It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
What I thought I conveyed was this:
The Court simply said that the mandate, as considered in this particular case (4 out of 20 contraceptive methods) violated a federal law, and was thus void.
originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: Flatfish
I don't understand you. The Court simply said that the mandate, as considered in this particular case (4 out of 20 contraceptive methods) violated a federal law, and was thus void.
Where are you getting all of this unconstitutional stuff from?
originally posted by: Flatfish
The fact that the court decided to issue such a narrow ruling and in doing so, specifically stated that other known religious objections would not be exempted is IMO, a direct contradiction of the First Amendment. Specifically the opening phrase; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,"
The ruling clearly demonstrates that christian objections to federal law have merit while specifically stating that known objections of other religions do not. This is exactly what the first sentence of the First Amendment was meant to prohibit.
Moreover, the Court’s reasoning appears to permit commercial enterprises like Hobby Lobby and Conestoga to exclude from their group health plans all forms of contraceptives. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 38–39 (counsel for Hobby Lobby acknowledged that his “argument . . . would apply just as well if the employer said ‘no contraceptives’” (internal quotation marks added)).
originally posted by: charles1952
The Court simply said that the mandate violated a federal law and was thus void. The mandate the Court said was at issue was the mandate requiring the four abortifcient methods, but not the other 16.
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic
This Scotus ruling would fall apart and be unenforceable if Congress rewrote the RFRA, which is in their power to do. Also, the Citizen's United case, which allows corporate personhood, could also be reverse if Congress redressed the law that they wrote that made corporate personhood a reality.
We need to petition Congress to make these changes and voice our opposition at the polls. movetoamend.org...
I see a Democratic White House for decades to come!
originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
How can the Supreme Court of the United states rule so specifically? Religious freedom allows them ONLY to refuse birth control?
It bothers me that the court isn't bothered by this...they've very specifically given them a freedom - and left a door ajar
The Jewish view on birth control currently varies between the Orthodox, Conservative and Reform branches of Judaism. Among Orthodox Judaism, use of birth control has been considered only acceptable for use in limited circumstances. Conservative Judaism, while generally encouraging its members to follow the traditional Jewish views on birth control has been more willing to allow greater exceptions regarding its use to fit better within modern society. Reform Judaism has generally been the most liberal with regard to birth control allowing individual followers to use their own judgment in what, if any, birth control methods they might wish to employ.
Jewish views on contraception
General Islamic Ruling on Contraception and Birth Control
In general, most forms of contraception and birth control are forbidden. But since Islam is a complete religion, we have the benefit of the Quran, the hadith and traditions of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), the companions, and many learned scholars to help us come to an informed decision.
Islam Birth Control
If they can't do it in one fell swoop, they will pick it apart by taking each challenge to the Supreme Court.
originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: xuenchen
If it applies in this case, it certainly SHOULD apply in others. But we'll see the Christians raise hell (pardon the pun) when a Muslim wants to exercise their religious beliefs. Oh, wait! We already do!
I have really soured my thoughts about Christianity and what passes for religious freedom these days.
For example, would a closely held company owned by a Christian Scientist be granted an exemption to pay for vaccinations of their employees and their babies? No. What makes the contraceptive objection weigh more than the vaccination objection?
And people are crying over 4 that weren't they can get anywhere they want.
The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.