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.

 

Are Laws that Favor One Religion over Another a Violation of the First Amendment?

page: 5
32
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Dear windword,

I'd hate to have you think I'm being disingenuous. (I'll have to look it up some day, but I think it's a polite way of saying sneakily avoiding the truth.) May I offer a quick explanation?


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.
What I thought I conveyed was this:

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.

I basically agree with your post, I'm just trying to avoid the suspicion that I was being sneaky or dishonest. I'd rather that you not feel that way about me, it gets in the way of good conversations.

With respect,
Charles1952




posted on Jul, 1 2014 @ 11:41 PM
link   
a reply to: charles1952

Damn you Charles!

You've brought up some very interesting points and now I have to dig in a bit deeper to obtain a better understanding of what this ruling says.

I thought I had a firm grasp of it all, but you have pointed out some language used in this ruling that was very important...but I missed it.

Thanks for adding to this discussion!

Side note: I'm ready for the show tomorrow. Can't wait to talk about Fox News.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 06:16 AM
link   
I posted this on the other forum about t he hobby lobby case but want to post it here also.
Sorry for the waste of extra bandwidth but I am really surprised that no one seems to be catching on to what I am saying!

I've spent considerably about of time last night and some today reading and seeking!
My first conclusion is polisi was oh so wrong about the obamacare bill. not only do we have to pass it to understand what's in it we have jump in head first and dive deep!!

This is the question I am asking.
but first let me clear one thing up.
Federal Court Granted Catholic Network Relief From Birth Control Mandate
This was all birth control not just a small portion of them

RFRA was one of the main points in this decision and weather or not Hobby Lobby would fall under it.

The purpose of the act was to protect religious individuals and organizations against government interference with the practice of their faith.
So one question was weather Hobby Lobby could be considered a "person".

So in effect they decided that no person should have to buy coverage that includes birth control if it interfers with the practice of their belief!!

I am a person also am I not??
And so are you are you not??
And if it interfers with a religious practice to buy birth control for you employees just how does it not interfer with those same practices to be force to by that coverage for yourself, for your spouse or for your children??

IF hobby lobby being defined as a person is protected then should every other person be protected in like manner??

So we have this person here. He employer has not problem providing insurance with the birth control included in the coverage but she has that same moral convictions as hobby and well doesn't want it!!
Should the employer be required to cater to her desires??
No??
Okay she has the money to go ahead and buy it herself.
All new policies have to be approved by the gov't as having the Minimum Essential Coverage and she needs to prove that she has an approved plan to avoid the tax penalty! (Hobby Lobby has been exempted from that penalty haven't they)
Now if hobby lobby was her employer she could join their plan and be okay!
But she isn't..
As far as I see she might be able to get an exemption if she is a member of a sect that teaches birth control is wrong but I am not sure about that since what I read was that the sect had to teach that having insurance itself is wrong so that's up for debate. And well I highly question weather one has to be a member of any certain group to have religious beliefs and highly suspect that many here taking up Hobby Lobby's cause haven't been in a church in awhile!! If you wish I will go into detail as to why I say that!

All new and renewed policies unless they are grandfathered in require birth control coverage to be acceptable!

So ya!! Hobby Lobby (being defined as a person) has had the integrity of their beliefs protected!!
So please tell me... just where is the protection for any women out there like I described above??
Or to put it even closer to the Hobby Lobby's case where is the traditional husband's protection? Doesn't he also have to buy coverage for his stay at home wife that will include the coverage???

I don't believe it is there!
Can someone show me otherwise???

Otherwise Hobby Lobby isn't being given the same protections as a person they are being given much more!
And just how do you think this will be solved?
Should employers be required to remove birth control coverage from their plans to cater to them??
Or should those employees who find it offensive be directed to the healthcare exchange and be offered their own "religion friendly" plan???



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 08:20 AM
link   

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?


If that was all they said, I still wouldn't agree with it, but at least the ruling wouldn't be such a blatant display of religious preference on the part of the court. Furthermore, if what you're saying is true, why did the court even mention blood transfusions and/or vaccinations? Why didn't they just wait for those issues to be brought before the court?

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.

So much for separation of church & state.



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 08:47 AM
link   

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.


Perfectly stated. Thank you. This is exactly what I've been trying to get across to people, but it seems if they don't want to hear it, they're not going to hear it

The Supreme Court has a habit of issuing narrow rulings like this ("it's ONLY the contraceptive mandate and it's ONLY for this case") as a precedent for broader rulings to come...



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: charles1952

Again. I'm sorry, but you're wrong. I KNOW these companies only protest the purchase of 4 contraceptive, but the ruling exempts them from the contraceptive mandate altogether. They will continue to purchase the 16 willingly, but they don't have to.

Page 83 of the OPINION: Ginsburg's dissent:


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)).



posted on Jul, 2 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   

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.


There is no mandate that only requires the four abortifcient methods. There is ONE ACA Contraceptive Mandate and that is the contraceptive mandate and that covers ALL FDA-approved forms of contraception. Hobby Lobby has been granted an exemption from that mandate.

There is not a mandate for each form of contraception. It's a mandate for all of them. It's all or none.
edit on 7/2/2014 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 08:10 AM
link   
And here's proof of what I've been saying. The Hobby Lobby decision covers ALL contraceptives, not just the four methods discussed in the suit. Thank you. AboveBoard.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Not only that BH, but the SCOTUS went out of their way to say this decision couldn't be used to discriminate in other ways

I think the whole thing is very strange. Why add that in if it weren't going to be a logical assumption that this meant that you could?

Why, if a person/corporation can now not be forced to do one thing because of their beliefs, should they NOT be legally allowed to do others? The fact that the court felt the need to add that bit in seems to have given some people peace of mind - but it bothers me. Feels like we're gearing up for phase two - which would be examining - why not?

How can the Supreme Court of the United states rule so specifically? Religious freedom allows them ONLY to refuse birth control?

How is this respecting their religious freedom then - truly? Should they not be allowed to use their freedom in any category they wish - in any manner they wish?

Odd

It bothers me that the court isn't bothered by this...they've very specifically given them a freedom - and left a door ajar

If it sounds like I'm disappointed that they fell down on the job -I'm not. I'm just suspicious
edit on 7/3/2014 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)


SM2

posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 01:42 PM
link   

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!





Ok, Citizens united did not "allow" corporations to become persons. They simply re affirmed what the supreme court has held since 1818 and ruled on several times previously. This is not some new thing. It started in 1818 with Dartmouth College v. Woodward. Basically, they the ruling was they had to be considered people in order to enter into contracts (over simplification but thats the point)

Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts v. Town of Pawlet (1823), the supreme court ruled that corporate owned property had to be treated as property owned by a private citizen.

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company in 1886 basically extended the protections of the 14th amendment to corporations

as it applies to religious beliefs specifically, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 reaffirmed them, and since corporations have the same rights and protections as natural persons, the RFRA would also apply to them.

Ignoring all the case law and precedence set by SCOTUS and buying the gibberish from the disbarred constitutional lawyer in the oval office does this discussion no good






edit on 15072 by SM2 because: (no reason given)

edit on 54072 by SM2 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 02:52 PM
link   

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?


Because it's Christians who are against birth control. And Christianity is the majority religion in the US. They wish to strengthen the political power of Christianity in this country. Not only that, remember that the right's main goal is to repeal Obamacare. If they can't do it in one fell swoop, they will pick it apart by taking each challenge to the Supreme Court. They have no interest in religious rights (I can't believe so many are praising the SC for "standing up for religion" - they couldn't care less about religious rights). Their main interest is political.

I'm just waiting to see how this affects the mid-term and 2016 elections. The GOP isn't winning any women or young people over with this move.



It bothers me that the court isn't bothered by this...they've very specifically given them a freedom - and left a door ajar


Because they might need to walk through it in the future.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Islam and Judaism have birth control views also.



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




posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 03:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic


If they can't do it in one fell swoop, they will pick it apart by taking each challenge to the Supreme Court.


Absolutely - this is my point. Not one word about how microscopic the scope - even though they essentially just gave away the game

They couldn't make this case all-encompassing of course. The obvious part (to me at least) is that if you can't just come out and say that a person's religious beliefs can let them opt out of any and all laws - there's a reason. A good reason

How can the court then go on to tell us all it's OK - but just in this one little kinda-sorta way?

Birth control - cause it's icky - yeah - we can see how you might have a problem with that - but nothing else - you understand? Everything else that bothers you is off the table. For now

It's like their aunty just gave them permission to have ice cream before dinner - it's half-assed

I may not like this decision (or whats coming down the road) but, I would at least like to be able to look at the highest court in the land with a smidgeon of respect

This is weasel-y




edit on 7/3/2014 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 03:34 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I know that. You have to take the sentence in context with the rest of my post. It would have been a LOT harder for the SC to rule for Islam or even Judaism in this case. The Hobby Lobby peeps being Christian (the majority religion) made it easier to tear down the religion/state wall.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 04:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Perhaps, but the Religious Freedom Restoration Act may still apply ?

I bet we see cases soon enough.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 04:21 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 04:38 PM
link   

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.


Well if the Muslims and Jews don't break other laws or infringe on anybody, then there should be no problem.

It's not so much about religious "freedom" as it is about agencies like the HHS infringing on those freedoms.

I think they (HHS) got clipped because they attempted to somehow make a "non profit" religious corporation different from a "for profit" corporation different by way of exemptions for one example.

The courts mentioned that in rulings.

It seems HHS are the ones that sued after a lower court granted Hobby Lobby relief by reversing another court's decision. That's what brought the whole thing to the SCOTUS. Hobby Lobby may have been OK with the lower court decision apparently.

here's a link that has all the court proceedings from day 1 ....

Legal Documents for Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic




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?


Nice false equivocation there.

The Hobby lobby decision.

As Hobby Lobby does provide contraception for their workers.

Hell they even pay them a nice hourly.

And that isn't good enough.

Hobby Lobby cover 16 forms of contraception.

And people are crying over 4 that weren't they can get anywhere they want.

At their own expense.

Which is the way it should be.

Reminder: Hobby Lobby Provides Coverage for 16 Types of Contraception



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 05:07 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96




And people are crying over 4 that weren't they can get anywhere they want.


So you think that it's okay that if you happen to work for a "Christian" don't have equal protection?


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.
www.law.cornell.edu...



edit on 3-7-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

What's you point? Women come in different flavors?




top topics



 
32
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join