After skimming the opinion it seems the critical issue was the majority not seeing a distinguishable difference between non-profit and for-profit corporation when applied to the RFRA, i.e. a corporation is a corporation regardless of their profit status and non-profits corporations are indisputably protected by the RFRA and there is no stipulations in the law that precludes "for-profit" or "corporations" from its protections but it does seem to acknowledge the difference between closely held and widely held corporations.
After skimming the opinion it seems the critical issue was the majority not seeing a distinguishable difference between non-profit and for-profit corporation when applied to the RFRA, i.e. a corporation is a corporation regardless of their profit status and non-profits corporations are indisputably protected by the RFRA and there is no stipulations in the law that precludes "for-profit" or "corporations" from its protections but it does seem to acknowledge the difference between closely held and widely held corporations.
It will be interesting to see what kind of wider effect this ruling has. The three cases this ruling dealt with, concerned companies with specific criteria and thus could limit its scope.
That is not inaccurate, whether they wear suits or t-shirts or if it is family owned or chaired is irrelevant.
That's actually a contentious issue, and is by no means settled law. There are a non-insignificant number of people who think that the public/private and closely held/non-closely held will be the differentiator that SCOTUS uses to determine if a company can assert a religious position. Logically, it makes sense. A publicly held company can't really assert a religious psoition because it is beholden to all the varied owners. A closely privately held corporation on the other hand, is beholden to a single, or extremely small number of, owners and can very easily be founded and operated with the intent of following a particular religious principle.
Will that argument win the day? Not necessarily. I think its likely to, but I could be wrong. But, dismissing the distinction as "irrelevant" is entirely premature, and assumes the correctness of your argument.
Looks like I was not wrong. Obviously theres a whole lot more to digest than the base holding, but the decision only just came out.
(In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby the Court holds that the government can’t require closely held corporations with religious owners to provide contraception coverage, though the government may provide that coverage itself. www.scotusblog.com - includes link to the actual opinion.)
Boom, lawyered.
SCOTUS got it right, given the existence of the RFRA and the text of the ACA. If people want to get mad at someone, get mad at Congress for passing the RFRA and imposing an extremely onerous test for overcoming religious exceptions.
SCOTUS got it right, given the existence of the RFRA and the text of the ACA. If people want to get mad at someone, get mad at Congress for passing the RFRA and imposing an extremely onerous test for overcoming religious exceptions.
Agreed, I think most people who weren't extremely partisan and who had a passable knowledge of the case felt this was how it would turn out. The news should be interesting tonight.
There seems to be wide spread confusion on how the constitution is worded. It does not give you protection from other people expressing their religion. It only gives you protection from the government forcing a religion or religious practice upon you. This whole idea that the government can force religious people to act like atheists is contrary to what is actually said in the constitution. Here the supreme court got it right and said that congress cannot force the owners of tightly-held businesses to, in essence, stop practicing their religion. Which if you read the first amendment,
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
is very clearly against the rules. It does not protect the employee in the case because they are not being prevented from practicing their religion or lack there of. They are merely prevented from doing so on the dime of a religious person who is forced into the action by an act of congress.
There seems to be wide spread confusion on how the constitution is worded. It does not give you protection from other people expressing their religion. It only gives you protection from the government forcing a religion or religious practice upon you. This whole idea that the government can force religious people to act like atheists is contrary to what is actually said in the constitution. Here the supreme court got it right and said that congress cannot force the owners of tightly-held businesses to, in essence, stop practicing their religion. Which if you read the first amendment,
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
is very clearly against the rules. It does not protect the employee in the case because they are not being prevented from practicing their religion or lack there of. They are merely prevented from doing so on the dime of a religious person who is forced into the action by an act of congress.
I don't necessarily think there is confusion about what the constitution says or means. I think there are a lot of people like me that 1) don't care what the constitution says, and 2) dont see a business as a person. The US government disagrees with me on both counts.
I don't necessarily think there is confusion about what the constitution says or means. I think there are a lot of people like me that 1) don't care what the constitution says, and 2) dont see a business as a person. The US government disagrees with me on both counts.
I do not understand how you can not care about the document that is the foundation of modern western freedoms and democracy, but to each their own.
The beauty of this country and of the constitution is that you are allowed to believe that, and you will not be jailed for it. You seem okay with not forcing those beliefs on others, so the system seems to work well. And I love that people can have a civil debate and openly express beliefs.
Here the supreme court got it right and said that congress cannot force the owners of tightly-held businesses to, in essence, stop practicing their religion.
I wonder how this will go for anything that isn't right-wing Christianity.
Hopefully the same way. As this was actually a catholic belief, the chances seem good. In the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s the Supreme court defended the rights of jehovah's witnesses on almost 40 different occasions.
Remember in 2008 the Barna Group did a study which found only 57% of Republicans were Christians while 40% of Democrats were. To frame religion as only being "right-wing" is unfair.
EDIT: I apologize for the double post. The comment I replied to in this post was not yet posted when I was writing the first post.
I don't necessarily think there is confusion about what the constitution says or means. I think there are a lot of people like me that 1) don't care what the constitution says, and 2) dont see a business as a person. The US government disagrees with me on both counts.
I do not understand how you can not care about the document that is the foundation of modern western freedoms and democracy, but to each their own.
The beauty of this country and of the constitution is that you are allowed to believe that, and you will not be jailed for it. You seem okay with not forcing those beliefs on others, so the system seems to work well. And I love that people can have a civil debate and openly express beliefs.
Because the document was written a long time ago and could be a wee bit out of date. When the constitution was written there was no concept of corporations being people nor was healthcare provided by corporations. If corporations are going to be mandated by the government to provided health care then it should be at a level the government sees fit for the general population, not based on the beliefs of the corporation.
There seems to be wide spread confusion on how the constitution is worded. It does not give you protection from other people expressing their religion. It only gives you protection from the government forcing a religion or religious practice upon you. This whole idea that the government can force religious people to act like atheists is contrary to what is actually said in the constitution. Here the supreme court got it right and said that congress cannot force the owners of tightly-held businesses to, in essence, stop practicing their religion. Which if you read the first amendment,
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
is very clearly against the rules. It does not protect the employee in the case because they are not being prevented from practicing their religion or lack there of. They are merely prevented from doing so on the dime of a religious person who is forced into the action by an act of congress.
Why is being forced to pay for coverage for someone else to possibly do something considered the same as being forced to do it yourself? We've been told that money = speech, is money = action also true now?
If my religion prohibits all violence should I be exempt from paying the portion of my taxes that go towards the military? In not, then why not? (assuming you actually agree with the court's logic/ruling in this case)
Isn't Obama using our money to pay for his subsidies, anyway? If so, are we not already being compelled to pay to have these children killed? Finally, if so, what then is the point of HL's objection?
Isn't Obama using our money to pay for his subsidies, anyway? If so, are we not already being compelled to pay to have these children killed? Finally, if so, what then is the point of HL's objection?
What the actual ****. Children are not being killed. Fetuses aren't children. The birth control that Obamacare covered doesn't even have anything to do with abortions, that's just nonsense being spouted by right-wing news networks. Despite what you may have been told, Plan B just stops fertilization during ovulation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levonorgestrel
Here the supreme court got it right and said that congress cannot force the owners of tightly-held businesses to, in essence, stop practicing their religion.
I wonder how this will go for anything that isn't right-wing Christianity.
Oh please. Christianity is one of the most conservative religions out there. It even states in Genesis that men will rule over women, all because Adam decided to eat the forbidden fruit. And the misogyny doesn't end there.
Yeah, I thought the same thing. I think there would be an enormous uproar about the precedent being set here if it weren't coming from a Christian court in favor of a Christian company.
Yeah, I thought the same thing. I think there would be an enormous uproar about the precedent being set here if it weren't coming from a Christian court in favor of a Christian company.
Exactly what precedent do you think is being set here?
Yeah, I thought the same thing. I think there would be an enormous uproar about the precedent being set here if it weren't coming from a Christian court in favor of a Christian company.
Exactly what precedent do you think is being set here?
1. Tax exemption based on religious belief. Recall that the ACA is viewed as a form of tax by this court. And Hobby Lobby is being given the same religious protections an individual would get. So ultimately this is no different than any one of us refusing to pay portions of taxes that go to fund activities that violate our religious beliefs. According to this ruling, if my religious beliefs prohibit violence (a common religious belief) I should be able to withhold the portion of my federal taxes that fund the military, as those funds are being used to support activities that violate my beliefs.
2. Establishment of the notion that being forced to pay for someone else's behavior that violates your religious beliefs is equivalent to being forced to violate those beliefs yourself (i.e. money = action).
Put those two together and you have extremely fertile grounds for all sorts of future suits.
1. Tax exemption based on religious belief. Recall that the ACA is viewed as a form of tax by this court. And Hobby Lobby is being given the same religious protections an individual would get. So ultimately this is no different than any one of us refusing to pay portions of taxes that go to fund activities that violate our religious beliefs.
That's not what the holding here is, and it's not what the previous holding with regards to the ACA was. The "ACA" is not a tax. The ACA includes provisions that are a tax. What's more, this case wasn't *actually* about the ACA at all. The contraceptive mandate is a rule put into place by the health and human services department after the ACA was passed. It is part of the implementation of the ACA, but it is not part of the ACA.
According to this ruling, if my religious beliefs prohibit violence (a common religious belief) I should be able to withhold the portion of my federal taxes that fund the military, as those funds are being used to support activities that violate my beliefs.
You mean aside from the point where the ruling explicitly says that that is not true?
2. Establishment of the notion that being forced to pay for someone else's behavior that violates your religious beliefs is equivalent to being forced to violate those beliefs yourself (i.e. money = action).
This, I agree with as one of the important take aways from this case (although it's not the actual holding, and would most likely be considered to be dicta). We may just have to disagree here, but I think this is a very valid point. Being forced to pay directly for something IS morally the same as being forced to endorse it.
The distinguishing line between this and the archetypal example of a pacifist funding war through taxes is that of Agency. If the government takes your money and then does X with it, it is the government that has done it. If the government says "you must purchase X for Y" then it is you performing the action. [Note: this is me applying a moral/ethical argument not a legal argument, so take this statement as separate from the rest of this post].
Put those two together and you have extremely fertile grounds for all sorts of future suits.
Of course you do. You do in *every* SCOTUS case. That's how our court system works. SCOTUS lays out the general interpretation, and lower courts apply it. I think it's important to keep in mind that this was explicitly a very narrow case, and explicitly related to religious objections.
Ultimately the important take aways from this case are:
1) Under the current legal framework, closely held companies can be considered to hold a religious belief, if the religious belief is consistent among all owners.
-and-
2) There are ways of implementing the government's purpose behind the contraception mandate that are less restrictive on religious liberty. Pursuant to the standard set by congress under the RFRA, since there are less restrictive ways, the governments chosen way was improper.
Everything beyond that is an extension of the actual holdings that may or may not be dicta, but certainly isn't precedence [under the legal meaning of that term].
I don't think some in this thread quite understand what is going on with this ruling. This ruling is not breaking new ground or setting new precedent. There will be no uproar over it because it's really not that huge of a deal.
The ruling is in line with the ruling in the Citizens United case a while back. Where they stated that just because people join together in a corporations does not mean they sacrifice their 1st amendment rights. This is just applying the rest of the 1st amendment to corporations. It's also in line with the Religious freedom restoration act that was passed in the 90s on a nearly unanimous vote in congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton. This also follows a long history of the Supreme court protecting the religious rights of people from the government that goes back 80+ years covering multiple religions.
It also surprises me that people can call Christianity "radical" and "right wing" when almost half of all of all Democrats (Left-wing party) are bible reading Christians. Over 70% of the country is Christian. 90%+ believe in a God of some sort. Radical and Right-wing both insinuate that it's a "fringe" belief, which it is anything but "fringe." If this ruling was turned around and it was an Atheist couple suing over having their beliefs trampled there would be no complaints.
This very argument shows how unfair people are to the religious freedoms of the religious majority in this country. It is frightening how quickly people are ready to let the government encroach on a basic human right of someone, just because they are just "right wing Christians who I don't agree with." People need to realize what "fairness" actually means.
Why is being forced to pay for coverage for someone else to possibly do something considered the same as being forced to do it yourself? We've been told that money = speech, is money = action also true now?
If my religion prohibits all violence should I be exempt from paying the portion of my taxes that go towards the military? In not, then why not? (assuming you actually agree with the court's logic/ruling in this case)
Two things - this isnt money = action, its action = action. Would you be okay if, as part of registering a corporation, you had to give the government $200 to promote (insert religiously offensive thing here)?
Second, the ruling specifically exempts taxes, so that whole bit doesn't work.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander Decks G MGC WB Teysa Tokens BR Wortsnort UG 23.5-No Edric URG Noncombo Animar GUB Damia Stax WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion WBR Daddy Tariel UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB WURG Glint-Eye Combo
I am not a lawyer, so my understanding of the opinion is probably imperfect, but it seems to spend some time on the fact that the plaintiff believes the contraception methods in question to be abortifacients (contrary to the standard definition of such). Is the ruling related to other rulings on abortion? (And if so, is 'sincerely held religious belief' taking the place of fact?)
(Also it seems to be laser-targeted on the contraception issue, mentioning that such things as vaccinations will not be affected by this ruling, despite the sincerely held beliefs of some faiths that refuse them.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
I am not a lawyer, so my understanding of the opinion is probably imperfect, but it seems to spend some time on the fact that the plaintiff believes the contraception methods in question to be abortifacients (contrary to the standard definition of such). Is the ruling related to other rulings on abortion? (And if so, is 'sincerely held religious belief' taking the place of fact?)
(Also it seems to be laser-targeted on the contraception issue, mentioning that such things as vaccinations will not be affected by this ruling, despite the sincerely held beliefs of some faiths that refuse them.)
Saving life and stopping the creation of life are two different things. Further, we are talking about four contraceptives, not all contraceptives. I do not think the ruling would be the same if hobby lobby rejected all contraceptives. So in this case, it appears the be the type of contraceptive and not contraceptives as a whole. There are other options for contraceptives and the government has other means to provide it if they are going to mandate it as an entitlment.
I am not a lawyer, so my understanding of the opinion is probably imperfect, but it seems to spend some time on the fact that the plaintiff believes the contraception methods in question to be abortifacients (contrary to the standard definition of such). Is the ruling related to other rulings on abortion? (And if so, is 'sincerely held religious belief' taking the place of fact?)
(Also it seems to be laser-targeted on the contraception issue, mentioning that such things as vaccinations will not be affected by this ruling, despite the sincerely held beliefs of some faiths that refuse them.)
I am not a lawyer, so my understanding of the opinion is probably imperfect, but it seems to spend some time on the fact that the plaintiff believes the contraception methods in question to be abortifacients (contrary to the standard definition of such). Is the ruling related to other rulings on abortion? (And if so, is 'sincerely held religious belief' taking the place of fact?)
(Also it seems to be laser-targeted on the contraception issue, mentioning that such things as vaccinations will not be affected by this ruling, despite the sincerely held beliefs of some faiths that refuse them.)
Saving life and stopping the creation of life are two different things. Further, we are talking about four contraceptives, not all contraceptives. I do not think the ruling would be the same if hobby lobby rejected all contraceptives. So in this case, it appears the be the type of contraceptive and not contraceptives as a whole. There are other options for contraceptives and the government has other means to provide it if they are going to mandate it as an entitlment.
Its VERRRRRY specifically tailored to the issue, yeah.
A point of note though: In Ginsburg's dissent, she drastically widens the scope of the ruling through her interpretation. She says that:
"Although the Court attempts to cabin its language to closely held corporations, its logic extends to corporations of any size, public or private."
Ironically, lower courts could use Ginsburg's reasoning to apply the law far more broadly than the majority opinion would allow for.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Commander Decks G MGC WB Teysa Tokens BR Wortsnort UG 23.5-No Edric URG Noncombo Animar GUB Damia Stax WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion WBR Daddy Tariel UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB WURG Glint-Eye Combo
I don't think some in this thread quite understand what is going on with this ruling. This ruling is not breaking new ground or setting new precedent. There will be no uproar over it because it's really not that huge of a deal.
The ruling is in line with the ruling in the Citizens United case a while back. Where they stated that just because people join together in a corporations does not mean they sacrifice their 1st amendment rights. This is just applying the rest of the 1st amendment to corporations. It's also in line with the Religious freedom restoration act that was passed in the 90s on a nearly unanimous vote in congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton. This also follows a long history of the Supreme court protecting the religious rights of people from the government that goes back 80+ years covering multiple religions.
It also surprises me that people can call Christianity "radical" and "right wing" when almost half of all of all Democrats (Left-wing party) are bible reading Christians. Over 70% of the country is Christian. 90%+ believe in a God of some sort. Radical and Right-wing both insinuate that it's a "fringe" belief, which it is anything but "fringe." If this ruling was turned around and it was an Atheist couple suing over having their beliefs trampled there would be no complaints.
This very argument shows how unfair people are to the religious freedoms of the religious majority in this country. It is frightening how quickly people are ready to let the government encroach on a basic human right of someone, just because they are just "right wing Christians who I don't agree with." People need to realize what "fairness" actually means.
"No big deal", yeah, tell that to all of the women that need birth control to live. Republicans have been waging war on women for some time now and there's going to be a huge backlash. And this does set a dangerous precedent: that corporations are people and can have religious beliefs, and force their beliefs on their employees. You're welcome to celebrate your religion however you wish, but the moment you deny someone the right to do something, whether it's two men getting married, or women needing birth control, or a woman needing an abortion, you are oppressing them. Gay marriage doesn't affect your marriage. You can't tell women what to do with their bodies.
"No big deal", yeah, tell that to all of the women that need birth control to live. Republicans have been waging war on women for some time now and there's going to be a huge backlash. And this does set a dangerous precedent: that corporations are people and can have religious beliefs, and force their beliefs on their employees. You're welcome to celebrate your religion however you wish, but the moment you deny someone the right to do something, whether it's two men getting married, or women needing birth control, or a woman needing an abortion, you are oppressing them. Gay marriage doesn't affect your marriage. You can't tell women what to do with their bodies.
Either you are blowing this up to way more of an issue than the ruling actually is, or you don't understand what actually got "ruled." Only 4 types of post fertilization contraceptives were involved in this ruling. This is NOT denying the women who work there access to any contraception. It is taking 4 specific drugs out of over 20 that are used after the act and saying, that the corporation does not have to provide it.
I do not understand where people get this idea that this is denying anything to anyone. Its merely saying that religious owners of a small business do not have to violate their faith to provide these 4 pills for free. There are many many other ways for women to go about getting access to these without trampling on the religious freedom of small business owners.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
It will be interesting to see what kind of wider effect this ruling has. The three cases this ruling dealt with, concerned companies with specific criteria and thus could limit its scope.
Boom, lawyered.
SCOTUS got it right, given the existence of the RFRA and the text of the ACA. If people want to get mad at someone, get mad at Congress for passing the RFRA and imposing an extremely onerous test for overcoming religious exceptions.
Agreed, I think most people who weren't extremely partisan and who had a passable knowledge of the case felt this was how it would turn out. The news should be interesting tonight.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
is very clearly against the rules. It does not protect the employee in the case because they are not being prevented from practicing their religion or lack there of. They are merely prevented from doing so on the dime of a religious person who is forced into the action by an act of congress.
I don't necessarily think there is confusion about what the constitution says or means. I think there are a lot of people like me that 1) don't care what the constitution says, and 2) dont see a business as a person. The US government disagrees with me on both counts.
I do not understand how you can not care about the document that is the foundation of modern western freedoms and democracy, but to each their own.
The beauty of this country and of the constitution is that you are allowed to believe that, and you will not be jailed for it. You seem okay with not forcing those beliefs on others, so the system seems to work well. And I love that people can have a civil debate and openly express beliefs.
Hopefully the same way. As this was actually a catholic belief, the chances seem good. In the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s the Supreme court defended the rights of jehovah's witnesses on almost 40 different occasions.
Remember in 2008 the Barna Group did a study which found only 57% of Republicans were Christians while 40% of Democrats were. To frame religion as only being "right-wing" is unfair.
EDIT: I apologize for the double post. The comment I replied to in this post was not yet posted when I was writing the first post.
Because the document was written a long time ago and could be a wee bit out of date. When the constitution was written there was no concept of corporations being people nor was healthcare provided by corporations. If corporations are going to be mandated by the government to provided health care then it should be at a level the government sees fit for the general population, not based on the beliefs of the corporation.
Why is being forced to pay for coverage for someone else to possibly do something considered the same as being forced to do it yourself? We've been told that money = speech, is money = action also true now?
If my religion prohibits all violence should I be exempt from paying the portion of my taxes that go towards the military? In not, then why not? (assuming you actually agree with the court's logic/ruling in this case)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levonorgestrel
Exactly what precedent do you think is being set here?
1. Tax exemption based on religious belief. Recall that the ACA is viewed as a form of tax by this court. And Hobby Lobby is being given the same religious protections an individual would get. So ultimately this is no different than any one of us refusing to pay portions of taxes that go to fund activities that violate our religious beliefs. According to this ruling, if my religious beliefs prohibit violence (a common religious belief) I should be able to withhold the portion of my federal taxes that fund the military, as those funds are being used to support activities that violate my beliefs.
2. Establishment of the notion that being forced to pay for someone else's behavior that violates your religious beliefs is equivalent to being forced to violate those beliefs yourself (i.e. money = action).
Put those two together and you have extremely fertile grounds for all sorts of future suits.
That's not what the holding here is, and it's not what the previous holding with regards to the ACA was. The "ACA" is not a tax. The ACA includes provisions that are a tax. What's more, this case wasn't *actually* about the ACA at all. The contraceptive mandate is a rule put into place by the health and human services department after the ACA was passed. It is part of the implementation of the ACA, but it is not part of the ACA.
You mean aside from the point where the ruling explicitly says that that is not true?
This, I agree with as one of the important take aways from this case (although it's not the actual holding, and would most likely be considered to be dicta). We may just have to disagree here, but I think this is a very valid point. Being forced to pay directly for something IS morally the same as being forced to endorse it.
The distinguishing line between this and the archetypal example of a pacifist funding war through taxes is that of Agency. If the government takes your money and then does X with it, it is the government that has done it. If the government says "you must purchase X for Y" then it is you performing the action. [Note: this is me applying a moral/ethical argument not a legal argument, so take this statement as separate from the rest of this post].
Of course you do. You do in *every* SCOTUS case. That's how our court system works. SCOTUS lays out the general interpretation, and lower courts apply it. I think it's important to keep in mind that this was explicitly a very narrow case, and explicitly related to religious objections.
Ultimately the important take aways from this case are:
1) Under the current legal framework, closely held companies can be considered to hold a religious belief, if the religious belief is consistent among all owners.
-and-
2) There are ways of implementing the government's purpose behind the contraception mandate that are less restrictive on religious liberty. Pursuant to the standard set by congress under the RFRA, since there are less restrictive ways, the governments chosen way was improper.
Everything beyond that is an extension of the actual holdings that may or may not be dicta, but certainly isn't precedence [under the legal meaning of that term].
The ruling is in line with the ruling in the Citizens United case a while back. Where they stated that just because people join together in a corporations does not mean they sacrifice their 1st amendment rights. This is just applying the rest of the 1st amendment to corporations. It's also in line with the Religious freedom restoration act that was passed in the 90s on a nearly unanimous vote in congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton. This also follows a long history of the Supreme court protecting the religious rights of people from the government that goes back 80+ years covering multiple religions.
It also surprises me that people can call Christianity "radical" and "right wing" when almost half of all of all Democrats (Left-wing party) are bible reading Christians. Over 70% of the country is Christian. 90%+ believe in a God of some sort. Radical and Right-wing both insinuate that it's a "fringe" belief, which it is anything but "fringe." If this ruling was turned around and it was an Atheist couple suing over having their beliefs trampled there would be no complaints.
This very argument shows how unfair people are to the religious freedoms of the religious majority in this country. It is frightening how quickly people are ready to let the government encroach on a basic human right of someone, just because they are just "right wing Christians who I don't agree with." People need to realize what "fairness" actually means.
Two things - this isnt money = action, its action = action. Would you be okay if, as part of registering a corporation, you had to give the government $200 to promote (insert religiously offensive thing here)?
Second, the ruling specifically exempts taxes, so that whole bit doesn't work.
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
(Also it seems to be laser-targeted on the contraception issue, mentioning that such things as vaccinations will not be affected by this ruling, despite the sincerely held beliefs of some faiths that refuse them.)
Saving life and stopping the creation of life are two different things. Further, we are talking about four contraceptives, not all contraceptives. I do not think the ruling would be the same if hobby lobby rejected all contraceptives. So in this case, it appears the be the type of contraceptive and not contraceptives as a whole. There are other options for contraceptives and the government has other means to provide it if they are going to mandate it as an entitlment.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
Its VERRRRRY specifically tailored to the issue, yeah.
A point of note though: In Ginsburg's dissent, she drastically widens the scope of the ruling through her interpretation. She says that:
"Although the Court attempts to cabin its language to closely held corporations, its logic extends to corporations of any size, public or private."
Ironically, lower courts could use Ginsburg's reasoning to apply the law far more broadly than the majority opinion would allow for.
G MGC
WB Teysa Tokens
BR Wortsnort
UG 23.5-No Edric
URG Noncombo Animar
GUB Damia Stax
WBR Alesha Hatebear Recursion
WBR Daddy Tariel
UBR [Je]love-a Your Deck
GWU Almost Critterless Enchantress
WUB Sydri+Artifacts=WUB
WURG Glint-Eye Combo
"No big deal", yeah, tell that to all of the women that need birth control to live. Republicans have been waging war on women for some time now and there's going to be a huge backlash. And this does set a dangerous precedent: that corporations are people and can have religious beliefs, and force their beliefs on their employees. You're welcome to celebrate your religion however you wish, but the moment you deny someone the right to do something, whether it's two men getting married, or women needing birth control, or a woman needing an abortion, you are oppressing them. Gay marriage doesn't affect your marriage. You can't tell women what to do with their bodies.
Either you are blowing this up to way more of an issue than the ruling actually is, or you don't understand what actually got "ruled." Only 4 types of post fertilization contraceptives were involved in this ruling. This is NOT denying the women who work there access to any contraception. It is taking 4 specific drugs out of over 20 that are used after the act and saying, that the corporation does not have to provide it.
I do not understand where people get this idea that this is denying anything to anyone. Its merely saying that religious owners of a small business do not have to violate their faith to provide these 4 pills for free. There are many many other ways for women to go about getting access to these without trampling on the religious freedom of small business owners.