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

[JakeStarkey]

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

Then corporations will eventually denied special tax breaks and be assessed as all people are assessed.

 

[manifold]

Uh... no? But I'm not sure I understand your question.

The first amendment isn't there to give religious people an excuse to not follow the law. It's there to prevent government from targeting religions for persecution. These mandates are wrong, period. But allowing exemptions for favored special interest groups only expands government power, setting them up to pick and choose who will suffer the consequences of the law and who will get a pass.

Wow, I specifically point out that the only purpose of the 1st Amendment is to stop the government from doing things, and you rant about religious people not obeying the law.

Come back when you stop arguing like rdean.

Heh... aren't you in the surly mood!

I think you're missing the forest for the trees here. This isn't about resentment at people not following the law. It's a recognition that allowing leaders to pick and choose who has to follow laws and who doesn't isn't a restriction on government power. Indeed, it amplifies it by giving them the power to decide who deserves the special privilege and who doesn't. To even implement an exemption for religious belief, the government must decide what qualifies as a religion and what doesn't - specifically violating the First Amendment by making 'law respecting the establishment of religion'.

Again, the point of freedom of religion is that government stays out of religion. It's not to grant government recognized churches special exemptions.

Bingo!

 

[manifold]

Well, that's exactly the assumption I'm challenging. It's often stated in that way, but it doesn't make sense. If a church believes in human sacrifice, must they submit to laws requiring them to act contrary to their stated belief?

Your argument is invalid.


Find one religion that is still active in the US that features human sacrifice. Regardless, we're talking about Hobby Lobby, Christianity, and contraceptives, not human sacrifice.

How about polygamy then?

 

[Vox]

Stopping muslim immigration is an excellent start. Denmark did it. Some countries have just stopped building mosques. Stop passing sharia compliant laws. Stop making buildings sharia compliant. Stop putting foot baths into public buildings.

Ah, but you can't do that under the 1st amendment. Besides, Supreme Court would automatically gun down lol any legislation that proposes such a thing as "unconstitutional". It would never work with this government, no matter the party. Under a new government with new rules, however...

immigration quotas are executive decisions and has been done by every sane country always. Was in place in this country as well until leftardism on steroids took over.

 

[Vox]

Individuals are free to practice birth control. Why should corporations have to pay for it though?

On the face of it, I agree.

But, do we really want to allow employers to decide what medical treatment your insurance pays for? In the past, we have allowed insurance companies to dictate health care. Both are wrong and should not be ignored. And, the ACA should not allow exemptions.

Remember, being "good christians" and all, HL actually pays very little in health insurance benefits. Like WalMart, they fill their stores with shit from China, they screw over their store help with crappy pay and pay very little in the way of any benefits at all. Only the top execs get decent pay and bennies.

This is not about HL paying for birth control. This is is never about any company paying for birth control. lushbo used that asssinine excuse to get the rws all up in their usual hating so they wouldn't notice what is really happening. All the screeching lies about Sandra Fluke was the perfect smoke screen to hide behind and, amazingly, the rw's STILL believe those lies.

I can't believe people really didn't see this coming when Lord Romney made his gaffe with "corporations are people too, my friend".

Birth control is NOT medical treatment. it's a lifestyle choice.

or you want your employer to pay for your relaxation dry martini? it is more of the medical benefit that the birth control

 

[manifold]

Birth control is NOT medical treatment. it's a lifestyle choice.

The same can be said about viagra and knee replacement surgery.

Should coverage for that be voluntary also?

 

[Mojo2]

I'm still waiting for anyone to provide a link to a real news site that proves Sharia law is taking over this country.

I'm also waiting to hear of any city, state or federal government program that is replacing the Constitution with Islamic ideals.

This site's focus is examples of creeping sharia in America.

Creeping Sharia | the Islamization of America

 

[JakeStarkey]

I'm still waiting for anyone to provide a link to a real news site that proves Sharia law is taking over this country.

I'm also waiting to hear of any city, state or federal government program that is replacing the Constitution with Islamic ideals.

This site's focus is examples of creeping sharia in America.

Creeping Sharia | the Islamization of America

Mojo2, give us something with a factual and historical narrative not propaganda.

 

[Jughead]

Birth control is NOT medical treatment. it's a lifestyle choice.

The same can be said about viagra and knee replacement surgery.

Should coverage for that be voluntary also?

knee replacement surgery is a necessary medical procedure, so it is indeed considered medical treatment. Viagra is not. I am very surprised that insurance companies cover Viagra under their medical plans.

 

[manifold]

Birth control is NOT medical treatment. it's a lifestyle choice.

The same can be said about viagra and knee replacement surgery.

Should coverage for that be voluntary also?

knee replacement surgery is a necessary medical procedure, so it is indeed considered medical treatment. Viagra is not. I am very surprised that insurance companies cover Viagra under their medical plans.

Why is knee replacement necessary?

 

[koshergrl]

Because unless you replace your knee, you can't walk or stand.

Which means you can't work.

Which isn't a big deal for most deadbeats...but they certainly aren't big on living with the pain as well.

 

[Dot Com]

Scalia used to be against it remember?

Justice Scalia on religious freedom | TheHill

As the Supreme Court majority wrote in 1990, “We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law … On the contrary, the record of more than a century of free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.”

Before someone complains about left-wing justices ignoring constitutional norms and legislating from the bench, note that the author of that opinion, and those words, was none other than Antonin Scalia. Enough said.

I think we all know that if Nino changes his mind now he'll be a certified

 

[manifold]

Because unless you replace your knee, you can't walk or stand.

Which means you can't work.

Which isn't a big deal for most deadbeats...but they certainly aren't big on living with the pain as well.

Plenty of people work without being able to walk or stand.

Once again, your argument is invalid and you've contributed absolutely nothing... ****.

 

[koshergrl]

Ah, trolling I see. Cute.

 

[koshergrl]

Looks like the troll sites must be slow these days.

 

[Dot Com]

Because unless you replace your knee, you can't walk or stand.

Which means you can't work.

Which isn't a big deal for most deadbeats...but they certainly aren't big on living with the pain as well.

Plenty of people work without being able to walk or stand.

Once again, your argument is invalid and you've contributed absolutely nothing... ****.

This is especially true given the fact that much of this great nation's GDP is derived from, to my chagrin, *cough* "financial services". They just stare at screens while scheming how to "rip client's faces off"


Goldman Sachs and the Art of Ripping Your Clients' Faces Off

 

[Sallow]

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

It would be no slippery slope.

It would be a gigantic leap into a Theocratic state if Hobby Lobby wins this.

Just amazing this made it this far.

Just goes to show the quality of the judges currently on the bench.

 

[Sallow]

Scalia used to be against it remember?

Justice Scalia on religious freedom | TheHill

As the Supreme Court majority wrote in 1990, “We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law … On the contrary, the record of more than a century of free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.”

Before someone complains about left-wing justices ignoring constitutional norms and legislating from the bench, note that the author of that opinion, and those words, was none other than Antonin Scalia. Enough said.

I think we all know that if Nino changes his mind now he'll be a certified

Scalia is pretty well know for his "situational" view of how the justice system works.

 

[dblack]

Scalia used to be against it remember?

Justice Scalia on religious freedom | TheHill

As the Supreme Court majority wrote in 1990, “We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law … On the contrary, the record of more than a century of free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.”

Before someone complains about left-wing justices ignoring constitutional norms and legislating from the bench, note that the author of that opinion, and those words, was none other than Antonin Scalia. Enough said.

I think we all know that if Nino changes his mind now he'll be a certified

I'll definitely be surprised, and disappointed, if they rule in favor of exempting on religious grounds. But the Court has surprised, and disappointed, me before - most notably Roberts caving on the mandate.

 

[koshergrl]

It has made it this far because judges realize what morons like you don't....when you use the government to force churches to pay for things that they are diametrically opposed to religiously, the state is violating the constitution regarding freedom of religion.