Justice Scalia does not agree!

[Synthaholic]

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:

"In this country the government doesn't get to tell you or your organization what your religious views are – and they could well be minority views – but the Bill of Rights is designed to protect the minority from the will of the majority," McConnell said on CBS's "Face the Nation."​

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the majority decision in Employment Division v. Smith:

We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.​

Furthermore,

When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.​

In other words, if they want to be members of American society, the Catholic bishops have to live by the rules of American society.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:

"In this country the government doesn't get to tell you or your organization what your religious views are – and they could well be minority views – but the Bill of Rights is designed to protect the minority from the will of the majority," McConnell said on CBS's "Face the Nation."​

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the majority decision in Employment Division v. Smith:

We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.​

Furthermore,

When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.​

In other words, if they want to be members of American society, the Catholic bishops have to live by the rules of American society.

The part you fail to recognize is "an otherwise valid law". Forcing people to deny their religious conscience and forcing people to buy a product has not yet been determined to be a valid law.

 

[California Girl]

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:

"In this country the government doesn't get to tell you or your organization what your religious views are – and they could well be minority views – but the Bill of Rights is designed to protect the minority from the will of the majority," McConnell said on CBS's "Face the Nation."​

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the majority decision in Employment Division v. Smith:

We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.​

Furthermore,

When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.​

In other words, if they want to be members of American society, the Catholic bishops have to live by the rules of American society.

The part you fail to recognize is "an otherwise valid law". Forcing people to deny their religious conscience and forcing people to buy a product has not yet been determined to be a valid law.

Funny how Synthia overlooks that.

 

[Decepticon]

So if Obamacare is legal, and it is, then this made-up "scandal" goes away too?

Wow...a two-fer!

And in case you morons hadn't figured this out, the validity of the law, doesn't negate the fact that McConnell got it exactly wrong.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:

"In this country the government doesn't get to tell you or your organization what your religious views are – and they could well be minority views – but the Bill of Rights is designed to protect the minority from the will of the majority," McConnell said on CBS's "Face the Nation."​

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the majority decision in Employment Division v. Smith:

We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.​

Furthermore,

When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.​

In other words, if they want to be members of American society, the Catholic bishops have to live by the rules of American society.

Obamacare is dictating how Catholic bishops must function as bishops.

See the problem?

 

[syrenn]

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:

"In this country the government doesn't get to tell you or your organization what your religious views are – and they could well be minority views – but the Bill of Rights is designed to protect the minority from the will of the majority," McConnell said on CBS's "Face the Nation."​

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the majority decision in Employment Division v. Smith:

We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.​

Furthermore,

When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.​

In other words, if they want to be members of American society, the Catholic bishops have to live by the rules of American society.

Well damn... tell that one to the muslims.

 

[Liability]

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:

"In this country the government doesn't get to tell you or your organization what your religious views are – and they could well be minority views – but the Bill of Rights is designed to protect the minority from the will of the majority," McConnell said on CBS's "Face the Nation."​

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the majority decision in Employment Division v. Smith:

We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.​

Furthermore,

When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.​

In other words, if they want to be members of American society, the Catholic bishops have to live by the rules of American society.

You misinterpret Scalia's words.

When followers of a particular sect [let us say for example, members of the Roman Catholic Religion] enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, [let us say opening a hospital] the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith [for example, the decision NOT to permit abortions to be performed in their hospitals] are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity [i.e., they may not demand that other hospitals should also refuse to provide abortions].

 

[Synthaholic]

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:

"In this country the government doesn't get to tell you or your organization what your religious views are – and they could well be minority views – but the Bill of Rights is designed to protect the minority from the will of the majority," McConnell said on CBS's "Face the Nation."​

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the majority decision in Employment Division v. Smith:

We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.​

Furthermore,

When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.​

In other words, if they want to be members of American society, the Catholic bishops have to live by the rules of American society.

The part you fail to recognize is "an otherwise valid law". Forcing people to deny their religious conscience and forcing people to buy a product has not yet been determined to be a valid law.

Sorry to inform you of basic Constitutional law, but it's a valid law until it is overturned by SCOTUS.

Funny how Synthia overlooks that.

Moron says what?

 

[Synthaholic]

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:

"In this country the government doesn't get to tell you or your organization what your religious views are – and they could well be minority views – but the Bill of Rights is designed to protect the minority from the will of the majority," McConnell said on CBS's "Face the Nation."​

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the majority decision in Employment Division v. Smith:

We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.​

Furthermore,

When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.​

In other words, if they want to be members of American society, the Catholic bishops have to live by the rules of American society.

Obamacare is dictating how Catholic bishops must function as bishops.

See the problem?

How, Frank?

Use your words, not your funny cartoons.

 

[Synthaholic]

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:

"In this country the government doesn't get to tell you or your organization what your religious views are – and they could well be minority views – but the Bill of Rights is designed to protect the minority from the will of the majority," McConnell said on CBS's "Face the Nation."​

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the majority decision in Employment Division v. Smith:

We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.​

Furthermore,

When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.​

In other words, if they want to be members of American society, the Catholic bishops have to live by the rules of American society.

You misinterpret Scalia's words.

When followers of a particular sect [let us say for example, members of the Roman Catholic Religion] enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, [let us say opening a hospital] the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith [for example, the decision NOT to permit abortions to be performed in their hospitals] are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity [i.e., they may not demand that other hospitals should also refuse to provide abortions].

That's a twisty-turny selective reading, there . . .

I read it as 'if you are going to act like a business, you don't get to hide behind your religion'.

 

[Liability]

* * * *

Sorry to inform you of basic Constitutional law, but it's a valid law until it is overturned by SCOTUS.*

* * *

No. Not necessarily.

A FACIALLY unconstitutional law is still unconstitutional even before some old guys in black dresses say so.

A law which fails to comply with Constitutional requirements is void ab initio. That means it was void and a nullity from its very inception.

 

[Liability]

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:

"In this country the government doesn't get to tell you or your organization what your religious views are – and they could well be minority views – but the Bill of Rights is designed to protect the minority from the will of the majority," McConnell said on CBS's "Face the Nation."​

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the majority decision in Employment Division v. Smith:

We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.​

Furthermore,

When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.​

In other words, if they want to be members of American society, the Catholic bishops have to live by the rules of American society.

You misinterpret Scalia's words.

When followers of a particular sect [let us say for example, members of the Roman Catholic Religion] enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, [let us say opening a hospital] the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith [for example, the decision NOT to permit abortions to be performed in their hospitals] are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity [i.e., they may not demand that other hospitals should also refuse to provide abortions].

That's a twisty-turny selective reading, there . . .

I read it as 'if you are going to act like a business, you don't get to hide behind your religion'.

I know how YOU interpret it: Twisty-turny selective reading.

You "agree" with your interpretation of what Scalia said. I agree with what he actually said.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:

"In this country the government doesn't get to tell you or your organization what your religious views are – and they could well be minority views – but the Bill of Rights is designed to protect the minority from the will of the majority," McConnell said on CBS's "Face the Nation."​

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the majority decision in Employment Division v. Smith:

We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.​

Furthermore,

When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.​

In other words, if they want to be members of American society, the Catholic bishops have to live by the rules of American society.

You misinterpret Scalia's words.

When followers of a particular sect [let us say for example, members of the Roman Catholic Religion] enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, [let us say opening a hospital] the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith [for example, the decision NOT to permit abortions to be performed in their hospitals] are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity [i.e., they may not demand that other hospitals should also refuse to provide abortions].

That makes no sense at all. Catholic Bishops can demand all day long, and the clinic or hospital performing abortions can tell them, in the now famous words of Dick Cheney, to go fuck themselves. Abortion is settled law, simply read the transcript of Chief Justice Roberts confirmation hearing.

Of course as most of us know bishops are never straightforward, they always play the angles.

 

[Synthaholic]

* * * *

Sorry to inform you of basic Constitutional law, but it's a valid law until it is overturned by SCOTUS.*

* * *

No. Not necessarily.

A FACIALLY unconstitutional law is still unconstitutional even before some old guys in black dresses say so.

A law which fails to comply with Constitutional requirements is void ab initio. That means it was void and a nullity from its very inception.

But who decides that?

 

[Synthaholic]

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:

"In this country the government doesn't get to tell you or your organization what your religious views are – and they could well be minority views – but the Bill of Rights is designed to protect the minority from the will of the majority," McConnell said on CBS's "Face the Nation."​

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the majority decision in Employment Division v. Smith:

We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.​

Furthermore,

When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.​

In other words, if they want to be members of American society, the Catholic bishops have to live by the rules of American society.

You misinterpret Scalia's words.

When followers of a particular sect [let us say for example, members of the Roman Catholic Religion] enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, [let us say opening a hospital] the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith [for example, the decision NOT to permit abortions to be performed in their hospitals] are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity [i.e., they may not demand that other hospitals should also refuse to provide abortions].

That makes no sense at all. Catholic Bishops can demand all day long, and the clinic or hospital performing abortions can tell them, in the now famous words of Dick Cheney, to go fuck themselves. Abortion is settled law, simply read the transcript of Chief Justice Roberts confirmation hearing.

Of course as most of us know bishops are never straightforward, they always play the angles.

That's always good to remember when playing chess!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:

"In this country the government doesn't get to tell you or your organization what your religious views are – and they could well be minority views – but the Bill of Rights is designed to protect the minority from the will of the majority," McConnell said on CBS's "Face the Nation."​

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the majority decision in Employment Division v. Smith:

We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.​

Furthermore,

When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.​

In other words, if they want to be members of American society, the Catholic bishops have to live by the rules of American society.

The part you fail to recognize is "an otherwise valid law". Forcing people to deny their religious conscience and forcing people to buy a product has not yet been determined to be a valid law.

Sorry to inform you of basic Constitutional law, but it's a valid law until it is overturned by SCOTUS.

Funny how Synthia overlooks that.

Moron says what?

Mandating everyone buys health insurance will be found unconstitutional and without the mandate Obamacare cannot operate.

And in regards to forcing Catholic institutions to provide a service that goes against their doctrine, would also be struck down as unconstitutional by the SCOTUS. A precedent has already been set in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell:

"In this country the government doesn't get to tell you or your organization what your religious views are – and they could well be minority views – but the Bill of Rights is designed to protect the minority from the will of the majority," McConnell said on CBS's "Face the Nation."​

Justice Antonin Scalia, writing the majority decision in Employment Division v. Smith:

We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.​

Furthermore,

When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.​

In other words, if they want to be members of American society, the Catholic bishops have to live by the rules of American society.

What does Scalia know? He's a partisan, right wing extremist judge... remember?

 

[AmericanFirst]

So if Obamacare is legal, and it is, then this made-up "scandal" goes away too?

Wow...a two-fer!

And in case you morons hadn't figured this out, the validity of the law, doesn't negate the fact that McConnell got it exactly wrong.

Obamaturdcare is not legal. Hopefully the scotus has the sense to see that, because obamaturd sure doesn't have the sense.

 

[Amelia]

So if Obamacare is legal, and it is, then this made-up "scandal" goes away too?

Wow...a two-fer!

And in case you morons hadn't figured this out, the validity of the law, doesn't negate the fact that McConnell got it exactly wrong.

yet to be demonstrated

 

[Inthemiddle]

You misinterpret Scalia's words.

When followers of a particular sect [let us say for example, members of the Roman Catholic Religion] enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, [let us say opening a hospital] the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith [for example, the decision NOT to permit abortions to be performed in their hospitals] are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity [i.e., they may not demand that other hospitals should also refuse to provide abortions].

That's not what he said. Do you not understand English? Read this again:

"...the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity."

This has nothing to do with a Catholic hospital demanding that other hospitals do whatever. It means that if a secular hospital is obligated to comply with certain laws, then the Catholic hospital is also obligated to comply with those same laws.