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

[Vox]

To reiterate, my concern isn't that it will create an exception for this company alone, but rather an exception for religious objections alone. I don't see why a religious objection deserves any more Constitutional protection than a secular objection.

we are going in circles here.

Because there are NO secular objection protected under the Constitution which can be somehow applied to the case of obamacare therefore no possibility to struck it down. The secular objection would be freedom of speech, which is not pertinent in any aspect.
Freedom of religion IS a huge aspect and therefore it should be protected and the contraception mandate struck down.
If it is ruled unconstitutional ( a blue dream) - then the whole law will be unconstitutional

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, you are missing the point, Hobby Lobby challenged the contraception mandate on the grounds that it violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says:

Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Exception
Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(c) Judicial relief
A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.

42 USC § 2000bb?1 - Free exercise of religion protected | Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

You seem to think this will create an exception for this company alone, it won't, so please, pull your ******* head out of your ******* ass and join the ******* fight instead of fighting for the government.

Thanks for the clarification. Per the bolded part, why do you think this won't result in an exemption for religions objections? Like I said, if they strike down the requirement across the board, I'm in favor of it.

To reiterate, my concern isn't that it will create an exception for this company alone, but rather an exception for religious objections alone. I don't see why a religious objection deserves any more Constitutional protection than a secular objection.

Also, why do you persist with the insulting language? The debate would be more enjoyable, for me at least, without it. Is it necessary?

Because, nitwit, there are exceptions written into the regulation already.

 

[dblack]

No, you are missing the point, Hobby Lobby challenged the contraception mandate on the grounds that it violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says:

42 USC § 2000bb?1 - Free exercise of religion protected | Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

You seem to think this will create an exception for this company alone, it won't, so please, pull your ******* head out of your ******* ass and join the ******* fight instead of fighting for the government.

Thanks for the clarification. Per the bolded part, why do you think this won't result in an exemption for religions objections? Like I said, if they strike down the requirement across the board, I'm in favor of it.

To reiterate, my concern isn't that it will create an exception for this company alone, but rather an exception for religious objections alone. I don't see why a religious objection deserves any more Constitutional protection than a secular objection.

Also, why do you persist with the insulting language? The debate would be more enjoyable, for me at least, without it. Is it necessary?

Because, nitwit, there are exceptions written into the regulation already.

Alright jackass. You clearly don't like civil debate. Let's just shout pointless insults at each other. Go team!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Thanks for the clarification. Per the bolded part, why do you think this won't result in an exemption for religions objections? Like I said, if they strike down the requirement across the board, I'm in favor of it.

To reiterate, my concern isn't that it will create an exception for this company alone, but rather an exception for religious objections alone. I don't see why a religious objection deserves any more Constitutional protection than a secular objection.

Also, why do you persist with the insulting language? The debate would be more enjoyable, for me at least, without it. Is it necessary?

Because, nitwit, there are exceptions written into the regulation already.

Alright jackass. You clearly don't like civil debate. Let's just shout pointless insults at each other. Go team!

Why the **** should I be civil with an idiot who hasn't ******* read a single word about the case unless it was posted in this thread? Do you know why the Tenth Circuit upheld the Hobby Lobby challenge?

You keep arguing that the should apply to everyone. It doesn't, even if Hobby Lobby loses there are exceptions written into the ******* law. The Tenth Circuit recognized the existence of those exceptions when it upheld the challenge based on the RFRA.

The government asserts two interests here: “the interests in [1] public health and [2] gender equality.” We recognize the importance of these interests. But they nonetheless in this context do not satisfy the Supreme Court’s compelling interest standards….

[T]he interest here cannot be compelling because the contraceptive-coverage requirement presently does not apply to tens of millions of people. As noted above, this exempted population includes those working for private employers with grandfathered plans, for employers with fewer than fifty employees [who don’t have to provide any health insurance -EV], and, under a proposed rule, for colleges and universities run by religious institutions. As the Supreme Court has said, “a law cannot be regarded as protecting an interest of the highest order when it leaves appreciable damage to that supposedly vital interest unprohibited.” Lukumi; see also O Centro (citing Lukumi as instructive in determining whether exemptions undermine a compelling government interest for purposes of RFRA). The exemptions at issue here would yield precisely this result: they would leave unprotected all women who work for exempted business entities.

4B. RFRA Strict Scrutiny: The Argument from Secular Exceptions | The Volokh ConspiracyThe Volokh Conspiracy

In other words, your entire premise is wrong to begin with. That makes everything you say in opposition to the challenge wrong, just like it makes everything the government says in defense of it wrong. If you ******* want civility from me, stop being an ideological asshole that ignores the facts and defend your position honestly. Until you do, you don't deserve anything but contempt and insults.

 

[BobPlumb]

Question: Given past rulings of the surpreme court, do we really expect the judgement to be logical?

 

[dblack]

Question: Given past rulings of the surpreme court, do we really expect the judgement to be logical?

Seems unlikely at best.

 

[dblack]

To reiterate, my concern isn't that it will create an exception for this company alone, but rather an exception for religious objections alone. I don't see why a religious objection deserves any more Constitutional protection than a secular objection.

we are going in circles here.

Because there are NO secular objection protected under the Constitution which can be somehow applied to the case of obamacare therefore no possibility to struck it down. The secular objection would be freedom of speech, which is not pertinent in any aspect.
Freedom of religion IS a huge aspect and therefore it should be protected and the contraception mandate struck down.
If it is ruled unconstitutional ( a blue dream) - then the whole law will be unconstitutional

We're not going in circles so much as bouncing back and forth between a couple of different, but related, issues. One is the whether a ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby would result in striking down the contraception mandate for everyone, or whether the law would simply be modified to exempt religions - as they've done with the individual mandate for certain religions. I hope your assumption is right, and that the rule is struck down for everyone. I suspect that if the law is ruled in violation of Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Obama will simply modify it to exempt religious groups via his penchant for ruling by decree.

The other issue is whether special protections, like those implied by the RFRA, are faithful implementations of the first amendment. I don't think the first amendment was meant to grant special privilege to religious convictions. But, regardless of it's intent, I'm more interested in why you believe religious convictions should be afforded protections that non-religious convictions aren't. And please don't say 'because the first amendment says so', I'm asking you why you think the Constitution should give religious convictions special treatment. Why should a religious person's conviction that insurance coverage for contraception is immoral be protected, but not my conviction that it's a waste of money?

I don't think the intent of the first amendment was to give special status to religious convictions. I think it was to protect religions from political persecution, and to keep the state from dictating our religious beliefs. And I'm pointing out that when government does indulge the practice of giving religious convictions special treatment, it's actually violating the original intent of the religious protection by distinguishing 'legitimate' religious convictions from spurious beliefs.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

To reiterate, my concern isn't that it will create an exception for this company alone, but rather an exception for religious objections alone. I don't see why a religious objection deserves any more Constitutional protection than a secular objection.

we are going in circles here.

Because there are NO secular objection protected under the Constitution which can be somehow applied to the case of obamacare therefore no possibility to struck it down. The secular objection would be freedom of speech, which is not pertinent in any aspect.
Freedom of religion IS a huge aspect and therefore it should be protected and the contraception mandate struck down.
If it is ruled unconstitutional ( a blue dream) - then the whole law will be unconstitutional

We're not going in circles so much as bouncing back and forth between a couple of different, but related, issues. One is the whether a ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby would result in striking down the contraception mandate for everyone, or whether the law would simply be modified to exempt religions - as they've done with the individual mandate for certain religions. I hope your assumption is right, and that the rule is struck down for everyone. I suspect that if the law is ruled in violation of Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Obama will simply modify it to exempt religious groups via his penchant for ruling by decree.

The other issue is whether special protections, like those implied by the RFRA, are faithful implementations of the first amendment. I don't think the first amendment was meant to grant special privilege to religious convictions. But, regardless of it's intent, I'm more interested in why you believe religious convictions should be afforded protections that non-religious convictions aren't. And please don't say 'because the first amendment says so', I'm asking you why you think the Constitution should give religious convictions special treatment. Why should a religious person's conviction that insurance coverage for contraception is immoral be protected, but not my conviction that it's a waste of money?

I don't think the intent of the first amendment was to give special status to religious convictions. I think it was to protect religions from political persecution, and to keep the state from dictating our religious beliefs. And I'm pointing out that when government does indulge the practice of giving religious convictions special treatment, it's actually violating the original intent of the religious protection by distinguishing 'legitimate' religious convictions from spurious beliefs.

Feel free to file a lawsuit, after you start a business that employs more than 50 people and supplies insurance. Until then, all you are doing is arguing in favor of government regulations on other people.

 

[ABikerSailor]

yes, it does. It targets Catholics, Orthodox and some Protestants DIRECTLY.
On abortifacient methods of contraception - all branches. On other methods of contraception - not all of them, but majority. Hobby Lobby does not fight all contraceptive methods just abortifacient ones.

No, not in the way stipulated in decision:

Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an ordinance passed in Hialeah, Florida, forbidding the "unnecessar[y]" killing of "an animal in a public or private ritual or ceremony not for the primary purpose of food consumption", was unconstitutional. The law was enacted soon after the city council of Hialeah learned that the Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, which practiced Santería, was planning on locating there. The church filed a lawsuit in United States district court for the Southern District of Florida, seeking for the Hialeah ordinance to be declared unconstitutional.

Adhering to Employment Division v. Smith, the lower courts deemed the law to have a legitimate and rational government purpose and therefore upheld the enactment. The Supreme Court, however, held that the ordinances were neither neutral nor generally applicable: rather, they applied exclusively to the church. Because the law was targeted at Santería, the Court held, it was not subject to an undemanding rational basis test. Rather, the nature of the case was held to mandate a standard of strict scrutiny: state action had to be justified by a compelling governmental interest, and be narrowly tailored to advance that interest. Because the ordinance suppressed more religious conduct than was necessary to achieve its stated ends, it was deemed unconstitutional, with Justice Anthony Kennedy stating in the decision, “religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection”

.

Based on the above criteria, the contraception mandate would not be struck down. It has general purpose and, regardless of whether that purpose is just, impacts anyone who isn't currently providing coverage for contraception.

To reiterate, I think it SHOULD be struck down, because it violates a more fundamental freedom to think and make our own economic decisions. But the law doesn't specifically target religion. I conflicts with the views of some religions, granted, but according to the above decision, that's not the litmus test for the first amendment. Nor should it be.

what does the ritual animal sacrifice has in common to the enforcement to PAY for somebody's lifestyle option which is in direct contradiction with the religious beliefs of the one, who has to pay?
contraception mandate does not have any general purpose as it is NOT medical treatment. it is a LIFESTYLE option, available OTC.
those are absolutely different issues.

No, sorry, but contraception isn't "a lifestyle option". In many cases it is used to medically treat certain diseases and disorders.

And................fwiw.....................the ACA ALREADY has a religious exemption, but it's only for non profit religious organizations. If Hobby Lobby wants to drop their for profit status as a business and turn themselves into a non profit religious organization, THEN they can argue that they object based on religious reasons.

Sorry.................but if it's a for profit business, they have to follow the rules of the ACA.

What do you suggest next, allowing Christian owned businesses to discriminate against Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and Muslims?

 

[Vox]

No, not in the way stipulated in decision:

.

Based on the above criteria, the contraception mandate would not be struck down. It has general purpose and, regardless of whether that purpose is just, impacts anyone who isn't currently providing coverage for contraception.

To reiterate, I think it SHOULD be struck down, because it violates a more fundamental freedom to think and make our own economic decisions. But the law doesn't specifically target religion. I conflicts with the views of some religions, granted, but according to the above decision, that's not the litmus test for the first amendment. Nor should it be.

what does the ritual animal sacrifice has in common to the enforcement to PAY for somebody's lifestyle option which is in direct contradiction with the religious beliefs of the one, who has to pay?
contraception mandate does not have any general purpose as it is NOT medical treatment. it is a LIFESTYLE option, available OTC.
those are absolutely different issues.

No, sorry, but contraception isn't "a lifestyle option". In many cases it is used to medically treat certain diseases and disorders.And................fwiw.....................the ACA ALREADY has a religious exemption, but it's only for non profit religious organizations. If Hobby Lobby wants to drop their for profit status as a business and turn themselves into a non profit religious organization, THEN they can argue that they object based on religious reasons.

Sorry.................but if it's a for profit business, they have to follow the rules of the ACA.

What do you suggest next, allowing Christian owned businesses to discriminate against Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and Muslims?

No, it DOES NOT.

Failure on your part to know physiology, anatomy, pathology and pharmacology does not give you a right to spread nonsense anyway.

the contraception hormonal "pill" is not used to treat ANYTHING. Hormones, which are part of the contraception "pill" are used in treating some medical conditions. But that does not mean it is the "pill". and that treatment is covered.

 

[dblack]

No, not in the way stipulated in decision:

.

Based on the above criteria, the contraception mandate would not be struck down. It has general purpose and, regardless of whether that purpose is just, impacts anyone who isn't currently providing coverage for contraception.

To reiterate, I think it SHOULD be struck down, because it violates a more fundamental freedom to think and make our own economic decisions. But the law doesn't specifically target religion. I conflicts with the views of some religions, granted, but according to the above decision, that's not the litmus test for the first amendment. Nor should it be.

what does the ritual animal sacrifice has in common to the enforcement to PAY for somebody's lifestyle option which is in direct contradiction with the religious beliefs of the one, who has to pay?
contraception mandate does not have any general purpose as it is NOT medical treatment. it is a LIFESTYLE option, available OTC.
those are absolutely different issues.

No, sorry, but contraception isn't "a lifestyle option". In many cases it is used to medically treat certain diseases and disorders.

And................fwiw.....................the ACA ALREADY has a religious exemption, but it's only for non profit religious organizations. If Hobby Lobby wants to drop their for profit status as a business and turn themselves into a non profit religious organization, THEN they can argue that they object based on religious reasons.

Sorry.................but if it's a for profit business, they have to follow the rules of the ACA.

What do you suggest next, allowing Christian owned businesses to discriminate against Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and Muslims?

Where does profit enter into it? Are you suggesting we give up our rights if engaged in commerce?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, not in the way stipulated in decision:

.

Based on the above criteria, the contraception mandate would not be struck down. It has general purpose and, regardless of whether that purpose is just, impacts anyone who isn't currently providing coverage for contraception.

To reiterate, I think it SHOULD be struck down, because it violates a more fundamental freedom to think and make our own economic decisions. But the law doesn't specifically target religion. I conflicts with the views of some religions, granted, but according to the above decision, that's not the litmus test for the first amendment. Nor should it be.

what does the ritual animal sacrifice has in common to the enforcement to PAY for somebody's lifestyle option which is in direct contradiction with the religious beliefs of the one, who has to pay?
contraception mandate does not have any general purpose as it is NOT medical treatment. it is a LIFESTYLE option, available OTC.
those are absolutely different issues.

No, sorry, but contraception isn't "a lifestyle option". In many cases it is used to medically treat certain diseases and disorders.

And................fwiw.....................the ACA ALREADY has a religious exemption, but it's only for non profit religious organizations. If Hobby Lobby wants to drop their for profit status as a business and turn themselves into a non profit religious organization, THEN they can argue that they object based on religious reasons.

Sorry.................but if it's a for profit business, they have to follow the rules of the ACA.

What do you suggest next, allowing Christian owned businesses to discriminate against Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and Muslims?

Sorry, but IUDs and Plan B are not used to treat medical conditions. Since the lawsuit specifically applies only to contraceptives that prevent implantation, not ordinary contraceptives, your argument is, like most arguments in this thread, based on a delusion.

 

[SwimExpert]

so far the Supreme Court ALWAYS been strucking down the violation by the government of religious freedom, we will see what will happen this time.

Labor laws have ABSOLUTELY ZERO relevance to First Amendment and if they have - those are exactly IN PROTECTION of religious beliefs.

Think you need to go read Employment Division v. Smith.

 

[SwimExpert]

there are no religious beliefs against minimum wages and in order to prove in front of the court that something IS a religious belief violation, there has to be a log-standing established proof it is.

Quite wrong.

Neither this Court, nor any branch of this Government, will consider the merits or fallacies of a religion. Nor will the Court compare the beliefs, dogmas, and practices of a newly organized religion with those of an older, more established religion. Nor will the Court praise or condemn a religion, however excellent or fanatical or preposterous it may seem. WERE THE COURT TO DO SO, IT WOULD IMPINGE UPON THE GUARANTEES OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

Universal Life Church v United States of America

 

[SwimExpert]

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.

Universal compliance with taxation is a "compelling government interest."

 

[SwimExpert]

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.

When a law is not aimed at religion, it can require or forbid actions that conflict with a person's religious beliefs. However, when a law is aimed at religion, a first amendment violation usually occurs. In the case you cite, the latter occurs. The law that was passed was created specifically to impede the practice of a certain group's religion. Plural marriage is a form of religious practice for some. However, those people do not enjoy exceptions to the laws that prohibit polygamy.

 

[SwimExpert]

yes, it does. It targets Catholics, Orthodox and some Protestants DIRECTLY.
On abortifacient methods of contraception - all branches. On other methods of contraception - not all of them, but majority. Hobby Lobby does not fight all contraceptive methods just abortifacient ones.

Just because a law has implications on one or more particular religions does not mean that the law targets them. Again, I refer you to Employment Division v. Smith.

 

[SwimExpert]

contraception mandate does not have any general purpose as it is NOT medical treatment.

......
......
......
......
......
......


You are a sad excuse for a conservative. You're the reason why we keep losing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Universal compliance with taxation is a "compelling government interest."

Can you show me a single example of any tax that the government actually mandates 100% compliance with?

Didn't think so.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

When a law is not aimed at religion, it can require or forbid actions that conflict with a person's religious beliefs. However, when a law is aimed at religion, a first amendment violation usually occurs. In the case you cite, the latter occurs. The law that was passed was created specifically to impede the practice of a certain group's religion. Plural marriage is a form of religious practice for some. However, those people do not enjoy exceptions to the laws that prohibit polygamy.

Look up the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the 1st Amendment, then come back and show me how stupid you are by totally misrepresenting all the case law I have at my fingertips.