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.