Hobby Lobby and the NYTimes

[Lumpy 1]

Democrats are desperate to have an issue for the fall election, irresponsible women, I mean women that like knocking off babies must be outraged and scared into voting..

 

[Spoonman]

Democrats are desperate to have an issue for the fall election, irresponsible women, I mean women that like knocking off babies must be outraged and scared into voting..

they sure as hell can't run on obamacare, the economy or foreign policy.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Democrats are desperate to have an issue for the fall election, irresponsible women, I mean women that like knocking off babies must be outraged and scared into voting..

they sure as hell can't run on obamacare, the economy or foreign policy.

No doubt...and that's just the tip of the Democratic Party colossal failures.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Not one word in the Affordable Care Act guarantees health plans will cover birth control products. There is no right. President Obama and his Secretary of Health and Human Services added that requirement by regulation. Women have a constitutionally protected right to use birth control, but nothing guarantees that they can get it from an employer.


The distinction between a regulation and a law is no small matter. As Hobby Lobby’s lawyer stressed in his closing statement, a statute, in this case Congress’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, trumps a regulation.


Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993 expressly to shield believers such as the Green family from any government requirements that would impinge on their ability to practice their faith."
Startling Rift on Supreme Court Springs From Error by Kagan On Text of Obamacare Law - The New York Sun

 

[emilynghiem]

The qualifier for the OP is false.

Let's move along.

Hi Jake:
Can you honestly explain why it is ok
for an Atheist to sue to remove a cross from a public building, at taxpayers' expense,
but not ok for Christians to defend their beliefs from imposition or offense.

If this is not some political stage of backlash in a process of developing as a society,
then why has "religious freedom" flipped the other way,
from defending religious practice from regulation or imposition by govt
to the opposite of defending against perceived religious bias by "dominant groups"
such as the Christian, conservative, White or wealthy "as a class."

Fowler recognized stages in spiritual development.
Doesn't the "same human psychology" apply to political development?

Can we be HONEST this is happening?

Or do we "need to go through denial and projection"
as part of the stages and process as well?

Is this just another stage also?
Thanks, Jake

Not trying to pick on you, but somehow trust you to be honest.
I've got my own biases also, and just trying to be honest about those also.
Want to know "who on this board" is able to step outside and call out
our biases for what they are. And be ok admitting it instead of excluding anyone
who has the opposite bias going on. Can't we just deal with each other anyway?

bump


Waiting on jakes response.

Thanks Lonestar.

[MENTION=20412]JakeStarkey[/MENTION]:
May I please ask your honest opinion and assessment
on this issue? Do we need to reword the question
or start a new thread? This issue matters to me as I
believe it is critical to political growth in our systems of
representation by party, and the direction of reforms sorely needed.

I trust you to explain things honestly as you have replied in the past.
I understand you and I may be coming from opposite biases, and I
am fine with that. I value your opinion and want to hear
how you would explain these biases going on.

Can you explain to me why it is okay for Atheists to sue and defend themselves
from religious imposition, but not okay for Christians to do the same?

And as others brought up, if this case were about MUSLIMS bringing suit,
then wouldn't the LEFT politically side with the Muslims, and wouldn't the RIGHT suddenly back off from religious freedom under the Constitution?

What is going on with religious freedom and bias?
Are we going through a phase of developing to a more equally inclusive
approach to applying the Constitution or not?

What do you think is happening here, and where do you think it is going?
Thank you very much!

 

[emilynghiem]

Democrats are desperate to have an issue for the fall election, irresponsible women, I mean women that like knocking off babies must be outraged and scared into voting..

they sure as hell can't run on obamacare, the economy or foreign policy.

I can TOTALLY see the political strategy of putting the spin on this case as
"War on Women" or
"Corporate Personhood"

What is the equivalent of outting the whole issue of making other people buy or pay for things under terms we never agreed to?

People don't get "involuntary servitude" or "taxation without representation"
because they don't believe that companies or rich people own their own labor;
they see the taxes paid or deductions not paid as money owed to govt anyway!

Would they understand "political equality"?

That the "right to health" and "right to life" should be respected and protected equally since they are BOTH "political beliefs."

So it is wrong to push "right to choose" for one and not the other?
What language does it take to explain this to the American public?

How do we put this issue in similar KEY WORDS
that have the same impact as "War on Women".

Should we call for financial "Restitution to Taxpayers"?
That for all political abuses of govt to exclude any and all forms of political beliefs,
all citizens have equal right to demand reimbursement for taxmoney wasted?

Would that make sense to people, and have the same impact?
A call to "buy back America" and hold the actual wrongdoers
responsible for paying back the debts to the taxpayers?

What would unite people around a common cause?
"Turn the Tables" on government? Instead of charging taxpayers
for the costs of political abuse of govt, the wrongdoers have to pay us back?

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Can you honestly explain why it is ok for an Atheist to sue to remove a cross from a public building, at taxpayers' expense, but not ok for Christians to defend their beliefs from imposition or offense.

Since I never suggested anything of the sort, I would ask you to explain it. I don't see where anyone suggested such a thing.

Yes, you are engaged in projection and denial.

Thanks.

Can you explain to me why it is okay for Atheists to sue and defend themselves from religious imposition, but not okay for Christians to do the same?

answered above

if this case were about MUSLIMS bringing suit,
then wouldn't the LEFT politically side with the Muslims, and wouldn't the RIGHT suddenly back off from religious freedom under the Constitution?

Thank you for honestly asking, unlike the other person who has a partisan agenda. Partisans on the left side with Muslims, partisans on the right side with Christians, and true Americans side with the Constitution.

The base of the OP is false. The BHO administration is no more anti-religion than most presidencies. I believe history bears that out.

The decision is out of our hands. Whatever SCOTUS decides I will support as the law of the land. If I disagree with the decision, I will respect it as I work against it.

I expect every honest American to do the same.

 

[mamooth]

Question for the Obamunists: their burden is to show that the government has a compelling interest in forcing the Hobby Lobby folks to put aside their religious convictions.

Hobby Lobby is a corporation. It can't have convictions.

Unless you're claiming that corporations and the people who run them are the same, thus destroying the corporate veil, and allowing all corporate owners and CEO's to be sued personally when their corporation errs.

That is, we liberals would be overjoyed to see a SC ruling that the people running the corp and the corp are the same thing.

Thanks for your help with that. A warning, your corporate masters might not be pleased with the colossal magnitude of the bungling you've displayed here.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Question for the Obamunists: their burden is to show that the government has a compelling interest in forcing the Hobby Lobby folks to put aside their religious convictions.

Hobby Lobby is a corporation. It can't have convictions.

Unless you're claiming that corporations and the people who run them are the same, thus destroying the corporate veil, and allowing all corporate owners and CEO's to be sued personally when their corporation errs.

That is, we liberals would be overjoyed to see a SC ruling that the people running the corp and the corp are the same thing.

Thanks for your help with that. A warning, your corporate masters might not be pleased with the colossal magnitude of the bungling you've displayed here.

"...we liberals would be overjoyed to see a SC ruling that the people running the corp and the corp are the same thing."



Well, then, let's hope that the Court grants your wish.



In fact, though, we both know that you're lying....and that every Liberal organ had inveighed against a win for Hobby Lobby.


Don't we.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The qualifier for the OP is false.

Let's move along.

The qualifier is accurate, and by all means, let's move along to this: "A request for one standard, rather than the double that Liberals/Progressives/Democrats see as their hereditary right!"

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The owners of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties don't have a problem with offering insurance that covers most forms of birth control, but they aren't willing to cover emergency contraceptives — like Plan B or ella -- or IUDs. Hobby Lobby contends its "religious beliefs prohibit them from providing health coverage for contraceptive drugs and devices that end human life after conception."

And yet, Hobby Lobby stocks their shelves with products from China where abortion is mandatory

They feel free to impose their religious beliefs on their employees but not their suppliers

Oh, so now the prerogatives of my free-association and my private property relative to my religious beliefs becomes an imposition on your religious beliefs.

You don't like the limitations I place on what I am willing to pay for in terms of the healthcare coverage I provide for you to work for me at my place of business, then get your funky-smellin' ass off my property and work somewhere else or start your own business.

In other words, you lying, bootlicking statist punk, get your religious beliefs off my back.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

"Not one word in the Affordable Care Act guarantees health plans will cover birth control products. There is no right. President Obama and his Secretary of Health and Human Services added that requirement by regulation. Women have a constitutionally protected right to use birth control, but nothing guarantees that they can get it from an employer.


The distinction between a regulation and a law is no small matter. As Hobby Lobby’s lawyer stressed in his closing statement, a statute, in this case Congress’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, trumps a regulation.


Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993 expressly to shield believers such as the Green family from any government requirements that would impinge on their ability to practice their faith."
Startling Rift on Supreme Court Springs From Error by Kagan On Text of Obamacare Law - The New York Sun

Aside from the fact that the Bill of Rights—on which the entire enterprise of the Republic is predicated—trumps any given regulatory clause in the body of the Constitution proper and especially any mere statute or regulation: that is the entire matter in a nutshell.

Good post, Chic.

 

[Spoonman]

To this administration the right to choose only applies to certain groups

That's corporatism in a nutshell.

and no bigger corporate whores than the Obama administration

 

[Luddly Neddite]

One thing for sure -

The right can never again say they're against abortion or supporting China.