Now corporations soon to have "freedom of religion"? Really?

[Dot Com]

They're fighting for the privilege of being exempted from a law everyone else has to follow.

Cannot be stated any more succinctly or accurately.

If a law violates anyone's freedom of religion, then surely it is an unjust law in it's entirety and should therefore be struck down. As slim a chance as that has of happening, it's about the only chance Hobby has in this case. The idea that the Supreme Court would grant them an exemption to the law just because they object to it on religious grounds is pretty preposterous. I'm not so cynical as to believe the Court could be that stupid.

true Repeal a law that benefits 10's of millions so that a few fringe outlets like hobby lobby & chick fil et can chisel their employees out of a couple of benefits Not gonna' happen

 

[Quantum Windbag]

they need to either go non-profit or abide by the law.

Let me get this straight, they have to obey the law, but the government doesn't. Interesting position, can you explain what gives the government the power to ignore the law?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If the court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby? All medical procedures would be subject to religious scrutiny by corporations.

Additionally, corporations could deny employment to people of different faiths.

It's a very dangerous case.

Thanks for displaying your complete ignorance.

Tell me something, why do you have to base every argument you make on lies?

What lie?

That Hobby Lobby winning this somehow means that all medical procedures are subject to employer scrutiny.

Does your employer not paying your cable bill mean that they control what you watch?

Does it not paying for your clothing mean that they scrutinize what you wear at home?

See the problem yet, or are you still confused by your lies?

 

[manifold]

Except that you refuse to allow the courts to strike down laws simply because it violates freedom of religion. That is your problem, not mine.

Where the **** did you come up with that?

Where the **** did you ever argue that the fact that Mennonites are exempted from Social Security means that everyone should be exempted from it? Where the **** did you ever argue that the fact that Obamacare regulations are specifically written to exempt churches from the mandates means that everyone should be exempted?

Until you start actually staking out, and defending, the position you just espoused, I am perfectly free to point out that your position is actually what it is.

I have no idea what the **** you're talking about, I can only hope you have me confused with someone else and aren't actually this stupid.

My position is that if the law violates protected religious freedom, it should be struck down completely. If the law does not violate protected religious freedom, then Hobby has to follow the law just like everybody else.

Get it screetch?

 

[manifold]

They're fighting for the privilege of being exempted from a law everyone else has to follow.

Cannot be stated any more succinctly or accurately.

If a law violates anyone's freedom of religion, then surely it is an unjust law in it's entirety and should therefore be struck down. As slim a chance as that has of happening, it's about the only chance Hobby has in this case. The idea that the Supreme Court would grant them an exemption to the law just because they object to it on religious grounds is pretty preposterous. I'm not so cynical as to believe the Court could be that stupid.

true Repeal a law that benefits 10's of millions so that a few fringe outlets like hobby lobby & chick fil et can chisel their employees out of a couple of benefits Not gonna' happen

Thanks for sharing your ill-formed and unsupported opinion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Where the **** did you come up with that?

Where the **** did you ever argue that the fact that Mennonites are exempted from Social Security means that everyone should be exempted from it? Where the **** did you ever argue that the fact that Obamacare regulations are specifically written to exempt churches from the mandates means that everyone should be exempted?

Until you start actually staking out, and defending, the position you just espoused, I am perfectly free to point out that your position is actually what it is.

I have no idea what the **** you're talking about, I can only hope you have me confused with someone else and aren't actually this stupid.

My position is that if the law violates protected religious freedom, it should be struck down completely. If the law does not violate protected religious freedom, then Hobby has to follow the law just like everybody else.

Get it screetch?

According to the federal government Social Security violates religious freedom. In fact, saying the pledge of allegiance in school violates religious freedom. There are a lot of laws on the books that violate religious freedom, and have been successfully challenged on that basis, yet they still exist, and apply to everyone who doesn't take an exception to them. Feel free to demand that all of them be repealed while you are staking out your position against all laws that do so, not just the ones you don't like.

 

[dblack]

They're fighting for the privilege of being exempted from a law everyone else has to follow.

Cannot be stated any more succinctly or accurately.

If a law violates anyone's freedom of religion, then surely it is an unjust law in it's entirety and should therefore be struck down. As slim a chance as that has of happening, it's about the only chance Hobby has in this case. The idea that the Supreme Court would grant them an exemption to the law just because they object to it on religious grounds is pretty preposterous. I'm not so cynical as to believe the Court could be that stupid.

Except that you refuse to allow the courts to strike down laws simply because it violates freedom of religion. That is your problem, not mine.

No, I actually want to see the law, or even just the contraception requirement, ruled unconstitutional and struck down. And if that was what Hobby Lobby is after, I'm in favor of it. But what I don't want to see, and what seems the most likely reversal (if any) to come from the Hobby Lobby case, is a special exception granted for designated religious institutions.

I don't believe the religious freedom guaranteed by the first amendment is intended to give religions special treatment. I believe it's intended to prevent it. It's there to prevent the federal government from making laws persecuting (or promoting) religion.

The stipulation that congress can't make laws 'prohibiting the free exercise' of a religion doesn't mean, in my view, that any law which conflicts with a religions practice can't be enforced if someone objects for religious reasons. I find that interpretation absurd. What it means, by way of example, is that we can't make a law banning Islam. But we can make it illegal to marry underage girls or beat your wife, regardless of the recommendations of the Koran. And Muslims would have to follow those laws just like the rest of us.

 

[manifold]

Where the **** did you ever argue that the fact that Mennonites are exempted from Social Security means that everyone should be exempted from it? Where the **** did you ever argue that the fact that Obamacare regulations are specifically written to exempt churches from the mandates means that everyone should be exempted?

Until you start actually staking out, and defending, the position you just espoused, I am perfectly free to point out that your position is actually what it is.

I have no idea what the **** you're talking about, I can only hope you have me confused with someone else and aren't actually this stupid.

My position is that if the law violates protected religious freedom, it should be struck down completely. If the law does not violate protected religious freedom, then Hobby has to follow the law just like everybody else.

Get it screetch?

According to the federal government Social Security violates religious freedom. In fact, saying the pledge of allegiance in school violates religious freedom. There are a lot of laws on the books that violate religious freedom, and have been successfully challenged on that basis, yet they still exist, and apply to everyone who doesn't take an exception to them. Feel free to demand that all of them be repealed while you are staking out your position against all laws that do so, not just the ones you don't like.

Wow, debating is easy when you get to completely fabricate your own facts.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Cannot be stated any more succinctly or accurately.

If a law violates anyone's freedom of religion, then surely it is an unjust law in it's entirety and should therefore be struck down. As slim a chance as that has of happening, it's about the only chance Hobby has in this case. The idea that the Supreme Court would grant them an exemption to the law just because they object to it on religious grounds is pretty preposterous. I'm not so cynical as to believe the Court could be that stupid.

Except that you refuse to allow the courts to strike down laws simply because it violates freedom of religion. That is your problem, not mine.

No, I actually want to see the law, or even just the contraception requirement, ruled unconstitutional and struck down. And if that was what Hobby Lobby is after, I'm in favor of it. But what I don't want to see, and what seems the most likely reversal (if any) to come from the Hobby Lobby case, is a special exception granted for designated religious institutions.

I don't believe the religious freedom guaranteed by the first amendment is intended to give religions special treatment. I believe it's intended to prevent it. It's there to prevent the federal government from making laws persecuting (or promoting) religion.

The stipulation that congress can't make laws 'prohibiting the free exercise' of a religion doesn't mean, in my view, that any law which conflicts with a religions practice can't be enforced if someone objects for religious reasons. I find that interpretation absurd. What it means, by way of example, is that we can't make a law banning Islam. But we can make it illegal to marry underage girls or beat your wife, regardless of the recommendations of the Koran. And Muslims would have to follow those laws just like the rest of us.

Let me spell this out for you, the Supreme Court made striking down the law, as written, impossible. That leaves you with the option of getting Congress to repeal the law, or getting the courts to strike it down because they can't apply it without violating the Constitution. If your goal is actually what you say it is you should support every attack on the law because everything that weakens the law makes it more likely to reach your goal.

Yet you insist that your bullheaded interpretation of the way life works is more important that getting rid of the law.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I have no idea what the **** you're talking about, I can only hope you have me confused with someone else and aren't actually this stupid.

My position is that if the law violates protected religious freedom, it should be struck down completely. If the law does not violate protected religious freedom, then Hobby has to follow the law just like everybody else.

Get it screetch?

According to the federal government Social Security violates religious freedom. In fact, saying the pledge of allegiance in school violates religious freedom. There are a lot of laws on the books that violate religious freedom, and have been successfully challenged on that basis, yet they still exist, and apply to everyone who doesn't take an exception to them. Feel free to demand that all of them be repealed while you are staking out your position against all laws that do so, not just the ones you don't like.

Wow, debating is easy when you get to completely fabricate your own facts.

Which fact did I fabricate? Why are Mennonites and other religious orders exempted from Social Security? Why did Congress specifically write Obamacare to exempt religious communities from the requirements, even if they run a business? Where have you demanded the repeal of Social Security based on the fact that it violates religious freedom for some people and is therefore unconstitutional?

 

[manifold]

Let me spell this out for you, the Supreme Court made striking down the law, as written, impossible.

Let me spell it out for you... B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T

You said yourself that previous challenges to the law were not based on religious freedom. Unless you are completely wrong about that, there is no precedent that would prevent them from striking the law down on that basis.

 

[dblack]

Except that you refuse to allow the courts to strike down laws simply because it violates freedom of religion. That is your problem, not mine.

No, I actually want to see the law, or even just the contraception requirement, ruled unconstitutional and struck down. And if that was what Hobby Lobby is after, I'm in favor of it. But what I don't want to see, and what seems the most likely reversal (if any) to come from the Hobby Lobby case, is a special exception granted for designated religious institutions.

I don't believe the religious freedom guaranteed by the first amendment is intended to give religions special treatment. I believe it's intended to prevent it. It's there to prevent the federal government from making laws persecuting (or promoting) religion.

The stipulation that congress can't make laws 'prohibiting the free exercise' of a religion doesn't mean, in my view, that any law which conflicts with a religions practice can't be enforced if someone objects for religious reasons. I find that interpretation absurd. What it means, by way of example, is that we can't make a law banning Islam. But we can make it illegal to marry underage girls or beat your wife, regardless of the recommendations of the Koran. And Muslims would have to follow those laws just like the rest of us.

Let me spell this out for you, the Supreme Court made striking down the law, as written, impossible. That leaves you with the option of getting Congress to repeal the law, or getting the courts to strike it down because they can't apply it without violating the Constitution. If your goal is actually what you say it is you should support every attack on the law because everything that weakens the law makes it more likely to reach your goal.

Ok, can you clarify - are you arguing in favor of the Court created a defacto exemption for religions here? Or are you assuming that the court would strike down the contraception requirement for everyone because it violates religious freedom. I'm in favor of the latter. But the former would only make the the law stronger by diminishing potential opposition.

Yet you insist that your bullheaded interpretation of the way life works is more important that getting rid of the law.

What is my 'bullheaded interpretation of the way life works', in your view?

 

[SwimExpert]

Why should any company be forced to engage in commerce of any kind? Why should any person be forced to engage in commerce?

Would you accept a government mandate that forced you to eat out at a restaurant at least one a week? And it forced you to leave a mandatory 20% tip even if the service was crappy?
Where do you draw the line on government forced action when it comes to you personally?

You are right, it is a slippery slop, I'm unsure why you side with government instead of freedom and liberty.

Truth is, there are all kinds of government mandates. Some force you to buy certain things (like car insurance). Some prohibit you from doing things. Some indirectly force you to buy things (through taxes that pay for expenditures). Mandates are issued for the good of society, over all. We can't fight Obamacare on the ideology of it infringing freedom, because good uses of government power infringe freedoms of some kind or another. And it's hard to make the case that expanding health care access harms society overall. We need to fight it on its functional failures. How it negatively impacts people with lesser means, instead of helping them as it was supposed to do. How the whole project is too massive to be effectively managed by government, as seen in the problems with the website. How it will increase the costs of health care access instead of making it more affordable. Instead of waging constitutional fights which haven't worked so far and aren't likely to succeed still, we need to start generating realistic and effective alternatives, and start addressing the things that have created secondary effects that have led the the problems in the way health care works in our country.

 

[koshergrl]

Except it doesn't expand health care access. It is limiting it.

 

[rdean]

This is for the guys: Which would you rather be paying for? Birth Control or Day Care?

Hands?

Daycare:

Birth Control:

 

[Sunshine]

Well, I'm not reading every page of this thread. I'm sure I can divine what was said without reading it.

I will say this, though, if they can force Hobby Lobby to pay for a medication they consider immoral, then the can force a store owned by muslims to allow pork in their establishment. Anybody remember when THAT case came up. Seems muslims fired a woman for eating a BLT. If this case against Hobby Lobby is not upheld Christians aren't the only ones who are going to be pissed off. Yes, it IS a slippery slope when you start forcing people whether they are engaged in business or not to do something that violates their religious beliefs. I'm thinking there was another case about this, a pharmacist who didn't want to fill orders for birth control. I had several nursing students who objected to abortion, and my advice to them: Don't work where they do abortions. If you find the moral constructs of the employer to be distasteful to you, don't work there, don't shop there, don't do business with them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, I actually want to see the law, or even just the contraception requirement, ruled unconstitutional and struck down. And if that was what Hobby Lobby is after, I'm in favor of it. But what I don't want to see, and what seems the most likely reversal (if any) to come from the Hobby Lobby case, is a special exception granted for designated religious institutions.

I don't believe the religious freedom guaranteed by the first amendment is intended to give religions special treatment. I believe it's intended to prevent it. It's there to prevent the federal government from making laws persecuting (or promoting) religion.

The stipulation that congress can't make laws 'prohibiting the free exercise' of a religion doesn't mean, in my view, that any law which conflicts with a religions practice can't be enforced if someone objects for religious reasons. I find that interpretation absurd. What it means, by way of example, is that we can't make a law banning Islam. But we can make it illegal to marry underage girls or beat your wife, regardless of the recommendations of the Koran. And Muslims would have to follow those laws just like the rest of us.

Let me spell this out for you, the Supreme Court made striking down the law, as written, impossible. That leaves you with the option of getting Congress to repeal the law, or getting the courts to strike it down because they can't apply it without violating the Constitution. If your goal is actually what you say it is you should support every attack on the law because everything that weakens the law makes it more likely to reach your goal.

Ok, can you clarify - are you arguing in favor of the Court created a defacto exemption for religions here? Or are you assuming that the court would strike down the contraception requirement for everyone because it violates religious freedom. I'm in favor of the latter. But the former would only make the the law stronger by diminishing potential opposition.

Yet you insist that your bullheaded interpretation of the way life works is more important that getting rid of the law.

What is my 'bullheaded interpretation of the way life works', in your view?

I am arguing in favor of not allowing government to restrain rights in any way, shape, or form. You, on the other hand, prefer a government that screws everyone over because you think that restricting government's power to screw people over gives it more power.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Let me spell this out for you, the Supreme Court made striking down the law, as written, impossible.

Let me spell it out for you... B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T

You said yourself that previous challenges to the law were not based on religious freedom. Unless you are completely wrong about that, there is no precedent that would prevent them from striking the law down on that basis.

Religious freedom issues didn't come up until the regulations were written. That is an as applied argument, not as written.

 

[dblack]

Let me spell this out for you, the Supreme Court made striking down the law, as written, impossible. That leaves you with the option of getting Congress to repeal the law, or getting the courts to strike it down because they can't apply it without violating the Constitution. If your goal is actually what you say it is you should support every attack on the law because everything that weakens the law makes it more likely to reach your goal.

Ok, can you clarify - are you arguing in favor of the Court created a defacto exemption for religions here? Or are you assuming that the court would strike down the contraception requirement for everyone because it violates religious freedom. I'm in favor of the latter. But the former would only make the the law stronger by diminishing potential opposition.

Yet you insist that your bullheaded interpretation of the way life works is more important that getting rid of the law.

What is my 'bullheaded interpretation of the way life works', in your view?

I am arguing in favor of not allowing government to restrain rights in any way, shape, or form. You, on the other hand, prefer a government that screws everyone over because you think that restricting government's power to screw people over gives it more power.

I hear what you're saying - letting some people off the hook, whatever the reason, is better than everyone's rights being violated. But rights are universal and apply to everyone equally. If they don't apply to everyone, they aren't rights, they're just privileges afforded to special interest groups.

As a hypothetical, let me ask you this. What if the exemption wasn't granted to all religions, but only to Catholics. Would you still support it? Why, or why not?

 

[Sunshine]

Ok, can you clarify - are you arguing in favor of the Court created a defacto exemption for religions here? Or are you assuming that the court would strike down the contraception requirement for everyone because it violates religious freedom. I'm in favor of the latter. But the former would only make the the law stronger by diminishing potential opposition.

What is my 'bullheaded interpretation of the way life works', in your view?

I am arguing in favor of not allowing government to restrain rights in any way, shape, or form. You, on the other hand, prefer a government that screws everyone over because you think that restricting government's power to screw people over gives it more power.

I hear what you're saying - letting some people off the hook, whatever the reason, is better than everyone's rights being violated. But rights are universal and apply to everyone equally. If they don't apply to everyone, they aren't rights, they're just privileges afforded to special interest groups.

As a hypothetical, let me ask you this. What if the exemption wasn't granted to all religions, but only to Catholics. Would you still support it? Why, or why not?

Are you aware that our female soldiers in the middle east aren't allowed to use birth control while they are there? I think in Desert Storm we brought home something like 1500 pregnant women.