Religious Freedom Goes Too Far?

Guard Dad said:
LisaC said:
Guard Dad said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
Click to expand...

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

EVERYBODY was shocked at Roberts, esp. when it came out that he changed his vote mid-stream. They said Justice Kennedy - generally the milquetoast swing vote - was apoplectic and tried to get Roberts to change his vote back till the bitter end.

Me, I think a couple of dudes from NJ dressed in black sidled up to Justice Roberts in the deli line after church on Sunday and said, "Nice-lookin' family you got there, Mr. Roberts. Shame if somethin' happened to them."
 
LisaC said:
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.
Click to expand...

A privately-owned retail establishment.
 
LisaC said:
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.
Click to expand...


The question here is whether the contraceptive mandate is "the least restrictive means of serving compelling government interests."

The answer is no.


;)
 
I love how some here think the gov't can tell everyone what to do. They don't see where "private" is a big deal. Thanks for pointing that out too Madea. I'm glad I view things from the point of "I can help myself".
 
Blazing Saddles said:
I love how some here think the gov't can tell everyone what to do. They don't see where "private" is a big deal. Thanks for pointing that out too Madea. I'm glad I view things from the point of "I can help myself".
Click to expand...

I always say private business, because business's that are not privately owned are subject to other input, either stock holders or board of directors or something along those lines.
 
It will be hard for a court that gave free speech rights to corporations previously thought to be reserved for persons to not extend that logic to religious rights. The same logic that a corporation is a grouping of individuals applies here. However, there are indeed the constitutional rights of two groups at odds here. The court may look at it as possibly opening the door to codifying discrimination based upon religious belief. This is something that every court has heretofore avoided at all costs. It is a genuine conundrum. I would not want to be a judge on this one.
 
We can send DeeWee up there right after her upcoming meeting. Once she straightens out the parking issue down here she can settle this issue up there as well. Maybe she'll make the judges park in back and walk around too.
 
Blazing Saddles said:
I love how some here think the gov't can tell everyone what to do. They don't see where "private" is a big deal. Thanks for pointing that out too Madea. I'm glad I view things from the point of "I can help myself".
Click to expand...


I love how some here forget that we have laws.
 
J-man said:
We can send DeeWee up there right after her upcoming meeting. Once she straightens out the parking issue down here she can settle this issue up there as well. Maybe she'll make the judges park in back and walk around too.
Click to expand...
After what I witnessed today, and the meeting tomorrow, I will be ready to take on anybody! Y'all just pay my expenses. :)
 
LisaC said:
Blazing Saddles said:
I love how some here think the gov't can tell everyone what to do. They don't see where "private" is a big deal. Thanks for pointing that out too Madea. I'm glad I view things from the point of "I can help myself".
Click to expand...


I love how some here forget that we have laws.
Click to expand...

But not all laws are "good" laws.
I use quote on good, because what I think is a bad law, others may see it as a good law.
(the're wrong of course, but they are entitled to their opinion) :)

I feel that if you own something, you have the right to do with it as you please.
As long as you are not harming someone else and not hiring someone or not servicing someone is not harming them.
My question always is, why would you wish to work or support a business that doesn't want you there?
 
LisaC said:
Blazing Saddles said:
I love how some here think the gov't can tell everyone what to do. They don't see where "private" is a big deal. Thanks for pointing that out too Madea. I'm glad I view things from the point of "I can help myself".
Click to expand...


I love how some here forget that we have laws.
Click to expand...

Funny how the president forgets. He has created a fluid law that changes with the wind.
 
There has been a trend in this country for some time to extend special privilege to relatively small groups. Problem is, this usually comes at the expense of rights or liberties of the majority.

That is what this case is really about; not just religious freedoms. Obamacare is truly a law that (to use Star Trek reference) gives privilege to the few at the expense of the many. Really, that's what most entitlement programs are.
 
Guard Dad said:
There has been a trend in this country for some time to extend special privilege to relatively small groups. Problem is, this usually comes at the expense of rights or liberties of the majority.

That is what this case is really about; not just religious freedoms. Obamacare is truly a law that (to use Star Trek reference) gives privilege to the few at the expense of the many. Really, that's what most entitlement programs are.
Click to expand...
Not sure I would consider Obamacare an entitlement, since it's people are being forced to purchase or pay a penalty. I do agree with your statement about special privilege extended to a few, at the cost of the majority though.

All this because girls can't keep their knees together. SMH
 
Okay, some of you have touched lightly on this, but here is what the issue should really be about. Should the government be allowed to tell businesses (public or private) that they must provide insurance for employees and what the minimum standards of that insurance must include? Insurance has always been a benefit offered by some employers. It's not a right and it's not a guarantee, it's simply a perk. Some companies choose to subsidize the cost, others do not. This is one of the things that makes the job market more competitive - companies strive to offer special benefits to entice new employees.

The issue with Obamacare, in my opinion, is that it is one step closer to telling companies that they must not only provide insurance, they must also subsidize the cost, and the government will tell them the minimum amount of coverage that they must provide, including what prescriptions meds should be covered (which they do to an extent now). The case before the Supreme Court has unfortunately had to go before them under the guise of religious discrimination, when it really should be about the rights of businesses everywhere. But, that can't go before the Court again since they ruled that Obamacare is legal and should be upheld and implemented (since it's a "tax").

On the upside, the increase in religious discrimination cases is likely going to flourish if the Court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby so we will continue to be busy...
 
I see how this could open a can of worms, but it's a necessary evil to try and fight back against this increasingly oppressive federal government.
 
Guard Dad said:
I see how this could open a can of worms, but it's a necessary evil to try and fight back against this increasingly oppressive federal government.
Click to expand...

You see it as a necessary evil and I can see how this can easily do more harm than good. But, that doesn't mean that I disagree with the companies wanting to be able to choose what benefits they offer.
 
LisaC said:
Guard Dad said:
I see how this could open a can of worms, but it's a necessary evil to try and fight back against this increasingly oppressive federal government.
Click to expand...

You see it as a necessary evil and I can see how this can easily do more harm than good. But, that doesn't mean that I disagree with the companies wanting to be able to choose what benefits they offer.
Click to expand...

Yet another example of why government needs to stay out of stuff.
 
Beware of false narratives:


http://thefederalist.com/2014/03/24/six-lies-the-leftist-media-tells-about-the-contraception-mandate-cases/


;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top