It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
if hobby lobby needs this protection then so doesn't every individual with the same beliefs!
originally posted by: FlyersFan
originally posted by: butcherguy
By the ACA guidelines, women have CONDOMS paid for by insurance, men do not. .
That's a really good point. Men could challenge Obamacare as being sexist.
originally posted by: dawnstar
they both have a right that is being infringed on by the ACA
the believing business man feels that he shouldn't be forced to particpate in any way with birth control and feels that buying into an insurance plan for his employees does this.
so isn't the believing person's rights also being infringed on maybe moreso since they have the gov't trying to force them to buy an insurance policy that has that coverage?
originally posted by: dawnstar
the business is claiming to be legally considered "a person" but are expecting more protection than any person has at the moment!
originally posted by: macman
And the entitlement mindset marches on.
originally posted by: FlyersFan
originally posted by: Gryphon66
Hobby Lobby, et. al. has nothing to do with the Constitution ... read the ruling; it is entirely based on the flawed and unconstitutional RFRA.
If the RFRA was unconstitutional, it would have been shot down. Instead, it is upheld. And the RFRA goes back to the freedom of religion in the Constitution.
Even so, RFRA’s constitutionality did get challenged, in a case involving a local law, not a federal law, and the Court struck it down in that situation. In the 1997 decision in City of Boerne v. Flores, the court ruled that Congress did not have authority under the Fourteenth Amendment to impose RFRA’s strict standard of protection against state or local laws that were challenged as too burdensome on religion practices.
The Supreme Court's opinion in Boerne v. Flores declared unequivocally that the Religious Restoration Act (RFRA) is unconstitutional.
The United States Supreme Court found that RFRA was unconstitutional as exceeding Congressional power under the enforcement clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in City of Bourne v. Flores. Thus, RFRA cannot constitutionally be applied to state laws.