SCOTUS Rules employers do not have to provide contraception

[crandc]

So, can a pacifict avoid paying taxes that go to the military? Can a vegan avoid paying taxes that go to the Department of Agriculture for meat inspection?

What about my religious freedom? The decision is that I have to live my life by the boss's religion. A violation of 200 years of precedent. They ruled that the objection does not have to be factually correct, as long as it is "sincerely held". A violation of evidence based law. They ruled that only birth control matters. A violation of gender equity since it only applies to women's health care and religious freedom, since they are saying some religious objections "count" but others don't. The ruling also prohibits coverage even for birth control counseling; a violation of free speech. They ruled that beliefs do not even have to be shown to be sincere; Hobby Lobby covered birth control for years. They never objected until it became mandate in AC. They trade with China. They invest their 401(k) in companies that make birth control and abortion supplies. All you have to be is "sincere" for one court case. There is no constitutional basis for this decision. It is solely based on the personal views of 5 reactionary men.

 

[Denny Crane]

You can't avoid paying taxes, period.

You can avoid going to war as a draftee if it is against your religion. Wow, there's a precedent.

http://girightshotline.org/en/military-knowledge-base/topic/conscientious-objection-discharge

 

[Eastoff]

So what do you want to do, shoot them if they won't hire gay people?

What level of FORCE are you advocating here?

Talk to them in their language, money. Fines.

 

[Sinobas]

What if they make a law against going to church on Sundays?

There are limits to what laws congress can pass. Thank goodness.

Not sure if you're responding to my post? But I'm not talking about passing a law, but being granted immunity from a law because of a religious belief. Congress is SUPPOSED to work within the framework of the constitution, but RELIGIONS do not have any limitations..

If we as rational people think it's ok for someone to not obey a law because they don't agree with it, then that law needs to be thrown out. Like some groups get an exception to allow them to take certain drugs, and I'm fine with that because those drugs shouldn't be illegal in the first place.

 

[Eastoff]

High levels of unemployment in educated youth with lots of debt. Republicans becoming more decisive. I can't see how this could end poorly ;]

 

[Denny Crane]

Not sure if you're responding to my post? But I'm not talking about passing a law, but being granted immunity from a law because of a religious belief. Congress is SUPPOSED to work within the framework of the constitution, but RELIGIONS do not have any limitations..

If we as rational people think it's ok for someone to not obey a law because they don't agree with it, then that law needs to be thrown out. Like some groups get an exception to allow them to take certain drugs, and I'm fine with that because those drugs shouldn't be illegal in the first place.

The framework of the constitution protects religion from government. The point of my post about a more obvious law against religious expression.

Throw out obamacare and it will all be solved.

It was a bush appointee that was the deciding vote in favor of obamacare being constitutional.

Yeah, I was responding to your rant.

 

[Eastoff]

Throw out obamacare and it will all be solved.

YES! Exactly! Then we can go back to companies giving shitty, substandard healthcare! /s

 

[Denny Crane]

YES! Exactly! Then we can go back to companies giving shitty, substandard healthcare! /s

Companies don't give anyone healthcare and never have.

Once people figure that out, the solution to access to healthcare will be much easier to figure out.

 

[Sinobas]

The framework of the constitution protects religion from government. The point of my post about a more obvious law against religious expression.

Throw out obamacare and it will all be solved.

It was a bush appointee that was the deciding vote in favor of obamacare being constitutional.

Yeah, I was responding to your rant.

The constitution does not grant people blanket impunity to crimes or laws which they don't agree with. For example, if you believe the Supreme Court's logic in this case, that means we should also not stop terrorists, because they are sincerely following their religion. You brought up avoiding going to war as a draftee, but you'd still go to prison in that situation. So that's not an example of religious freedom since you're being punished just as someone who violates a law.

So the phrase, ..."Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion" does that mean laws are optional? No, it was intended to prevent the government from trying to establish a state religion and surpress others. Look at the history of Europe and the religious wars between the protestants and catholics for example. They wanted a purely secular government.

 

[Sinobas]

Good summation:

"Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order," Chief Justice Waite wrote in Reynolds v. United States (1878). The U.S. Court found that while laws cannot interfere with religious belief and opinions, laws can be made to regulate some religious practices, e.g., human sacrifices, and the Hindu practice of suttee. The Court stated that to rule otherwise, "would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government would exist only in name under such circumstances."[27] In Cantwell v. State of Connecticut the Court held that the free exercise of religion is one of the “liberties” protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment and thus applied it to the states. The freedom to believe is absolute, but the freedom to act is not absolute.[28]

 

[Denny Crane]

There you have it. laws cannot interfere with religious belief and opinions.

Obamacare does interfere. The court thus ruled.

 

[Sinobas]

There you have it. laws cannot interfere with religious belief and opinions.

Obamacare does interfere. The court thus ruled.

Now how the hell does Obamacare interfere with someone's belief? You can start a religion whose sole purpose is to hate obama care, and you have the right to believe it all you want.

If we were to apply your interpetation of the 1st amendment, it would mean we could have NO laws, only suggestions. For everything could be ignored under the guise of religion. The courts have usually upheld this, (exceptions being ceremonial drug use), till we got these religious nut-jobs on the Supreme Court. They are truly a disgrace to our nation.

 

[Denny Crane]

Abortion and birth control have been front and center in modern religious thought, speech, and doctrine.

When it came to these provisions in ObamaCare, they knew it was an issue and tried to force it down everyone's throats anyway.

And I quoted your citation that contradicts what you're saying.

 

[donkiez]

There you have it. laws cannot interfere with religious belief and opinions.

Obamacare does interfere. The court thus ruled.

This seems to be the real issue with the people who support this decision. Its not really about religion or freedom its about politics, winning, and chipping away at a law that they didn't like from a guy that they like even less. So with this logic the unconstitutionality of the decision is null and void because the original law should be null and void. Obamacare is far from perfect for many of the reasons you stated and I agree, but its what we got and its better than what we had with no real alternative. If 1/10 of the energy that is used to resist Obamacare was used to improve it then we would all be better off.

 

[Sinobas]

Abortion and birth control have been front and center in modern religious thought, speech, and doctrine.

When it came to these provisions in ObamaCare, they knew it was an issue and tried to force it down everyone's throats anyway.

And I quoted your citation that contradicts what you're saying.

Then you didn't read the quote because it fully supports what I'm saying. The law is about not punishing people simply because they believe something. Like if they were to outlaw critisism of ObamaCare, or arrest people because they didn't believe in birth control. There have been times in history were people were persecuted simply for belief, and were dissenting views were squashed. That's what the 1st amened is all about.

The authors of ObamaCare were under no obligation to appease any religious belief. Heck, there are christian sects who don't believing taking ANY modern medicine, does that make all of obamacare unconstitutional as well? Sorry Denny, you are not going to win this debate because you're not coming from a reasonable point of view. You seem to be pushing your OWN religion here.

 

[MarAzul]

Then you didn't read the quote because it fully supports what I'm saying. The law is about not punishing people simply because they believe something. Like if they were to outlaw critisism of ObamaCare, or arrest people because they didn't believe in birth control. There have been times in history were people were persecuted simply for belief, and were dissenting views were squashed. That's what the 1st amened is all about.

The authors of ObamaCare were under no obligation to appease any religious belief. Heck, there are christian sects who don't believing taking ANY modern medicine, does that make all of obamacare unconstitutional as well? Sorry Denny, you are not going to win this debate because you're not coming from a reasonable point of view. You seem to be pushing your OWN religion here.

uh, it seems you disagree with court. That sir is a loss. Pass it on to Obama.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

uh, it seems you disagree with politically motivated activist judges.

FTFY

 

[Denny Crane]

Then you didn't read the quote because it fully supports what I'm saying. The law is about not punishing people simply because they believe something. Like if they were to outlaw critisism of ObamaCare, or arrest people because they didn't believe in birth control. There have been times in history were people were persecuted simply for belief, and were dissenting views were squashed. That's what the 1st amened is all about.

The authors of ObamaCare were under no obligation to appease any religious belief. Heck, there are christian sects who don't believing taking ANY modern medicine, does that make all of obamacare unconstitutional as well? Sorry Denny, you are not going to win this debate because you're not coming from a reasonable point of view. You seem to be pushing your OWN religion here.

I'm an atheist. I'm pro choice and have zero issue with abortion or contraceptives.

That doesn't make your POV right.

The same court that ruled ObamaCare legal ruled that this part of it is not. I think they got it wrong the first time and right the second time.

Chief Justice Roberts was set to rule the whole thing unconstitutional the first time, but ended up capitulating (for who knows what reason). His comments were "elections have consequences."

Get over it.

 

[Denny Crane]

FTFY

No you didn't.

 

[barfo]

The same court that ruled ObamaCare legal ruled that this part of it is not. I think they got it wrong the first time and right the second time.

Chief Justice Roberts was set to rule the whole thing unconstitutional the first time, but ended up capitulating (for who knows what reason). His comments were "elections have consequences."

Get over it.

Doesn't sound like you have...

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Doesn't sound like you have...

barfo

All I can do is watch my friends affected by it suffer. One is moving to a smaller/cheaper place because the cost burden of her ObamaCare is so high. She had her policy that she could afford cancelled thanks to ObamaCare.

Let them eat cake, right barfo?

This is one of those moment.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

No you didn't.

Yes I did.

 

[Denny Crane]

Yes I did.

No you didn't. He wrote what he meant to write, not what you wish it to be.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

No you didn't.

Yes I did.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

Can Rastafarians smoke weed legally? Seems they ought to be able to

 

[crandc]

Can your Muslim employer impose Sharia law?
Can your Jewish employer prohibit you from using your wages to buy a cheeseburger?
Can Quakers refuse to pay for the military?

And why just religions? A lot of people have very deeply and sincerely held beliefs that are based on humanism, not religion. Why would the Court say that only religious people can disobey laws they don't like? Why can't all of us disobey any law we sincerely don't like?

No. Just women (and maybe gays).

Hobby Lobby supporters have started a hashtag to express their approval of this decision, #closeyourlegs. Because nothings spells religious freedom like expressing open contempt for women, right? Apparently conservative men (like Viagra-popping, four times married, no children Rush Limbaugh) never have sex? Or is it just that only women are to blame for sex?
It's the sluts, stupid.

 

[Denny Crane]

Can your Muslim employer impose Sharia law?
Can your Jewish employer prohibit you from using your wages to buy a cheeseburger?
Can Quakers refuse to pay for the military?

And why just religions? A lot of people have very deeply and sincerely held beliefs that are based on humanism, not religion. Why would the Court say that only religious people can disobey laws they don't like? Why can't all of us disobey any law we sincerely don't like?

No. Just women (and maybe gays).

Hobby Lobby supporters have started a hashtag to express their approval of this decision, #closeyourlegs. Because nothings spells religious freedom like expressing open contempt for women, right? Apparently conservative men (like Viagra-popping, four times married, no children Rush Limbaugh) never have sex? Or is it just that only women are to blame for sex?
It's the sluts, stupid.

Non sequiturs, every one of your questions.

Has a muslim employer imposed Sharia law? Bring it to court and let's get a resolution. But it hasn't happened, so you're just making shit up.

Quakers can refuse to serve in the military. And that's legit.

Religion is protected by the 1st, that's why.

Can you come up with something that's not so much bullshit?

 

[MarAzul]

Can your Muslim employer impose Sharia law?
Can your Jewish employer prohibit you from using your wages to buy a cheeseburger?
Can Quakers refuse to pay for the military?

And why just religions? A lot of people have very deeply and sincerely held beliefs that are based on humanism, not religion. Why would the Court say that only religious people can disobey laws they don't like? Why can't all of us disobey any law we sincerely don't like?

No. Just women (and maybe gays).

Hobby Lobby supporters have started a hashtag to express their approval of this decision, #closeyourlegs. Because nothings spells religious freedom like expressing open contempt for women, right? Apparently conservative men (like Viagra-popping, four times married, no children Rush Limbaugh) never have sex? Or is it just that only women are to blame for sex?
It's the sluts, stupid.

It must be disconcerting to live in a country with a Constitution. Especially one that grants you freedom to freely exercise your religion, or none if you wish, instead of giving you the right to buy cheesburger.
Dang, I never ran into that need, lucky me.

What country do you think would serve you well, since this one is so distasteful?

 

[The_Lillard_King]

It must be disconcerting to live in a country with a Constitution. Especially one that grants you freedom to freely exercise your religion, or none if you wish, instead of giving you the right to buy cheesburger.
Dang, I never ran into that need, lucky me.

What country do you think would serve you well, since this one is so distasteful?

Ouch MA . . . with as much as you complain about Obama, couldn't the same statement be said to you (Or maybe a different state with Merkley and Wyden)

OK to love a country and state but questions it's rules and leaders right?

 

[Sinobas]

I'm an atheist. I'm pro choice and have zero issue with abortion or contraceptives.

That doesn't make your POV right.

The same court that ruled ObamaCare legal ruled that this part of it is not. I think they got it wrong the first time and right the second time.

Chief Justice Roberts was set to rule the whole thing unconstitutional the first time, but ended up capitulating (for who knows what reason). His comments were "elections have consequences."

Get over it.

At least the religious right has a reason for their stupidity....but you are true enigma.