I find it really sad and troublesome, even worse than that, when "religious rights/beliefs" trump Constitutional Rights of individuals/groups of people. I really do hope we can change and even stop this in the very near future, because if we don't/can't where will it end?The problem is that reason cannot prevail here. This is scripture and unalterable for any earthly reason. Wars have been fought over these issues for centuriess. Actually, scripture is constantly and conveniently re-interpreted to suit the the person, usually a man, preaching to his herd.
I find it really sad and troublesome, even worse than that, when "religious rights/beliefs" trump Constitutional Rights of individuals/groups of people. I really do hope we can change and even stop this in the very near future, because if we don't/can't where will it end?The problem is that reason cannot prevail here. This is scripture and unalterable for any earthly reason. Wars have been fought over these issues for centuriess. Actually, scripture is constantly and conveniently re-interpreted to suit the the person, usually a man, preaching to his herd. That it is.
Quoting Lois:
Right wingers want small government—just small enough to fit inside a woman’s uterus.I think you’ve gotten it almost correct, Lois. Except rather than ‘uterus’, I get the feeling that they would substitute ‘vagina’.
Occam
I think all of this is most shocking because so many of us thought that a woman’s rights about their bodies had pretty much been settled. Not only do the rights of the unborn trump women’s rights, now the rights of the religious trump women’s rights. I really don’t believe for one second that any government would ever even consider telling a man what he can and can’t do with his own body.
In this time and this country, women are still somehow the property of men.
If corporations have the same rights as individual people, I pose the question if individual people have all the rights of corporations? I am not that familiar with law but it seems to me corporations enjoy certain priviliges designed to stimulate the economy. Can individuals now claim all the rights and privileges which corporations enjoy? I have a feeling that corporations enjoy greater freedoms and priviliges than individuals, which to me sounds unconstitutional.The most important privilege corporations enjoy is that they can't be incarcerated as individuals can be. No matter what is done in the name of a corporation, the only damages that can be awarded are monetary. That is a tremendous advantage to the people running corporations. The individuals in charge can go on to form another corporation that also gives them immunity to incarceration. Yes, individuals CAN be incarcerated for what they do under cover of corporate protection, but almost none face that punishment. If they do it's usually at a country club "prison". Witness: The 2007 banking, mortgage and stock brokerage scandal. Remember, corporations are protected by politicians.
This shit just gets better and better! Christian leader Hobby Lobby has been funding for a decade accused of sexual harassment and described by fellow Christians as “anti-woman.”]
For a decade or so, Hobby Lobby and its owners, the Green family, have been generous benefactors of a Christian ministry that until recently was run by Bill Gothard, a controversial religious leader who has long promoted a strict and authoritarian version of Christianity. Gothard, a prominent champion of Christian home-schooling, has decried the evils of dating, rock music, and Cabbage Patch dolls; claimed public education teaches children “how to commit suicide” and undermines spirituality; contended that mental illness is merely “varying degrees of irresponsibility”; and urged wives to “submit to the leadership” of their husbands. Critics of Gothard have associated him with Christian Reconstructionism, an ultrafundamentalist movement that yearns for a theocracy, and accused him of running a cultlike organization. In March, he was pressured to resign from his ministry, the Institute in Basic Life Principles, after being accused by more than 30 women of sexual harassment and molestation—a charge Gothard denies.
Hobby Lobby ruling being used as an excuse to push for discrimination against gays.]
This week, in the Hobby Lobby case, the Supreme Court ruled that a religious employer could not be required to provide employees with certain types of contraception. That decision is beginning to reverberate: A group of faith leaders is urging the Obama administration to include a religious exemption in a forthcoming LGBT anti-discrimination action.
Their call, in a letter sent to the White House Tuesday, attempts to capitalize on the Supreme Court case by arguing that it shows the administration must show more deference to the prerogatives of religion.
“We are asking that an extension of protection for one group not come at the expense of faith communities whose religious identity and beliefs motivate them to serve those in need,” the letter states.
I didn’t really follow the case beyond being aware it took place; however, I’ve heard the company has had previous investments (or something) in contraceptive companies…is that true? If so, I do not see, at all, how their case could hold water in court.
I didn't really follow the case beyond being aware it took place; however, I've heard the company has had previous investments (or something) in contraceptive companies...is that true? If so, I do not see, at all, how their case could hold water in court.The reason the ruling does not hold water is because the Supreme Court has now officially awarded additional freedoms to one religious ideology over other religious ideologies and has therefore violated the first amendment. And, they did it with the leverage of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act put in place by the GOP as well as W. Bush's appointees, Alito and Roberts who were groomed for the court by corporate donors to increase the power of corporate America.
I didn't really follow the case beyond being aware it took place; however, I've heard the company has had previous investments (or something) in contraceptive companies...is that true? If so, I do not see, at all, how their case could hold water in court.The reason the ruling does not hold water is because the Supreme Court has now officially awarded additional freedoms to one religious ideology over other religious ideologies and has therefore violated the first amendment. And, they did it with the leverage of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act put in place by the GOP as well as W. Bush's appointees, Alito and Roberts who were groomed for the court by corporate donors to increase the power of corporate America. I think they should be impeached on grounds of sexual discrimination. Get them out!
The reason the ruling does not hold water is because the Supreme Court has now officially awarded additional freedoms to one religious ideology over other religious ideologies and has therefore violated the first amendment. And, they did it with the leverage of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act put in place by the GOP as well as W. Bush's appointees, Alito and Roberts who were groomed for the court by corporate donors to increase the power of corporate America.What part of the ruling favors one religion over the other? I must have missed that?
The reason the ruling does not hold water is because the Supreme Court has now officially awarded additional freedoms to one religious ideology over other religious ideologies and has therefore violated the first amendment. And, they did it with the leverage of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act put in place by the GOP as well as W. Bush's appointees, Alito and Roberts who were groomed for the court by corporate donors to increase the power of corporate America.What part of the ruling favors one religion over the other? I must have missed that? Religions that are anti contraceptive.
Religions that are anti contraceptive.Query, which religions aren't? Cap't Jack
I don’t know about Judism, but the Unitarians aren’t anti-contraceptive.
Occam
The reason the ruling does not hold water is because the Supreme Court has now officially awarded additional freedoms to one religious ideology over other religious ideologies and has therefore violated the first amendment. And, they did it with the leverage of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act put in place by the GOP as well as W. Bush's appointees, Alito and Roberts who were groomed for the court by corporate donors to increase the power of corporate America.What part of the ruling favors one religion over the other? I must have missed that? Religions that are anti contraceptive. So religions that are anti-contraceptive can't have their day in court when they feel their rights are being violated according to the RFRA? The RFRA is a Federal Law, the ACA/HHS is a Federal Entity. Why bother using hyperbole in your agitation? Just stick to the facts. The court didn't make a ruling that decided between religions that are for contraception verses religions that are anti contraceptive. Another religion that felt it's rights were being violated under the RFRA could equally sue. So if a private jewish elementary school(that received federal dollars) sued the HHS because they started mandating pork chops in elementary school, and the jewish school won in court, would you say: "The court officially awarded additional freedoms to one religion over another."?
Yes the court did rule that a 'closely held company"(5 stockholders or less) can be interpreted as having a “religious bent”.
There’s tons of BS in this ruling. But the Scotus didn’t rule in favor of one religion over another.
That would be blatantly obvious and unconstitutional-and ridiculous to conceive nowadays.
They all could or couldn't be as far as this ruling is concerned. The worst part about the ruling is...corporations are people, and they are people who can be religious too. :lol:Religions that are anti contraceptive.Query, which religions aren't? Cap't Jack
Yes the court did rule that a 'closely held company"(5 stockholders or less) can be interpreted as having a "religious bent". There's tons of BS in this ruling. But the Scotus didn't rule in favor of one religion over another. That would be blatantly obvious and unconstitutional-and ridiculous to conceive nowadays.I think you are correct that the specific content of this decision may have not favored one religion over another but one has to wonder how this ruling would have come down if this were a Jehova's Witness corporation suing for the right to deny coverage for transfusions and transplants for their employees. If the court would not make the same decision with a case of Jehova's Witnesses then this may indeed be a decision in which they favored one religion's beliefs over others. Its also interesting that the judges who voted in favor of Hobby Lobby were all Roman Catholic while 3 of the 4 of those voting against were Jewish. Its impossible to know what went on in the mind of the judges but its hard to believe that religious convictions did not play a role in this decision.
Yes the court did rule that a 'closely held company"(5 stockholders or less) can be interpreted as having a "religious bent". There's tons of BS in this ruling. But the Scotus didn't rule in favor of one religion over another. That would be blatantly obvious and unconstitutional-and ridiculous to conceive nowadays.Obviously, you did not read the decision or the dissent. You have a lot to say about something you haven't read, wouldn't you say?
Yes the court did rule that a 'closely held company"(5 stockholders or less) can be interpreted as having a "religious bent". There's tons of BS in this ruling. But the Scotus didn't rule in favor of one religion over another. That would be blatantly obvious and unconstitutional-and ridiculous to conceive nowadays.Obviously, you did not read the decision or the dissent. You have a lot to say about something you haven't read, wouldn't you say? Sure I did. It's 95 pages long. Was there something you wanted to dispute? RFRA are the first words in the syllabus. Just bring up the decision here, you can get it at the SCOTUS website. Copy and paste any parts that you feel don't mesh with what I'm saying. Or just wing it....What part of the Decision ruled in favor of one religion over another? Copy and paste the whole decision up here and point it out.
Yes the court did rule that a 'closely held company"(5 stockholders or less) can be interpreted as having a "religious bent". There's tons of BS in this ruling. But the Scotus didn't rule in favor of one religion over another. That would be blatantly obvious and unconstitutional-and ridiculous to conceive nowadays.I think you are correct that the specific content of this decision may have not favored one religion over another but one has to wonder how this ruling would have come down if this were a Jehova's Witness corporation suing for the right to deny coverage for transfusions and transplants for their employees. If the court would not make the same decision with a case of Jehova's Witnesses then this may indeed be a decision in which they favored one religion's beliefs over others. Its also interesting that the judges who voted in favor of Hobby Lobby were all Roman Catholic while 3 of the 4 of those voting against were Jewish. Its impossible to know what went on in the mind of the judges but its hard to believe that religious convictions did not play a role in this decision. Well that's another can of worms Mac. I've heard this repeated alot since the decision. The prejudice of the Justices and so forth. Me personally, I won't go there. I hear ya. It's possible. They definitely used alot of wiggle room in the "corporations are people department". HHS argued unsuccesfully that corporations can't "do religion or "be" religious" so to speak. The conservatives said they could, if they are "closely held companies". Other religions have already successfully used the RFRA to win in court where they thought their religion was being unnecessarily hindered by govt. So, I don't see any discrimination. Another religion simply has to come forward and test their rights in court to find the answer to that question. It won't definitively answer the question, but as of right now we know they have the right to sue. We can't make unfounded claims of religious prejudice within the courts until it happens. The only whackjobs that go to court are the christians it seems. Squeaky wheels get the grease...I don't know. I think you and others might have some confirmation bias because of it.