Religious Freedom Goes Too Far?

[LisaC]

Here is an interesting article about the Hobby Lobby litigation that is set to be heard by the Supreme Court tomorrow.

http://news.yahoo.com/religious-freedom-goes-too-far-040000566--politics.html

 

[honeybunny]

"Do the religious beliefs of Hobby Lobby’s CEO really trump an employee’s right to
access the reproductive healthcare choices provided under the Affordable Care Act?"



Yes, the first amendment trumps your "right" to "free" employer provided birth control.




:thumbsup

 

[Grey Colson]

The continued downfall of our society as demonstrated by the belief that "rights" are no longer just something you are permitted to "do" or "have" at your own expense, but something you are permitted to "take" from others at their expense.

What would be the story if we had a Christian President who insisted that each employer provide a copy of the Bible to all employees who desired one? There are references throughout the book that discourages overindulgence and promotes abstinence and a healthy lifestyle. It would be quite a useful read to promote a good healthcare system.

 

[LisaC]

"Do the religious beliefs of Hobby Lobby’s CEO really trump an employee’s right to
access the reproductive healthcare choices provided under the Affordable Care Act?"



Yes, the first amendment trumps your "right" to "free" employer provided birth control.




:thumbsup

The article has a point.

Does an employer's religious beliefs that say women are inferior give him the right to not hire them because they are women?

Does an employer's religious beliefs that say gay people are an abomination give him the right to not hire them?

This could turn into a hornet's nest.

 

[Blazing Saddles]

Yep.

 

[Blazing Saddles]

If gov't didn't get involved where is wasn't supposed to be involved, then none of this would be an issue. This is what happens when socialist communists in America and their followers change the course of this once great country.

 

[Blazing Saddles]

"Do the religious beliefs of Hobby Lobby’s CEO really trump an employee’s right to
access the reproductive healthcare choices provided under the Affordable Care Act?"



Yes, the first amendment trumps your "right" to "free" employer provided birth control.




:thumbsup

The article has a point.

Does an employer's religious beliefs that say women are inferior give him the right to not hire them because they are women?

Does an employer's religious beliefs that say gay people are an abomination give him the right to not hire them?

This could turn into a hornet's nest.

If you think this describes Christianity, then why do you "belong" to such an archaic religion? That's crazy. Do you cope with the religion by changing what you think is right in your own mind?

 

[I'm Floored]

"Do the religious beliefs of Hobby Lobby’s CEO really trump an employee’s right to
access the reproductive healthcare choices provided under the Affordable Care Act?"



Yes, the first amendment trumps your "right" to "free" employer provided birth control.




:thumbsup

The article has a point.

Does an employer's religious beliefs that say women are inferior give him the right to not hire them because they are women?

Does an employer's religious beliefs that say gay people are an abomination give him the right to not hire them?

This could turn into a hornet's nest.

An employer should have the right to hire/fire at his or her discretion. Does not hiring women - when you're forced to provide birth control - mean that you think they're inferior? Or is it a smart business move, knowing that women will cost you more money?

If an employer believes that homosexuality is a sin - an abomination, does that mean he thinks the PEOPLE who are gay are an abomination? If homosexuality makes him uncomfortable, should he be forced to hire employees that he is uncomfortable being around?

Some women use abortion as a form of birth control. Should employers be forced to provide abortion services for their employees, even though they believe the would be contributing to the murders of innocent children?

Plain and simple, I believe an employer should be able to use discretion in hiring and firing. If an employee is obnoxious and his actions lose customers for the employer, should he not be able to fire that employee? If an employee is gay, and the majority of business for an employer is conservative Christians who won't do business with a homosexual, should the employer not be able to fire him to save his company? (Those scenarios might stink, but the freedom should still be there.)

 

[stradial]

I have said it before, I believe that a private business has the right to not hire someone for any reason and to refuse service to someone for any reason.
I also have the right not to work for a business for any reason or not patronize a business for any reason.
This is where you end up when the government gets into running a private business.
(I think someone already said that)

 

[LisaC]

"Do the religious beliefs of Hobby Lobby’s CEO really trump an employee’s right to
access the reproductive healthcare choices provided under the Affordable Care Act?"



Yes, the first amendment trumps your "right" to "free" employer provided birth control.




:thumbsup

The article has a point.

Does an employer's religious beliefs that say women are inferior give him the right to not hire them because they are women?

Does an employer's religious beliefs that say gay people are an abomination give him the right to not hire them?

This could turn into a hornet's nest.

If you think this describes Christianity, then why do you "belong" to such an archaic religion? That's crazy. Do you cope with the religion by changing what you think is right in your own mind?

I NEVER said the religion I was referring to in my questions was Christianity.

And, I don't "belong" to Christianity - I belong to Jesus.

I'm looking at this from a legal standpoint - this could open the door to all types of discrimination, all under the guise of "religion."

 

[I'm Floored]

I have said it before, I believe that a private business has the right to not hire someone for any reason and to refuse service to someone for any reason.
I also have the right not to work for a business for any reason or not patronize a business for any reason.
This is where you end up when the government gets into running a private business.
(I think someone already said that)

Exactly.

 

[Grey Colson]

"Do the religious beliefs of Hobby Lobby’s CEO really trump an employee’s right to
access the reproductive healthcare choices provided under the Affordable Care Act?"



Yes, the first amendment trumps your "right" to "free" employer provided birth control.




:thumbsup

The article has a point.

Does an employer's religious beliefs that say women are inferior give him the right to not hire them because they are women?

Does an employer's religious beliefs that say gay people are an abomination give him the right to not hire them?

This could turn into a hornet's nest.

No different than the last several places I interviewed with probably didn't hire me. But I can speculate with pretty good accuracy.

1. I may have been a little too white.
2. I worked for the SO instead of the PD. (This one I know for a fact)
3. I was a little too old.
4. I was a little, or a LOT over qualified.
5. Didn't have a degree in basket weaving.
6. Didn't serve in the military, even though I spent my entire adult life as an LEO.

Fact is…none of them bothered to tell me and certainly wouldn't reveal their true motive if I asked. Of course they'd have to answer the phone first, so I don't even bother.

This happens ALL the time for a million reasons. But the premise of your argument is flawed. The question is NOT whether they would hire someone who consumed birth control, but whether or not THEY should be required to provide it.

 

[LisaC]

One thing that we have to keep in mind is that Hobby Lobby is a retail establishment and NOT a religious organization. It is subject to the laws and regulations of the government, religious organizations have exemptions from some of those laws. Hobby Lobby wants to deny benefits to its employees based on the founder's religious beliefs. But, it employs thousands of individuals making it subject to federal discrimination laws and it likely receives tax and other incentives from the government. Because of this, by allowing them to opt out of a federal program based on the religious beliefs of its founder, you are opening a huge can of worms for other large companies who will have an argument that because something goes against the religious beliefs of its CEO or President, including those who choose to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, national origin, disability, etc. Should a company be allowed to pick and choose the laws to which it should be subjected?


Again, regardless whether I agree with the founder's beliefs, this could open up a pandora's box on lawsuits against employers and the government.

 

[Guard Dad]

There's a guy on another forum that I've read for years; none of us are exactly sure what he does, but he lives in DC and we're pretty sure is either a constitutional lawyer or a legal staffer for someone in congress. Anyway...he feels pretty certain Hobby Lobby is going to win this one.

 

[Grey Colson]

There's a guy on another forum that I've read for years; none of us are exactly sure what he does, but he lives in DC and we're pretty sure is either a constitutional lawyer or a legal staffer for someone in congress. Anyway...he feels pretty certain Hobby Lobby is going to win this one.

If this country is not already completely in the "hand basket", let's hope so. It's no different than govt funded abortion. The act is legal, but nothing is right about making ALL taxpayers, regardless of their personal beliefs, pay for it at the point of a gun.

 

[J-man]

One thing that we have to keep in mind is that Hobby Lobby is a retail establishment and NOT a religious organization. It is subject to the laws and regulations of the government, religious organizations have exemptions from some of those laws. Hobby Lobby wants to deny benefits to its employees based on the founder's religious beliefs. But, it employs thousands of individuals making it subject to federal discrimination laws and it likely receives tax and other incentives from the government. Because of this, by allowing them to opt out of a federal program based on the religious beliefs of its founder, you are opening a huge can of worms for other large companies who will have an argument that because something goes against the religious beliefs of its CEO or President, including those who choose to discriminate on the basis of age, sex, national origin, disability, etc. Should a company be allowed to pick and choose the laws to which it should be subjected?


Again, regardless whether I agree with the founder's beliefs, this could open up a pandora's box on lawsuits against employers and the government.

Happens all the time actually. Just look at the Obamacare "waivers" granted to certain businesses but not others. That how it works in DC, businesses and special interest groups obtain their special exemption or waiver for whatever reason they want to push. And it's not only at the federal level, happens at the state and local level quite often.

 

[LisaC]

There's a guy on another forum that I've read for years; none of us are exactly sure what he does, but he lives in DC and we're pretty sure is either a constitutional lawyer or a legal staffer for someone in congress. Anyway...he feels pretty certain Hobby Lobby is going to win this one.

I honestly don't know which way it will go. I just know that Chief Justice Roberts did a big turnaround when he came out in favor of Obamacare so with Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan - I'm not even going to speculate.

 

[Guard Dad]

There's a guy on another forum that I've read for years; none of us are exactly sure what he does, but he lives in DC and we're pretty sure is either a constitutional lawyer or a legal staffer for someone in congress. Anyway...he feels pretty certain Hobby Lobby is going to win this one.

I honestly don't know which way it will go. I just know that Chief Justice Roberts did a big turnaround when he came out in favor of Obamacare so with Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan - I'm not even going to speculate.

Yeah, that was the one case I saw that this guy called wrong. He was shocked at Roberts.

 

[LisaC]

There's a guy on another forum that I've read for years; none of us are exactly sure what he does, but he lives in DC and we're pretty sure is either a constitutional lawyer or a legal staffer for someone in congress. Anyway...he feels pretty certain Hobby Lobby is going to win this one.

I honestly don't know which way it will go. I just know that Chief Justice Roberts did a big turnaround when he came out in favor of Obamacare so with Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan - I'm not even going to speculate.

Yeah, that was the one case I saw that this guy called wrong. He was shocked at Roberts.

And, I believe that Justice Breyer is a Democratic appointee so if Roberts waivers this time, that gives Dems a 5-4 vote if the Democratic appointees side with Obamacare again.

 

[mei lan]

Not true on the line- up...If Roberts goes conservative and Kennedy stays the course, the vote would be:

For Hobby Lobby - Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Alito

Against - Ginsberg, Kagan, Breyer, Sotomayor

I agree with honeybunny.