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: 8
32
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: xuenchen




Profit has nothing to do with it.


Tax the churches, I say
HaHa

You can put that in your petition to the Justice Department along with your idea for HHS to challenge the SCOTUS with the 14th Amendment.

You never know do ya.





posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Thank you for that xuechen. I had no idea that that status had already been inferred upon some sectors of business. Makes it more fascinating to me.

I knew some religious organizations were tax exempt, I didn't know that corporations could hold religious beliefs the same as an individual.
edit on 3-7-2014 by GAOTU789 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm always on the lookout for factual errors and such, please show me some. To start this off, I'll show you one of yours.


Yes, provisions of the same RFRA that is cited in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby as fundamental principle were declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL by a previous SCOTUS.

Sorry, it wasn't the same RFRA. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act which, among other things amended RFRA to eliminate references to First Amendment cases and requirements. (You'll find that at the bottom of page 6 of the Hobby Lobby decision.

The Court didn't rely on any unconstitutional law, and the RFRA that the Court was referring to was an amended version which wasn't unconstitutional.

Oh, and

But now, as a matter of legal PRECEDENT . . . (have a mind or a soul)
The problem here is that under a strict definition, no group of people can have a mind, soul, or religious beliefs. Even HHS can't have a mind or a soul, which, of course, is no news to anyone familiar with them. A corporation can't even sign papers or write paychecks. People have to do that.

People have minds, souls, and religious beliefs. And the Court said to HHS, you can't make them violate their religion unless you meet they RFRA requirements. HHS didn't and the case was settled without looking at the constitutionality of anything.

I'm anxiously awaiting your next attempt at finding "factual errors and obvious attempts at deception" in anything I've written.

I'd like to be corrected and so learn.



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

Dear windword,

You're right that the women are treated differently by Hobby Lobby than they would be by Best Buy. But beyond that, I don't know.

I thought the 14th only applied to laws passed by States. If I'm right, then it has no effect on Hobby Lobby at all.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 09:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: xuenchen

Whatever, the fact is, women employed by religious nutz are being treated different than women who work for a non-religious nut, under this ruling. That violates the 14th Amendment. You okay with that?



And do you suppose women employed by companies with less than 50 full time employees who are not mandated to pay for insurance in that same boat as well?

And maybe consider more....

What if the "employer" is an individual employing a house maid, or a sole proprietor of a business, or non-corporate partnership?

Those "employers" would then have religious "rights" as people correct?

The ACA and HHS and IRS are not treating all people the same. They are in fact discriminating big time.

Therefore, maybe the entire ACA is in fact unconstitutional under the 14th ?




posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: charles1952

Hobby Lobby isn't under any obligation to honor the 14th Amendment, the Federal Government is.

I don't believe that anyone will challenge this ruling using the 14th Amendment, because, right now, the government is scrambling to create and fund avenues for these disenfranchised women, et al.

It's temporary problem, hopefully.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 10:12 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen



And do you suppose women employed by companies with less than 50 full time employees who are not mandated to pay for insurance in that same boat as well?


Any woman who has health insurance has access to the full range of contraceptives that are mandated in the ACA. Except, of course those women who work for religious kooks.

I think their kooks, because they need to enforce their morals on others.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 10:13 PM
link   
a reply to: charles1952

So you're stating there are now two different laws that are referred to as RFRA?

I will give you that's an interesting attempt at spin far above what I usually see here.


So, since, as we say in the South, butter wouldn't melt in your mouth because you're so ready to be corrected, here you go:

Some simple calendric facts:

RFRA: 1993.
Flores: 1997 (RFRA is unconstitutional).
RLUIPA: 2000 (Passed in order to thwart the SCOTUS decision in Flores).
Burwell, et. al. v. Hobby Lobby, et. al.: 2014

One is not sure what resource you are using as the "official ruling" but this is the link to the actual decision from the website of the Supreme Court of the United States: Burwell, et. al. v. Hobby Lobby, et. al (2014)

The first six pages of the PDF are the Syllabus (not the decision)

However scanning down to page 7 of the PDF (which is again marked "1" beginning the actual Decision) we have the following:



Justice ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court.

We must decide in these cases whether the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) , 107 Stat. 1488 42 USC §2000bb et seq., permits the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to demand that three closely held corporations provide health-insurance coverage for methods of contraception that violate the sincerely held religious beliefs of the companies' owners. We hold that the regulations that impose this obligation violate RFRA, which prohibits the Federal Government from taking any action that substantially burdens the exercise of religion unless that action constitutes the least restricted means of serving a compelling government interest.


It is quite clear just from these two sentences that the crux of the Decision is based on RFRA not RLUIPA as you mistakenly claim, Charles.

Yet, further down on page "2" of the decision (page 8 of the PDF linked) we have further:



Since RFRA applies in these cases, ....


... and the next paragraph begins ...



Under RFRA, a Government action that imposes a substantial burden ...


Additional locations of references to RFRA as the fundamental statute held as applying in the decision:

Page 3 (9 PDF), Paragraphs 2, 3
Page 4, Paragraph 1
Page 5, Paragraph 3
Page 6, Paragraph 1
Page 15, Paragraphs 1, 2
Page 15, Paragraph 2
Page 16, Paragraph 1
Page 17, Paragraph 1, 2
Page 17, Note 18
Page 18, Paragraphs 1, 2
Page 19, Paragraphs 1, 2, 3
Page 20, Paragraphs 1, 2
... and another 44 times in the balance of the 49 pages of the Decision.

On the other hand, there are only eight (8) references to RLUIPA in the entire decision, in one paragraph, beginning at the bottom of page 6 and continuing to page 7, one in a footnote at the bottom of page 7, paragraph 1 on page 26, twice on page 30, twice on page 43, always in co-reference to RFRA which the Decision refers to as "sister statutes."

So, to summarize:

RFRA: 63 references
RLUIPA: 8 references

and to quote from the Decision's final page (49 or 55 in the PDF):



Our responsibility is to enforce RFRA as written, and under the standard that RFRA prescribes, the HHS contraceptive mandate is unlawful.



edit on 22Thu, 03 Jul 2014 22:14:49 -050014p102014766 by Gryphon66 because: Formatting



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Dear windword,

Agreed completely (although I'm not going to take a position on the word "hopefully"). I'm not even sure that the government has to do much scrambling.

The Court made a big deal out of saying that HHS already had programs in place to help the women working for religious corporations (like nunneries, churches, things like that), all they have to do is sign those objectors up for the same program.

But it sets the ground for a new debate over how much control the government has over the practices of religious people. I think a significant change would require some Supreme Court appointments, and I don't see any conservative Justices retiring while Obama is in power.

With respect,
Charles1952

P.s. That's what I like about you, we can talk. I wish more posters were like that. - C -



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 10:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'm always on the lookout for factual errors and such, please show me some. To start this off, I'll show you one of yours.


Yes, provisions of the same RFRA that is cited in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby as fundamental principle were declared UNCONSTITUTIONAL by a previous SCOTUS.

Sorry, it wasn't the same RFRA. The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act which, among other things amended RFRA to eliminate references to First Amendment cases and requirements. (You'll find that at the bottom of page 6 of the Hobby Lobby decision.

The Court didn't rely on any unconstitutional law, and the RFRA that the Court was referring to was an amended version which wasn't unconstitutional.

Oh, and

But now, as a matter of legal PRECEDENT . . . (have a mind or a soul)
The problem here is that under a strict definition, no group of people can have a mind, soul, or religious beliefs. Even HHS can't have a mind or a soul, which, of course, is no news to anyone familiar with them. A corporation can't even sign papers or write paychecks. People have to do that.

People have minds, souls, and religious beliefs. And the Court said to HHS, you can't make them violate their religion unless you meet they RFRA requirements. HHS didn't and the case was settled without looking at the constitutionality of anything.

I'm anxiously awaiting your next attempt at finding "factual errors and obvious attempts at deception" in anything I've written.

I'd like to be corrected and so learn.


Just to keep everyone honest ...

Your assertion about groups not having souls only proves my point Charles. The personhood of corporations is and have always been referred to as "legal fictions." Yes the word "person" was used but always for the sake of ease of conversation. There was never any belief, on the part of any Court before the Roberts Court, that the legal fiction was a real person.


edit on 22Thu, 03 Jul 2014 22:21:52 -050014p102014766 by Gryphon66 because: Edit 11:21 PM.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 10:19 PM
link   
a reply to: windword


Any woman who has health insurance has access to the full range of contraceptives that are mandated in the ACA. Except, of course those women who work for religious kooks.

I think their kooks, because they need to enforce their morals on others.


But women who don't have a job supplied insurance policy have a choice not to get insurance.

Who's fault is that?

And why would the Progressive government who discriminates not be a kook for the same reasons?



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 10:23 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen




But women who don't have a job supplied insurance policy have a choice not to get insurance.

Who's fault is that?


I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here.


And why would the Progressive government who discriminates not be a kook for the same reasons?


The government isn't forcing anyone to take birth control. It needs to be available for public health and safety.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: charles1952




The Court made a big deal out of saying that HHS already had programs in place to help the women working for religious corporations (like nunneries, churches, things like that), all they have to do is sign those objectors up for the same program.


Right, but they still have to figure out a way to divert funds and pay for the new influx of women.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: windword


The government isn't forcing anyone to take birth control. It needs to be available for public health and safety.


It is available. Widely available.

And in many cases, for free.




posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen





It is available. Widely available.

And in many cases, for free.


Thanks to Title X



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Right wing nut jobs abandoning their freedoms for something they believe in. However, they are protecting everyone else's freedoms. Asshat sunsabitches.



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Dear Gryphon66,

Oh, dear. I try to say what I mean, why do people seem to misinterpret it so often.

When I refer to Page 6 of the decision, I'm referring to Page 6 of the decision. The Syllabus is not written by the Court or any Justice. It is not the decision. That might explain the difference in the page counts.

I'm stating that RFRA was amended by RLUIPA. If you insist on thinking of two RFRAs, you might have the 1993 version and the 2000 version. The 2000 version is in effect today and was used as the basis of the decision. The 1993 version is no longer valid. That was the version rejected by the Court.

I am not claiming that the decision was based on RLUPIA, the Court mentioned it to show the history of the RFRA that they were applying, and why RFRA applied in this case.

The decision was based on RFRA as amended in the year 2000.

I believe that answers all of your objections.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 10:42 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Dear windword,

Amazingly enough, the government and the taxpayers aren't out any money. Really, nobody is.


In fact, HHS has already devised and implemented a system that seeks to respect the religious liberty of religious nonprofit corporations while ensuring that the employees of these entities have precisely the same access to all FDA-approved contraceptives as employees of companies whose owners have no religious objections to providing such coverage. The employees of these religious nonprofit corporations still have access to insurance coverage without cost sharing for all FDA-approved contraceptives; and according to HHS, this system imposes no net economic burden on the insurance companies that are required to provide or secure the coverage. (Emphasis added)


With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 10:48 PM
link   
a reply to: charles1952

or perhaps misunderstandings arise SPECIFICALLY because of what you say?

You said "Sorry, it wasn't the same RFRA." How is someone to interpret this in English? If it's not the same RFRA, it's a different RFRA which make two RFRAs ...

Are you seeing the illogical error of your first post to me on the subject yet?

RFRA and RLUIPA are separate pieces of legislation, do you realize that? The second amends parts of the first.

When one law "amends" another, that doesn't throw out the other law in it's entirety. RLUIPA amends parts of RFRA to try to bypass the UNCONSTITUTIONAL finding of SCOTUS in Flores. This Decision acknowledges that fact on pages 26 and 30.

It is clear, as I stated earlier, by the actual fact of quotations from the Decision, in the sheer number of times that RFRA is referred to over RLUIPA (an 8 to 1 ratio, btw) that Hobby Lobby et. al. is based on RFRA. Justice Alito STATES that at the beginning and end of the Decision.

That is, quite simply, the fact.

Best,



posted on Jul, 3 2014 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Dear Gryphon66,

We're not disagreeing. I don't get it. From my post you're responding to:


I am not claiming that the decision was based on RLUPIA, the Court mentioned it to show the history of the RFRA that they were applying, and why RFRA applied in this case.

The decision was based on RFRA as amended in the year 2000.

Am I unclear here? Did I make an error?

I really don't understand your objection.

With respect,
Charles1952



new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join