, how can I be forced to pay for military expenditures? I am also religiously against the death penalty, yet I am forced to pay through my taxes for the expenses of carrying out the death penalty, including keeping people who have received the death penalty on death row for years—which is much more expensive than keeping them in the general population. Where are MY religious rights?

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 09 July 2014 02:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 47 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  368
Joined  2014-03-12

Careful Lois. That’s one of the ways we nonbelievers are easily dismissed as simply praying before a different alter than the theists. btw, that argument about taxes used for things against my religion has been tried many times and consistently failed. If contraception cost were paid by taxes, Hobby Lobby would have lost this fight before it would have ever reached the scotus.

 Signature 

“expectation is the mother of disappointment”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 July 2014 11:11 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 48 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  368
Joined  2014-03-12
VYAZMA - 04 July 2014 01:05 PM
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.

Here is the part of the decision that holds one religious belief, (contraception) at a higher regard than another religious belief,( vaccinations or blood transfusions). Jehovah’s Witnesses are against blood transfusions on religious grounds, but their religious sensitivity is obviously not as important to the court as is the religious sensitivity of those against contraception.

It starts at the bottom of page 5 and continues at the top of page 6 of SCOTUS majority opinion in the Hobby Lobby case.

“This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage man-dates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs.”

This clearly illustrates that the court HAS held one religious belief higher than another. This is as far as I know, the first time the SCOTUS has taken a position on the value of any religious belief, and or given one higher value than another.


I can’t believe VYAZMA missed it.

[ Edited: 14 July 2014 11:15 PM by Handydan ]
 Signature 

“expectation is the mother of disappointment”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 July 2014 03:47 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 49 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
Handydan - 14 July 2014 11:11 PM

Here is the part of the decision that holds one religious belief, (contraception) at a higher regard than another religious belief,(vaccinations or blood transfusions).
I can’t believe VYAZMA missed it.

I didn’t miss that part Handy.
I know you really want this Handydan. “Hell hath no fury….”
But contraception or blood transfusions are not religions or religious beliefs. Sorry.
Neither is abstaining from pork-like in my analogy I gave you to better understand this issue.

Do you know how the courts and laws work?
Hobby Lobby(and others) went to court because they felt their rights were being violated under the RFRA.
The court ruled that their rights concerning contraception were being violated because the government can’t create undue hardship on a religious entity by mandating that they follow through with a mandate that goes against the doctrines of a religion.

So the issue here is the RFRA. The Scotus interpreted the law. The RFRA law has already been used by various religions for various issues.
Perhaps a better way for you to understand this, and I already mentioned it briefly above, this SCOTUS ruling can apply to any religion.
So any religion that wants exemption from this contraception mandate can get it.
This includes christians, jews, muslims, hindus, and any other religion or religious sect that claims they are against contraception.
Is this clear for you now?

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 July 2014 06:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 50 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  859
Joined  2014-06-20
Handydan - 14 July 2014 11:11 PM
VYAZMA - 04 July 2014 01:05 PM
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.

Here is the part of the decision that holds one religious belief, (contraception) at a higher regard than another religious belief,( vaccinations or blood transfusions). Jehovah’s Witnesses are against blood transfusions on religious grounds, but their religious sensitivity is obviously not as important to the court as is the religious sensitivity of those against contraception.

It starts at the bottom of page 5 and continues at the top of page 6 of SCOTUS majority opinion in the Hobby Lobby case.

“This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage man-dates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs.”

This clearly illustrates that the court HAS held one religious belief higher than another. This is as far as I know, the first time the SCOTUS has taken a position on the value of any religious belief, and or given one higher value than another.


I can’t believe VYAZMA missed it.

Maybe the Court agrees only with Catholic-inspired challenges to it, such as the Hobby Lobby case on contraception. Most of the justices are Catholic. Hobby Lobby didn’t admit this or publicize it, but for the most part it’s Catholics who rail against birth control. No other religion does this. Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t have so much power, nor are there any JWs on the Supreme Court. If there were there would probably be a strong JW lobby and they would succeed in not having to pay for blood transfusions in health insurance policies on religious grounds. It all has to do with where the power and influence lies and we know the Catholic Church is VERY powerful and influential in Washington DC, to the detriment of all Americans.

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 July 2014 06:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 51 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  859
Joined  2014-06-20
Handydan - 09 July 2014 02:53 PM

Careful Lois. That’s one of the ways we nonbelievers are easily dismissed as simply praying before a different alter than the theists. btw, that argument about taxes used for things against my religion has been tried many times and consistently failed. If contraception cost were paid by taxes, Hobby Lobby would have lost this fight before it would have ever reached the scotus.

However, that argument about taxes being used for something against some people’s religion succeeded this time, didn’t it?  If it worked for them, why shouldn’t it work for the rest of us?

Of course you know that I used “religion” in it’s loosest sense. Humanism has often been called a religion. Why shouldn’t we make the crime fit the punishment?

Lois

[ Edited: 15 July 2014 06:24 AM by LoisL ]
 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 July 2014 04:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 52 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  368
Joined  2014-03-12
VYAZMA - 15 July 2014 03:47 AM
Handydan - 14 July 2014 11:11 PM

Here is the part of the decision that holds one religious belief, (contraception) at a higher regard than another religious belief,(vaccinations or blood transfusions).
I can’t believe VYAZMA missed it.

I didn’t miss that part Handy.
I know you really want this Handydan. “Hell hath no fury….”
But contraception or blood transfusions are not religions or religious beliefs. Sorry.
Neither is abstaining from pork-like in my analogy I gave you to better understand this issue.

Do you know how the courts and laws work?
Hobby Lobby(and others) went to court because they felt their rights were being violated under the RFRA.
The court ruled that their rights concerning contraception were being violated because the government can’t create undue hardship on a religious entity by mandating that they follow through with a mandate that goes against the doctrines of a religion.

So the issue here is the RFRA. The Scotus interpreted the law. The RFRA law has already been used by various religions for various issues.
Perhaps a better way for you to understand this, and I already mentioned it briefly above, this SCOTUS ruling can apply to any religion.
So any religion that wants exemption from this contraception mandate can get it.
This includes christians, jews, muslims, hindus, and any other religion or religious sect that claims they are against contraception.
Is this clear for you now?

Sadly for you and fortunately for the rest of us, we don’t live in the world according VYAZMA, where you are the supreme bully and head scratcher. Glad your opinions only have relevance to you. tongue wink

 Signature 

“expectation is the mother of disappointment”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 July 2014 06:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 53 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
Handydan - 15 July 2014 04:49 PM

Sadly for you and fortunately for the rest of us, we don’t live in the world according VYAZMA, where you are the supreme bully and head scratcher. Glad your opinions only have relevance to you. tongue wink

I’m sorry if you felt bullied. If you wish to think that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of one religion over others that’s ok.

 Signature 

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

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 July 2014 06:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 54 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4404
Joined  2010-08-15

An example of the interesting perspective these Republican/Libertarian folks have on “people” and their American Freedoms—-
only for the faithful…
the rest better fall in line or take the consequences   vampire

 Signature 

We need each other, to keep ourselves honest

Profile
 
 
   
4 of 4
4