Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.
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.
Their business, their right to run it the way they want. If people don't like it they do not need to work there. Gov't. does not have the right to tell them how to run it. Only in you socialists twisted mindsThat's a twisty-turny selective reading, there . . .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].
I read it as 'if you are going to act like a business, you don't get to hide behind your religion'.
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.
You dolt. You're not getting it. The religious conscious argument is not valid. The health care law is a valid law. The church cannot claim any kind of exception to it based on religious freedom, because the church has willingly entered into commercial activity that is legally regulated by the government. It does not get a special exception just because it wants one.
Your notion of "forcing people to deny their religious conscious" is question begging. You suggest that that invalidates the law, making it no longer "otherwise valid." You're presuming your conclusion within your argument, making the whole thing circular.
True, but he's influential. Especially with the imbecile Clarence Thomas.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?
False. It is legal, because it was passed by Congress.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
True, but he's influential. Especially with the imbecile Clarence Thomas.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?
False. It is legal, because it was passed by Congress.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
Their hospital is not a religious institution. Period.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.
Sure it does,clear as water,The church can't be told what to do in their church,or hospital,but they in turn can't tell someone else in their church or hospital to do as they do,both side are protected,its very clear.
Where did I mention race?True, but he's influential. Especially with the imbecile Clarence Thomas.What does Scalia know? He's a partisan, right wing extremist judge... remember?
Always with the racist touch there buddy.. classy.
Where did I mention race?True, but he's influential. Especially with the imbecile Clarence Thomas.
Always with the racist touch there buddy.. classy.
This post reveals you to be the racist, seeing race everywhere.
True story!
You have no clue, do you?Their business, their right to run it the way they want. If people don't like it they do not need to work there. Gov't. does not have the right to tell them how to run it. Only in you socialists twisted mindsThat's a twisty-turny selective reading, there . . .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].
I read it as 'if you are going to act like a business, you don't get to hide behind your religion'.
It is legal to perform them. It is not legal to compel themSenate 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.
Until that day, it is a legal, valid law.False. It is legal, because it was passed by Congress.yet to be demonstrated
Not if it's found unconstitutional.... which many scholars believe it will be.
Racist.Where did I mention race?Always with the racist touch there buddy.. classy.
This post reveals you to be the racist, seeing race everywhere.
True story!
You know damn well that if Thomas were white and liberal, you'd love him. You leftist bigots have no use for a minority that doesn't dance at your table.
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.
You dolt. You're not getting it. The religious conscious argument is not valid. The health care law is a valid law. The church cannot claim any kind of exception to it based on religious freedom, because the church has willingly entered into commercial activity that is legally regulated by the government. It does not get a special exception just because it wants one.
Your notion of "forcing people to deny their religious conscious" is question begging. You suggest that that invalidates the law, making it no longer "otherwise valid." You're presuming your conclusion within your argument, making the whole thing circular.
Yeah - that would be people employed at the church. Not people employed by the church's secular business ventures.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.
You dolt. You're not getting it. The religious conscious argument is not valid. The health care law is a valid law. The church cannot claim any kind of exception to it based on religious freedom, because the church has willingly entered into commercial activity that is legally regulated by the government. It does not get a special exception just because it wants one.
Your notion of "forcing people to deny their religious conscious" is question begging. You suggest that that invalidates the law, making it no longer "otherwise valid." You're presuming your conclusion within your argument, making the whole thing circular.
Sure it is a valid argument especially when SCOTUS has already set a precedent to that effect.
In a 9-0 defeat for the administration, the justices said the 1st Amendment gives special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations in decisions about their employees.
Wrong-o-moondo!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.
Yeah - that would be people employed at the church. Not people employed by the church's secular business ventures.
You dolt. You're not getting it. The religious conscious argument is not valid. The health care law is a valid law. The church cannot claim any kind of exception to it based on religious freedom, because the church has willingly entered into commercial activity that is legally regulated by the government. It does not get a special exception just because it wants one.
Your notion of "forcing people to deny their religious conscious" is question begging. You suggest that that invalidates the law, making it no longer "otherwise valid." You're presuming your conclusion within your argument, making the whole thing circular.
Sure it is a valid argument especially when SCOTUS has already set a precedent to that effect.
In a 9-0 defeat for the administration, the justices said the 1st Amendment gives special solicitude to the rights of religious organizations in decisions about their employees.
