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.
originally posted by: butcherguy
Sure they do.
It is just a matter of opening up your wallet and paying for it.
In 1997, part of this act was overturned by the United States Supreme Court. The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Antonio wanted to enlarge a church in Boerne, Texas. But a Boerne ordinance protected the building as a historic landmark and did not permit it to be torn down. The church sued, citing RFRA, and in the resulting case, City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), the Supreme Court struck down the RFRA with respect to its applicability to States (but not Federally), stating that Congress had stepped beyond their power of enforcement provided in the Fourteenth Amendment.[8] In response to the Boerne ruling, Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) in 2000, which grants special privileges to religious land owners.[10]
The Act was amended in 2003 to only include the federal government and its entities, such as Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia.[11] A number of states have passed state RFRAs, applying the rule to the laws of their own state, but the Smith case remains the authority in these matters in many states.
Religious Freedom Restoration Act
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: butcherguy
Do you think it's right that a national law should arbitrarily cover/protect some women but not others, based on who their employer is?
originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: butcherguy
Just where do I go to buy an insurance pollicy for any price that will be accepted by ACA without being employed while not offering birth control???
I guess you are right though if I had the kind of money as Hobby Lobby and crew I could play the game and go through the court system all the way to the supreme court and get my exception also!
without being employed
originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66
Obviously RFRA applies in the Hobby Lobby case.
originally posted by: mOjOm
originally posted by: butcherguy
Sure they do.
It is just a matter of opening up your wallet and paying for it.
No, I'm not talking about the choice of BC. I'm talking about the choice of opting out of certain parts of the Health Care that they don't agree with.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66
Obviously RFRA applies in the Hobby Lobby case.
Nope, wrong again. RFRA has clearly been declared unconstitutional (see above).
A law cannot be constitutional and unconstitutional at the same time.
It has not been challenged at the Federal level. It now soon will be.
originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: butcherguy
my meal is gonna be coming f rom my fridge as soon as I get up to mke it ...bought by my husband that according to religion is responsible for support!
now answer the question
where is the insurance policy that can be bought!
About as right as it is for the ACA to cover condoms for women... but not for men.
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: butcherguy
About as right as it is for the ACA to cover condoms for women... but not for men.
So you feel left out because the ACA won't give you free condoms, therefore, women should be denied birth control. Smart!
Who's the victim now?
originally posted by: Gryphon66
/sigh
Birth control is not a health issue FOR MEN because MEN DO NOT GET PREGNANT.
Birth control IS a health issue FOR WOMEN because WOMEN DO GET PREGNANT.
Great goodness, do some of you understand basic biology?
Pregnancy is a condition affecting a woman's body for nine months of her life. It can pose SERIOUS health risks.
Any measure to avoid pregnancy, or to early-abort an unwanted pregnancy, is absolutely a matter of women's health.
If you don't understand that, you're not trying to. Period.