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

[manifold]

BTW, abortion has been already decided and it is outside any coercion from the government. And birth control ( especially abortifacients) are in the same religious belief's category, so I do not see any reason, the government coercion in this instance should not be overturned.

Prepare yourself to be disappointed.

 

[Vox]

So, are you contending religious freedom applies only to 'long standing, established' religions? I don't see that stipulation in the first amendment.

I am applying only that so far the SCOTUS did upheld only those and only in the cases when others rights are not violated.
and don't subsitute my argument of a proof of long-standing BELIEF to the long-standing religion.

although I am not aware about any SCOTUS ruling on the behalf of the scientology sect. Maybe there is some, just can't remember one

So do you see why mani and I are contending that this actually violates the spirit of the first amendment, by putting the Court in charge of deciding what is a legitimate religion and what isn't?

Nope, I do not. You simply want somebody to pay for YOUR personal lifestyle choices and that is the very reason you so vehemently want the government to force employer's to pay for it.

I can tell you ahead of whatever SCOTUS will decide - it won't happen.
The whole health insurance will be dropped and the employer won't pay even a cent of penalty.

BTW, I, personally, think, that seeming stupidity and stubbornness of the obama admin in this case is neither stupidity, nor stubbornness. It is a well manipulated move in sync with all others to force employers to drop the healthcare coverage for their employees entirely - so the employees would be forced to buy insurance through the exchanges - the whole obamacare possibility of survival lies in the amount of people subscribing to it - so it is just simple, perverse, but very logical move form the standpoint of the administration in the implementation of obamacare.

 

[Rebelitarian]

It seems that the people who own Hobby Lobby are going to protest the ACA on the grounds that it makes provisions for birth control, and because the owners are against birth control, they should be allowed "freedom of religion" for their business......................


Supreme Court and Obamacare contraception mandate: Are companies ?persons? with religious freedom rights?

Now...............the ACA already exempts non profit religions organizations from this law, but does that mean that we should now allow for profit companies to impose their religious views on their workers?

What next? Giving corporations that are owned by devout Christians the ability to discriminate against hiring workers because they are Islamic or Jewish because their belief systems clash with what Christianity teaches?

It's a slippery slope that is being trod upon here..........................

No religious exemptions for corporations this is ludicrious.

 

[dblack]

I am applying only that so far the SCOTUS did upheld only those and only in the cases when others rights are not violated.
and don't subsitute my argument of a proof of long-standing BELIEF to the long-standing religion.

although I am not aware about any SCOTUS ruling on the behalf of the scientology sect. Maybe there is some, just can't remember one

So do you see why mani and I are contending that this actually violates the spirit of the first amendment, by putting the Court in charge of deciding what is a legitimate religion and what isn't?

Nope, I do not. You simply want somebody to pay for YOUR personal lifestyle choices and that is the very reason you so vehemently want the government to force employer's to pay for it.

What??? Have you been reading my posts at all? I'm firmly against ALL of the mandates associated with ACA. I thought I made that clear. I just don't agree with scapegoating some people at the expense of others. If Hobby Lobby doesn't have to follow the law, neither should any other businesses.

BTW, I, personally, think, that seeming stupidity and stubbornness of the obama admin in this case is neither stupidity, nor stubbornness. It is a well manipulated move in sync with all others to force employers to drop the healthcare coverage for their employees entirely - so the employees would be forced to buy insurance through the exchanges - the whole obamacare possibility of survival lies in the amount of people subscribing to it - so it is just simple, perverse, but very logical move form the standpoint of the administration in the implementation of obamacare.

Agreed.

 

[manifold]

I am applying only that so far the SCOTUS did upheld only those and only in the cases when others rights are not violated.
and don't subsitute my argument of a proof of long-standing BELIEF to the long-standing religion.

although I am not aware about any SCOTUS ruling on the behalf of the scientology sect. Maybe there is some, just can't remember one

So do you see why mani and I are contending that this actually violates the spirit of the first amendment, by putting the Court in charge of deciding what is a legitimate religion and what isn't?

Nope, I do not. You simply want somebody to pay for YOUR personal lifestyle choices and that is the very reason you so vehemently want the government to force employer's to pay for it.

I can tell you ahead of whatever SCOTUS will decide - it won't happen.
The whole health insurance will be dropped and the employer won't pay even a cent of penalty.

BTW, I, personally, think, that seeming stupidity and stubbornness of the obama admin in this case is neither stupidity, nor stubbornness. It is a well manipulated move in sync with all others to force employers to drop the healthcare coverage for their employees entirely - so the employees would be forced to buy insurance through the exchanges - the whole obamacare possibility of survival lies in the amount of people subscribing to it - so it is just simple, perverse, but very logical move form the standpoint of the administration in the implementation of obamacare.

Nice rant.

But of course your prophesy can only be enacted by companies with less than 50 employees.

"Missed it by that much" - Voxwell 'ain't' Smart.

 

[Vox]

And Vox, if this is your view, how long-standing? how well established? What is the cutoff? More importantly, who decides? Government?

The court decides in every particular instance - there have been numerous cases already.
You can not claim that your religious belief forbids you to provide services to green-eyed man over 6 feet tall because of his height and the color of his eyes.
But you can and should claim that your particular religious belief forbids you to pay for abortions and birth control to your employees.

BTW, abortion has been already decided and it is outside any coercion from the government. And birth control ( especially abortifacients) are in the same religious belief's category, so I do not see any reason, the government coercion in this instance should not be overturned.

Again, neither do I. But I see no reason why some should be coerced because of their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) and some should not. The way to deal with a law that conflicts with a religious belief is to strike down the law, not cut special deals.

that is just your personal opinion and on the personal philosophical level I agree with that.
But on the much more important practical level the whole possibility of throwing this garbage obamacare i n the trash now lies in this decision - and since it is the very core matter protected under First Amendment, there is a huge chance to overthrow the mandate.
Which eventually will lead to the demise of the vicious obamacare altogether.

I can not understand why you, if you claim you are against the law, and want it to be thrown out, do not want Hobby Lobby to win the case.
Unless, obviously, you are an obamacare fan.

So - are you?

 

[Vox]

So do you see why mani and I are contending that this actually violates the spirit of the first amendment, by putting the Court in charge of deciding what is a legitimate religion and what isn't?

Nope, I do not. You simply want somebody to pay for YOUR personal lifestyle choices and that is the very reason you so vehemently want the government to force employer's to pay for it.

I can tell you ahead of whatever SCOTUS will decide - it won't happen.
The whole health insurance will be dropped and the employer won't pay even a cent of penalty.

BTW, I, personally, think, that seeming stupidity and stubbornness of the obama admin in this case is neither stupidity, nor stubbornness. It is a well manipulated move in sync with all others to force employers to drop the healthcare coverage for their employees entirely - so the employees would be forced to buy insurance through the exchanges - the whole obamacare possibility of survival lies in the amount of people subscribing to it - so it is just simple, perverse, but very logical move form the standpoint of the administration in the implementation of obamacare.

Nice rant.

But of course your prophesy can only be enacted by companies with less than 50 employees.

"Missed it by that much" - Voxwell 'ain't' Smart.

oh, piss of, ignorant leftard

 

[manifold]

Nope, I do not. You simply want somebody to pay for YOUR personal lifestyle choices and that is the very reason you so vehemently want the government to force employer's to pay for it.

I can tell you ahead of whatever SCOTUS will decide - it won't happen.
The whole health insurance will be dropped and the employer won't pay even a cent of penalty.

BTW, I, personally, think, that seeming stupidity and stubbornness of the obama admin in this case is neither stupidity, nor stubbornness. It is a well manipulated move in sync with all others to force employers to drop the healthcare coverage for their employees entirely - so the employees would be forced to buy insurance through the exchanges - the whole obamacare possibility of survival lies in the amount of people subscribing to it - so it is just simple, perverse, but very logical move form the standpoint of the administration in the implementation of obamacare.

Nice rant.

But of course your prophesy can only be enacted by companies with less than 50 employees.

"Missed it by that much" - Voxwell 'ain't' Smart.

oh, piss of, ignorant leftard

Translation: "Doh!"

 

[Vox]

So do you see why mani and I are contending that this actually violates the spirit of the first amendment, by putting the Court in charge of deciding what is a legitimate religion and what isn't?

Nope, I do not. You simply want somebody to pay for YOUR personal lifestyle choices and that is the very reason you so vehemently want the government to force employer's to pay for it.

What??? Have you been reading my posts at all? I'm firmly against ALL of the mandates associated with ACA. I thought I made that clear. I just don't agree with scapegoating some people at the expense of others. If Hobby Lobby doesn't have to follow the law, neither should any other businesses.

I apologize if I counted you with obama worshipers, and I understand that suspicion is extremely offensive.

 

[Vox]

Nice rant.

But of course your prophesy can only be enacted by companies with less than 50 employees.

"Missed it by that much" - Voxwell 'ain't' Smart.

oh, piss of, ignorant leftard

Translation: "Doh!"

I wasn't even talking to YOU, idiot, as a leftard can not understand anything which needs thinking by default.
you are a leftard, so piss off.

 

[dblack]

The court decides in every particular instance - there have been numerous cases already.
You can not claim that your religious belief forbids you to provide services to green-eyed man over 6 feet tall because of his height and the color of his eyes.
But you can and should claim that your particular religious belief forbids you to pay for abortions and birth control to your employees.

BTW, abortion has been already decided and it is outside any coercion from the government. And birth control ( especially abortifacients) are in the same religious belief's category, so I do not see any reason, the government coercion in this instance should not be overturned.

Again, neither do I. But I see no reason why some should be coerced because of their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) and some should not. The way to deal with a law that conflicts with a religious belief is to strike down the law, not cut special deals.

that is just your personal opinion and on the personal philosophical level I agree with that.
But on the much more important practical level the whole possibility of throwing this garbage obamacare i n the trash now lies in this decision - and since it is the very core matter protected under First Amendment, there is a huge chance to overthrow the mandate.
Which eventually will lead to the demise of the vicious obamacare altogether.

I can not understand why you, if you claim you are against the law, and want it to be thrown out, do not want Hobby Lobby to win the case.
Unless, obviously, you are an obamacare fan.

So - are you?

Exempting religious businesses from the mandate will remove them from the ranks of those us fighting the law. Just as giving exemptions to the unions and all the other special interest groups that Obama bought off to pass this shit turned their opposition into tacit support. This is how they defeat us. It's the heart and soul of the statist motif, where special interests are played off each other as part of the political strategy. Everybody is so busy jumping through hoops to get special treatment we miss out on the fact that our rights are being systematically obliterated.

 

[manifold]

oh, piss of, ignorant leftard

Translation: "Doh!"

I wasn't even talking to YOU, idiot, as a leftard can not understand anything which needs thinking by default.
you are a leftard, so piss off.

Translation: Yup, I totally ****'d up and forgot about the 50 employee healthcare requirement in the ACA, but I'm so far from man enough to admit it that I'm going to pretend it didn't happen.

 

[Vox]

Again, neither do I. But I see no reason why some should be coerced because of their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) and some should not. The way to deal with a law that conflicts with a religious belief is to strike down the law, not cut special deals.

that is just your personal opinion and on the personal philosophical level I agree with that.
But on the much more important practical level the whole possibility of throwing this garbage obamacare i n the trash now lies in this decision - and since it is the very core matter protected under First Amendment, there is a huge chance to overthrow the mandate.
Which eventually will lead to the demise of the vicious obamacare altogether.

I can not understand why you, if you claim you are against the law, and want it to be thrown out, do not want Hobby Lobby to win the case.
Unless, obviously, you are an obamacare fan.

So - are you?

Exempting religious businesses from the mandate will remove them from the ranks of those us fighting the law. Just as giving exemptions to the unions and all the other special interest groups that Obama bought off to pass this shit turned their opposition into tacit support. This is how they defeat us. It's the heart and soul of the statist motif, where special interests are played off each other as part of the political strategy. Everybody is so busy jumping through hoops to get special treatment we miss out on the fact that our rights are being systematically obliterated.

You would be right if Hobby Lobby would be seeking the exemption from obama admin - and there have been thousands of exempt businesses ( unions included) who received the permanent waiver.
But if the business can have the mandate overthrown by SCOTUS - this is huge by itself, and the very start of the small repeals one by one.

It is not the religious belief part here which is important for the future. It is the corporation part

 

[dblack]

that is just your personal opinion and on the personal philosophical level I agree with that.
But on the much more important practical level the whole possibility of throwing this garbage obamacare i n the trash now lies in this decision - and since it is the very core matter protected under First Amendment, there is a huge chance to overthrow the mandate.
Which eventually will lead to the demise of the vicious obamacare altogether.

I can not understand why you, if you claim you are against the law, and want it to be thrown out, do not want Hobby Lobby to win the case.
Unless, obviously, you are an obamacare fan.

So - are you?

Exempting religious businesses from the mandate will remove them from the ranks of those us fighting the law. Just as giving exemptions to the unions and all the other special interest groups that Obama bought off to pass this shit turned their opposition into tacit support. This is how they defeat us. It's the heart and soul of the statist motif, where special interests are played off each other as part of the political strategy. Everybody is so busy jumping through hoops to get special treatment we miss out on the fact that our rights are being systematically obliterated.

You would be right if Hobby Lobby would be seeking the exemption from obama admin - and there have been thousands of exempt businesses ( unions included) who received the permanent waiver.
But if the business can have the mandate overthrown by SCOTUS - this is huge by itself, and the very start of the small repeals one by one.

It is not the religious belief part here which is important for the future. It is the corporation part

As I said, if it's overthrown for everyone, even if it's just the contraception mandate, I'll be cheering with you. If it's only thrown out for religious institutions - as seems the most likely way they'd rule against ACA, if they do - then I'll see it as a net loss of freedom. And it would effectively be another exemption, albeit for a class of businesses rather than a specific company.

 

[Vox]

Exempting religious businesses from the mandate will remove them from the ranks of those us fighting the law. Just as giving exemptions to the unions and all the other special interest groups that Obama bought off to pass this shit turned their opposition into tacit support. This is how they defeat us. It's the heart and soul of the statist motif, where special interests are played off each other as part of the political strategy. Everybody is so busy jumping through hoops to get special treatment we miss out on the fact that our rights are being systematically obliterated.

You would be right if Hobby Lobby would be seeking the exemption from obama admin - and there have been thousands of exempt businesses ( unions included) who received the permanent waiver.
But if the business can have the mandate overthrown by SCOTUS - this is huge by itself, and the very start of the small repeals one by one.

It is not the religious belief part here which is important for the future. It is the corporation part

As I said, if it's overthrown for everyone, even if it's just the contraception mandate, I'll be cheering with you. If it's only thrown out for religious institutions - as seems the most likely way they'd rule against ACA, if they do - then I'll see it as a net loss of freedom. And it would effectively be another exemption, albeit for a class of businesses rather than a specific company.

it won't happen. we lost last year, remember? it's a TAX.
in order to overthrow it NOW one has to use ALL the methods left.

 

[manifold]

You would be right if Hobby Lobby would be seeking the exemption from obama admin - and there have been thousands of exempt businesses ( unions included) who received the permanent waiver.
But if the business can have the mandate overthrown by SCOTUS - this is huge by itself, and the very start of the small repeals one by one.

It is not the religious belief part here which is important for the future. It is the corporation part

As I said, if it's overthrown for everyone, even if it's just the contraception mandate, I'll be cheering with you. If it's only thrown out for religious institutions - as seems the most likely way they'd rule against ACA, if they do - then I'll see it as a net loss of freedom. And it would effectively be another exemption, albeit for a class of businesses rather than a specific company.

it won't happen. we lost last year, remember? it's a TAX.
in order to overthrow it NOW one has to use ALL the methods left.

he's talking about the birth control mandate, not the individual mandate

do try to keep up corky

 

[Sunshine]

It seems that the people who own Hobby Lobby are going to protest the ACA on the grounds that it makes provisions for birth control, and because the owners are against birth control, they should be allowed "freedom of religion" for their business......................


Supreme Court and Obamacare contraception mandate: Are companies ?persons? with religious freedom rights?

Now...............the ACA already exempts non profit religions organizations from this law, but does that mean that we should now allow for profit companies to impose their religious views on their workers?

What next? Giving corporations that are owned by devout Christians the ability to discriminate against hiring workers because they are Islamic or Jewish because their belief systems clash with what Christianity teaches?

It's a slippery slope that is being trod upon here..........................

Hobby Lobby has made it's intentions clear. If they have to pay for the abortion pill, they are going out of business. How many jobs lost is that in an economy that needs those jobs?

Obama will be overcome with glee if that happens.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

except you fail to see that they are paving the road for repealing the crap for everyone.

I'd like to believe that. But it looks the opposite to me. The more groups that can score their own exemptions, the more likely it will remain law. That's why they're cutting all the deals in the first place.

Think about this.

In order for this to pass muster the government has to prove that it is in furtherance of a compelling government interest in forcing companies to provide birth control. Under that standard it is assumed that a law, or regulation, is unconstitutional, and the entire burden falls on the government to prove that what they are doing is Constitutional. In other words, if they win, the regulation is overturned automatically.

That means you win, even though the law was challenged because it infringes on religion. The lawyers on the left know this, and are attempting to reframe the debate as being about corporations, and you are letting them win, which is what makes you wrong before you even start.

If the government actually proves that mandating birth control is constitutional, they then have to prove that the way they are doing it, ie requiring employers to pay for it, is the least intrusive method of furthering that interest. To accomplish that they have to prove that the 100+ countries that allow women to purchase birth control without a prescription are endagering the health of women by not requiring them to visit a doctor every year to get a new prescription, even though no doctor in this country actually runs any real tests on any woman that comes to him for birth control. Can you imagine a Republican government official getting up in court and insisting that women are too stupid to protect themselves unless they see a doctor? Why the **** should we allow a Democrat to get away with it?

You need to stop whinging about the fucked up idea that this is going to hurt you and start pointing out why everyone, including you, who ever argued that this challenge was wrong is actually insulting women. Shove the fact that women who support this want the government in control of women's reproductive rights. Show them why the government is making it more expensive by mandating that insurance cover birth control rather than make it available OTC. Above all, stop wasting my time by insisting that you actually understand the ******* issues when you can't see the ******* forest for the trees.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'd like to believe that. But it looks the opposite to me. The more groups that can score their own exemptions, the more likely it will remain law. That's why they're cutting all the deals in the first place.

that is your personal opinion and a wrong one. The Constitution is there to protect us from the government not to protect one group of private citizens from the other group of private citizens. employer's denial do pay for your privileges does not impose anything on you, government pressure on the employer of it's, government, values - is OPPRESSION and a direct violation of the First Amendment.

I completely agree. Which is why the entire requirement should be struck down, and not simply exempted for religious groups.

If it is struck down on religious grounds it is still struck down.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Where did you get that idea? Would that mean Muslims can't be punished for beating their wives then?

paying for your privileges ( including the whole insurance) has nothing to do with violence against the private citizen. Beating of the wife is not a religious belief.

Please don't dodge the point. There are, or at least have been, religions which practice human or animal sacrifice. I'm assuming you wouldn't argue they should get a pass in the name of religious freedom. Surely you can see that the point of the first amendment isn't to protect religious practices when the come into conflict the law. The point is to keep the law from targeting religions.

And, like it or not, there are still religions that practice animal sacrifice, and the Supreme Court has ruled that laws that prevent animal sacrifice cannot be applied to Santeria churches because sacrifice is an integral part of their religion.

Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Will you admit you are wrong now?