New Precedent: Federal Court Upholds Christians' Rights To Refuse. Kim Davis Has Case.

[Silhouette]

Court: Birth control mandate violates religious rights

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — A federal judge has ruled in favor of a Missouri lawmaker who cited religious objections while challenging the inclusion of birth control coverage in his government-provided health insurance....The lawsuit by Wieland and his wife, Teresa, who are Roman Catholics, asserted that it violates their religious beliefs to include contraception coverage in the state health insurance plan that he participates in as a lawmaker....In a ruling Thursday siding with the Wielands, U.S. District Judge Jean Hamilton cited the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says government shall not "substantially burden" a person's exercise of religion..."the only way plaintiffs can comply with their religious conscience is by dropping their insurance altogether, which would result in them foregoing a valuable job benefit

Kim Davis, you listening? The only way Kim Davis could keep her job would be to violate her religious conscience. Remember, Kim Davis took her job BEFORE Obergefell's illegal Ruling (two justices were mandated to have recused themselves from Obergefell, for performing gay marriages as representatives of the fed while deciding "should the fed preside over states on gay marriage?").

I found this part utterly hilarious...as if a precedent only applies on a case by case basis...as if all Americans don't enjoy interpretation of law equally... What a jokester that Senator was saying this:

State Sen. Paul Wieland said Friday that the ruling , while applying only to his family, could serve as a guide for others seeking to challenge the application of a section of President Barack Obama's health care law that requires insurers to include coverage of contraceptives

As if laws protecting religious freedoms ONLY apply to one person and ONLY in certain specific violations of religious conscience...you know...but not others... !

Jonathan Turley needs to get a hold of Kim Davis. They have a case to file..

 

[Silhouette]

ROWAN COUNTY, Kentucky, February 9, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) - A federal judge has turned down the ACLU's attempt to force Kim Davis to violate her conscience while issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Although Governor Matt Bevin granted a religious accommodation for the county clerk to issue altered marriage licenses to homosexuals, the ACLU brought a lawsuit seeking to force Davis to issue the old forms with her full name on them...."There is absolutely no reason that this case went so far without reasonable people respecting and accommodating Kim Davis' First Amendment rights," Kim Davis defeats ACLU attempt to force her to violate her conscience

Now if someone threw me in jail for exercising my 1st Amendment Civil Rights, I'd probably bring a case against them. Just sayin'.

 

[waltky]

Yes, she has the right to refuse birth control for herself...

... but not for someone else.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Nope. Kim Davis is completely irrelevant to this ruling. Deal with it and move on.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Yes, she has the right to refuse birth control for herself...

... but not for someone else.

Sure she does.....free exercise of religion........its in the constitution.

 

[waltky]

In her own case yes...

... but in someone else's - No...

... as in exercising their own religious rights.

 

[mdk]

I am pretty sure Kim Davis is tired of being laughed out of court.

 

[TheOldSchool]

 

[mdk]

Remember, Kim Davis took her job BEFORE Obergefell's illegal Ruling (two justices were mandated to have recused themselves from Obergefell, for performing gay marriages as representatives of the fed while deciding "should the fed preside over states on gay marriage?").

Repeating this lie over and over again does not make it so. Gay marriage is here to stay. Too bad, so sad.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Court: Birth control mandate violates religious rights

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — A federal judge has ruled in favor of a Missouri lawmaker who cited religious objections while challenging the inclusion of birth control coverage in his government-provided health insurance....The lawsuit by Wieland and his wife, Teresa, who are Roman Catholics, asserted that it violates their religious beliefs to include contraception coverage in the state health insurance plan that he participates in as a lawmaker....In a ruling Thursday siding with the Wielands, U.S. District Judge Jean Hamilton cited the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says government shall not "substantially burden" a person's exercise of religion..."the only way plaintiffs can comply with their religious conscience is by dropping their insurance altogether, which would result in them foregoing a valuable job benefit

Kim Davis, you listening? The only way Kim Davis could keep her job would be to violate her religious conscience. Remember, Kim Davis took her job BEFORE Obergefell's illegal Ruling (two justices were mandated to have recused themselves from Obergefell, for performing gay marriages as representatives of the fed while deciding "should the fed preside over states on gay marriage?").

I found this part utterly hilarious...as if a precedent only applies on a case by case basis...as if all Americans don't enjoy interpretation of law equally... What a jokester that Senator was saying this:

State Sen. Paul Wieland said Friday that the ruling , while applying only to his family, could serve as a guide for others seeking to challenge the application of a section of President Barack Obama's health care law that requires insurers to include coverage of contraceptives

As if laws protecting religious freedoms ONLY apply to one person and ONLY in certain specific violations of religious conscience...you know...but not others... !

Jonathan Turley needs to get a hold of Kim Davis. They have a case to file..

Male escorts are making crazy money at the RNC | New York Post

The clientele has included mostly married white men between the ages of 40 and 50, said another escort who’s seen eight johns so far.


I thought that allowing heterosexuals to marry was going to put an end to all this....

 

[NYcarbineer]

Court: Birth control mandate violates religious rights

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — A federal judge has ruled in favor of a Missouri lawmaker who cited religious objections while challenging the inclusion of birth control coverage in his government-provided health insurance....The lawsuit by Wieland and his wife, Teresa, who are Roman Catholics, asserted that it violates their religious beliefs to include contraception coverage in the state health insurance plan that he participates in as a lawmaker....In a ruling Thursday siding with the Wielands, U.S. District Judge Jean Hamilton cited the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says government shall not "substantially burden" a person's exercise of religion..."the only way plaintiffs can comply with their religious conscience is by dropping their insurance altogether, which would result in them foregoing a valuable job benefit

Kim Davis, you listening? The only way Kim Davis could keep her job would be to violate her religious conscience. Remember, Kim Davis took her job BEFORE Obergefell's illegal Ruling (two justices were mandated to have recused themselves from Obergefell, for performing gay marriages as representatives of the fed while deciding "should the fed preside over states on gay marriage?").

I found this part utterly hilarious...as if a precedent only applies on a case by case basis...as if all Americans don't enjoy interpretation of law equally... What a jokester that Senator was saying this:

State Sen. Paul Wieland said Friday that the ruling , while applying only to his family, could serve as a guide for others seeking to challenge the application of a section of President Barack Obama's health care law that requires insurers to include coverage of contraceptives

As if laws protecting religious freedoms ONLY apply to one person and ONLY in certain specific violations of religious conscience...you know...but not others... !

Jonathan Turley needs to get a hold of Kim Davis. They have a case to file..

The way they can comply with their so-called religious beliefs is to not use their insurance for birth control.

 

[HenryBHough]

When queer marriage is rhe only marriage rhen Earth will be safe from us.

 

[OKTexas]

Court: Birth control mandate violates religious rights

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — A federal judge has ruled in favor of a Missouri lawmaker who cited religious objections while challenging the inclusion of birth control coverage in his government-provided health insurance....The lawsuit by Wieland and his wife, Teresa, who are Roman Catholics, asserted that it violates their religious beliefs to include contraception coverage in the state health insurance plan that he participates in as a lawmaker....In a ruling Thursday siding with the Wielands, U.S. District Judge Jean Hamilton cited the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says government shall not "substantially burden" a person's exercise of religion..."the only way plaintiffs can comply with their religious conscience is by dropping their insurance altogether, which would result in them foregoing a valuable job benefit

Kim Davis, you listening? The only way Kim Davis could keep her job would be to violate her religious conscience. Remember, Kim Davis took her job BEFORE Obergefell's illegal Ruling (two justices were mandated to have recused themselves from Obergefell, for performing gay marriages as representatives of the fed while deciding "should the fed preside over states on gay marriage?").

I found this part utterly hilarious...as if a precedent only applies on a case by case basis...as if all Americans don't enjoy interpretation of law equally... What a jokester that Senator was saying this:

State Sen. Paul Wieland said Friday that the ruling , while applying only to his family, could serve as a guide for others seeking to challenge the application of a section of President Barack Obama's health care law that requires insurers to include coverage of contraceptives

As if laws protecting religious freedoms ONLY apply to one person and ONLY in certain specific violations of religious conscience...you know...but not others... !

Jonathan Turley needs to get a hold of Kim Davis. They have a case to file..

The way they can comply with their so-called religious beliefs is to not use their insurance for birth control.

Why should they or anyone be required to pay for a benefit they will never use?

 

[IcebergSlim]

Court: Birth control mandate violates religious rights

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — A federal judge has ruled in favor of a Missouri lawmaker who cited religious objections while challenging the inclusion of birth control coverage in his government-provided health insurance....The lawsuit by Wieland and his wife, Teresa, who are Roman Catholics, asserted that it violates their religious beliefs to include contraception coverage in the state health insurance plan that he participates in as a lawmaker....In a ruling Thursday siding with the Wielands, U.S. District Judge Jean Hamilton cited the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says government shall not "substantially burden" a person's exercise of religion..."the only way plaintiffs can comply with their religious conscience is by dropping their insurance altogether, which would result in them foregoing a valuable job benefit

Kim Davis, you listening? The only way Kim Davis could keep her job would be to violate her religious conscience. Remember, Kim Davis took her job BEFORE Obergefell's illegal Ruling (two justices were mandated to have recused themselves from Obergefell, for performing gay marriages as representatives of the fed while deciding "should the fed preside over states on gay marriage?").

I found this part utterly hilarious...as if a precedent only applies on a case by case basis...as if all Americans don't enjoy interpretation of law equally... What a jokester that Senator was saying this:

State Sen. Paul Wieland said Friday that the ruling , while applying only to his family, could serve as a guide for others seeking to challenge the application of a section of President Barack Obama's health care law that requires insurers to include coverage of contraceptives

As if laws protecting religious freedoms ONLY apply to one person and ONLY in certain specific violations of religious conscience...you know...but not others... !

Jonathan Turley needs to get a hold of Kim Davis. They have a case to file..

The way they can comply with their so-called religious beliefs is to not use their insurance for birth control.

Why should they or anyone be required to pay for a benefit they will never use?

That's the nature of insurance, Bunky......

 

[Clementine]

Yes, she has the right to refuse birth control for herself...

... but not for someone else.

Not providing something for someone is not the same thing as denying it to others. People can get what they want, but they shouldn't try to force religious organizations to provide it to them.

The left acts like people deny others by refusing to offer or pay for something for them.

 

[OKTexas]

Court: Birth control mandate violates religious rights

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — A federal judge has ruled in favor of a Missouri lawmaker who cited religious objections while challenging the inclusion of birth control coverage in his government-provided health insurance....The lawsuit by Wieland and his wife, Teresa, who are Roman Catholics, asserted that it violates their religious beliefs to include contraception coverage in the state health insurance plan that he participates in as a lawmaker....In a ruling Thursday siding with the Wielands, U.S. District Judge Jean Hamilton cited the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says government shall not "substantially burden" a person's exercise of religion..."the only way plaintiffs can comply with their religious conscience is by dropping their insurance altogether, which would result in them foregoing a valuable job benefit

Kim Davis, you listening? The only way Kim Davis could keep her job would be to violate her religious conscience. Remember, Kim Davis took her job BEFORE Obergefell's illegal Ruling (two justices were mandated to have recused themselves from Obergefell, for performing gay marriages as representatives of the fed while deciding "should the fed preside over states on gay marriage?").

I found this part utterly hilarious...as if a precedent only applies on a case by case basis...as if all Americans don't enjoy interpretation of law equally... What a jokester that Senator was saying this:

State Sen. Paul Wieland said Friday that the ruling , while applying only to his family, could serve as a guide for others seeking to challenge the application of a section of President Barack Obama's health care law that requires insurers to include coverage of contraceptives

As if laws protecting religious freedoms ONLY apply to one person and ONLY in certain specific violations of religious conscience...you know...but not others... !

Jonathan Turley needs to get a hold of Kim Davis. They have a case to file..

The way they can comply with their so-called religious beliefs is to not use their insurance for birth control.

Why should they or anyone be required to pay for a benefit they will never use?

That's the nature of insurance, Bunky......

Only since the illegal ACA, my 87 yo mother in law and father have to pay for it also, because all policies are required to have it.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Court: Birth control mandate violates religious rights

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — A federal judge has ruled in favor of a Missouri lawmaker who cited religious objections while challenging the inclusion of birth control coverage in his government-provided health insurance....The lawsuit by Wieland and his wife, Teresa, who are Roman Catholics, asserted that it violates their religious beliefs to include contraception coverage in the state health insurance plan that he participates in as a lawmaker....In a ruling Thursday siding with the Wielands, U.S. District Judge Jean Hamilton cited the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says government shall not "substantially burden" a person's exercise of religion..."the only way plaintiffs can comply with their religious conscience is by dropping their insurance altogether, which would result in them foregoing a valuable job benefit

Kim Davis, you listening? The only way Kim Davis could keep her job would be to violate her religious conscience. Remember, Kim Davis took her job BEFORE Obergefell's illegal Ruling (two justices were mandated to have recused themselves from Obergefell, for performing gay marriages as representatives of the fed while deciding "should the fed preside over states on gay marriage?").

I found this part utterly hilarious...as if a precedent only applies on a case by case basis...as if all Americans don't enjoy interpretation of law equally... What a jokester that Senator was saying this:

State Sen. Paul Wieland said Friday that the ruling , while applying only to his family, could serve as a guide for others seeking to challenge the application of a section of President Barack Obama's health care law that requires insurers to include coverage of contraceptives

As if laws protecting religious freedoms ONLY apply to one person and ONLY in certain specific violations of religious conscience...you know...but not others... !

Jonathan Turley needs to get a hold of Kim Davis. They have a case to file..

The way they can comply with their so-called religious beliefs is to not use their insurance for birth control.

Why should they or anyone be required to pay for a benefit they will never use?

That's the nature of insurance, Bunky......

Only since the illegal ACA, my 87 yo mother in law and father have to pay for it also, because all policies are required to have it.

Please explain how people on Medicare (even including a supplemental) are paying for contraception.....

 

[IcebergSlim]

Yes, she has the right to refuse birth control for herself...

... but not for someone else.

Not providing something for someone is not the same thing as denying it to others. People can get what they want, but they shouldn't try to force religious organizations to provide it to them.

The left acts like people deny others by refusing to offer or pay for something for them.

They are not.....the insurance company is doing so....

 

[OKTexas]

Court: Birth control mandate violates religious rights

Kim Davis, you listening? The only way Kim Davis could keep her job would be to violate her religious conscience. Remember, Kim Davis took her job BEFORE Obergefell's illegal Ruling (two justices were mandated to have recused themselves from Obergefell, for performing gay marriages as representatives of the fed while deciding "should the fed preside over states on gay marriage?").

I found this part utterly hilarious...as if a precedent only applies on a case by case basis...as if all Americans don't enjoy interpretation of law equally... What a jokester that Senator was saying this:
As if laws protecting religious freedoms ONLY apply to one person and ONLY in certain specific violations of religious conscience...you know...but not others... !

Jonathan Turley needs to get a hold of Kim Davis. They have a case to file..

The way they can comply with their so-called religious beliefs is to not use their insurance for birth control.

Why should they or anyone be required to pay for a benefit they will never use?

That's the nature of insurance, Bunky......

Only since the illegal ACA, my 87 yo mother in law and father have to pay for it also, because all policies are required to have it.

Please explain how people on Medicare (even including a supplemental) are paying for contraception.....

The ACA requires it to be included in every policy sold in the country, there are no exceptions in the law for the elderly. This has been discussed at length on this board, I guess you're just not paying attention.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Court: Birth control mandate violates religious rights

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — A federal judge has ruled in favor of a Missouri lawmaker who cited religious objections while challenging the inclusion of birth control coverage in his government-provided health insurance....The lawsuit by Wieland and his wife, Teresa, who are Roman Catholics, asserted that it violates their religious beliefs to include contraception coverage in the state health insurance plan that he participates in as a lawmaker....In a ruling Thursday siding with the Wielands, U.S. District Judge Jean Hamilton cited the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says government shall not "substantially burden" a person's exercise of religion..."the only way plaintiffs can comply with their religious conscience is by dropping their insurance altogether, which would result in them foregoing a valuable job benefit

Kim Davis, you listening? The only way Kim Davis could keep her job would be to violate her religious conscience. Remember, Kim Davis took her job BEFORE Obergefell's illegal Ruling (two justices were mandated to have recused themselves from Obergefell, for performing gay marriages as representatives of the fed while deciding "should the fed preside over states on gay marriage?").

I found this part utterly hilarious...as if a precedent only applies on a case by case basis...as if all Americans don't enjoy interpretation of law equally... What a jokester that Senator was saying this:

State Sen. Paul Wieland said Friday that the ruling , while applying only to his family, could serve as a guide for others seeking to challenge the application of a section of President Barack Obama's health care law that requires insurers to include coverage of contraceptives

As if laws protecting religious freedoms ONLY apply to one person and ONLY in certain specific violations of religious conscience...you know...but not others... !

Jonathan Turley needs to get a hold of Kim Davis. They have a case to file..

The way they can comply with their so-called religious beliefs is to not use their insurance for birth control.

Why should they or anyone be required to pay for a benefit they will never use?

Do they give you your fire insurance payments back if your house doesn't burn down?