Companies Using SCOTUS Ruling To Eliminate All Birth Control In Their Health Care Plans...

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

You know, I had to do several searches before I could even find the article I based the thread on - it had not been easy to access. I would have thought it would be jumped on as super-hot news! Instead, I had to go through several different phrasings and key words to dig this one article up the day after it had been written. I thought it would be front page on Google News or something...

As to other religions being able to take advantage of this for their own religious laws, we shall see. The ruling was specific to the Contraception Mandate in its language, but it opens a door to ask "why?" What is the difference between that and someone else's religious belief that isn't what the Justices (the 5) want?

Anyway, it is too soon to see what the ultimate end will be and how this will unfold, imo. It will be years before we know the extent or limits of it.

Thanks for your comment!
- AB

Clearly two things need to be kicked out of american politics.

1) Money

2) Religion.

Christian's are screwing your country up big time.

originally posted by: SearchLightsInc
Clearly two things need to be kicked out of american politics.

1) Money

2) Religion.

Christian's are screwing your country up big time.

Why is it "just" Christians?

What makes you think this way ?

religiophobia

originally posted by: xuenchen
Why is it "just" Christians?

What makes you think this way ?

I know this question wasn't for me, but when you look around at who is standing in the way of equal rights for everyone in this country and who is trying to get everyone to live by their beliefs... it's not Jews, Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists... It's Christians. What makes me think this way? The Christians who are a political entity and forcing their beliefs through law are the people who turn me more and more each year against them.

This most recent SC ruling and the support for it on ATS has put me across a line that I never thought I'd cross. I find I have very little empathy, understanding or support for the Christians in this country.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

So now we can assume you were/are in favor of government entities making laws and regulation that violate the Constitution and/or statutes and regulations regarding freedom of religion?

The government is throwing the first stones, not the religious groups.

And we still aren't seeing any legislation that has/is establishing a specific religion.

But yet we see the paranoia against freedom of religion.

What is it that many people fear?

originally posted by: xuenchen
So now we can assume you were/are in favor of government entities making laws and regulation that violate the Constitution and/or statutes and regulations regarding freedom of religion?

Assume whatever you like. I have never favored that and I still don't. But the Constitution protects the rights of PEOPLE. I do not support money or corporations being given the status of "person" in the US. The government DID do that, so you're right there.

The government is throwing the first stones, not the religious groups.

So, you see this as a fight between the government and religious groups?

And we still aren't seeing any legislation that has/is establishing a specific religion.

If the RFRA applies to corporations and the SC used the RFRA in its ruling, making sure to state that other religious objections (like vaccinations and blood transfusions) won't be protected by this ruling, it sounds very close to a law being passed that elevates Christian belief above other religions.

But yet we see the paranoia against freedom of religion.

I support freedom of religion. I do NOT support government making laws that respect the establishment of religion.

What is it that many people fear?

I can't speak for anyone else, but what I fear is people using this ruling to discriminate against people whose beliefs are not in line with the business owners of this country. Refusing to serve or hire gay people, black people or women, for example. There's nothing standing in the way of that from my perspective. If government is going to bow down to religion (Christianity) and say they can run their business any way they see fit, it's hardly fair to the other businesses and the people who will be discriminated against.

How about this aspect. A thread needs to be started on it.
Justice Roberts stated that in order for the aca to be legal it is a tax. So if we follow this thought through the s.c. is stating we can opt out of paying taxes on religeous grounds. I see this a not a good thing but a GREAT thing. It could be the end of the irs when it gains speed.

heh, everyone needs to get religion whether it be true religion (as our founders and writers of the Constitution refered to it in the Federalist papers) or false religion (see above). I see no problem having the atheists and agnostics carry the tax burden, what say ye? AYE!!!

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

So, you see this as a fight between the government and religious groups?

More like a government interventionist effort against religion.

Religious groups "fight back" through the courts.

If the RFRA applies to corporations and the SC used the RFRA in its ruling, making sure to state that other religious objections (like vaccinations and blood transfusions) won't be protected by this ruling, it sounds very close to a law being passed that elevates Christian belief above other religions.

Again, why the massive Christian paranoia ?

Other religions can take the same stance.

You act like Christians are the only people that own businesses.

And of course, no laws are being enacted that establish any religion.

Everything happening is protecting the "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" part of the 1st Amendment.

I can't speak for anyone else, but what I fear is people using this ruling to discriminate against people whose beliefs are not in line with the business owners of this country. Refusing to serve or hire gay people, black people or women, for example. There's nothing standing in the way of that from my perspective. If government is going to bow down to religion (Christianity) and say they can run their business any way they see fit, it's hardly fair to the other businesses and the people who will be discriminated against.

Other laws apply to those infringements don't they.

originally posted by: manna2
How about this aspect. A thread needs to be started on it.
Justice Roberts stated that in order for the aca to be legal it is a tax. So if we follow this thought through the s.c. is stating we can opt out of paying taxes on religeous grounds. I see this a not a good thing but a GREAT thing. It could be the end of the irs when it gains speed.

Somebody would need to prove "taxes" are against religious beliefs.

Catch 22 ?

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: manna2
How about this aspect. A thread needs to be started on it.
Justice Roberts stated that in order for the aca to be legal it is a tax. So if we follow this thought through the s.c. is stating we can opt out of paying taxes on religeous grounds. I see this a not a good thing but a GREAT thing. It could be the end of the irs when it gains speed.

Somebody would need to prove "taxes" are against religious beliefs.

Catch 22 ?

ok, start with abortion and it being attached to all foreign aid. And pacifism, if you do not eat meat, etc... the mormons and jw's have their lists made I am sure. And muslims. But abortion alone is a huge game changer on taxes. Not hard to prove at all. What a concept that can occur, I.e., taxation with full representation

a reply to: manna2

Hmm. Makes some sense.

Start a list and we can present petitions to the courts.

Citing laws and cases for precedent is the challenge.

Might be possible.

originally posted by: manna2
How about this aspect. A thread needs to be started on it.
Justice Roberts stated that in order for the aca to be legal it is a tax. So if we follow this thought through the s.c. is stating we can opt out of paying taxes on religeous grounds. I see this a not a good thing but a GREAT thing. It could be the end of the irs when it gains speed.

heh, everyone needs to get religion whether it be true religion (as our founders and writers of the Constitution refered to it in the Federalist papers) or false religion (see above). I see no problem having the atheists and agnostics carry the tax burden, what say ye? AYE!!!

Well, the first problem is once again this is FOR CORPORATE PERSONS not real ones. So you'll still be paying taxes while the Corporations won't. Once again shooting yourself in the foot.

Next, the fact that you're ok just pushing it off onto Atheists and Agnostics shows exactly why there are so many double standards destroying the idea of "Equality Under the Law". It's that kind of Hypocrisy that has got everything so F**ked up in the first place.

Negative. Justice roberts declared the aca only lawful if it was a tax. He was refering to individuals within the taxstructure known as "person". This ruling most definately opens the door for religous exclusions in the aca. Justice Roberts refered to the 2 powers. That would have to be the common law and commerce. I believe you are very close but miss some of the key points. You are right, it is addressing the commerce part of the law where corporations are governed by a set of rules called a Constitution. Which is for THE UNITEDSTATES OF AMERICA, A corporation formed inthe late 1800's. This corporate law is based on admiralty laws governing commerce. You play your part in signing up to recieve your own strawman corporation so you too can become a "person". Your strawman corporation that they trick you into fronting for is on all your legal documents. You can tell by it being in your name but inall capital letters. All corporations in legal documents are always spelled using all capital letters.

I think the scotus is opening the door to end the irs. It too isa privately held corporation in porto rico.

Oh, btw, i was joking about the atheists paying all the taxes. None of us should carry that water. But hey. Really??? Big corporations do not pay many taxes. Yet they should be carrying the water for all of us. We should not be paying taxes at all on food, water, clothing, and our personal wages that come from our sweat. Only from our gain was there ever meant to be taxed. If you invest andmake clear profit, tax it... i hope that all doesnt sound too hypocritical for ya?a reply to: mOjOm

originally posted by: manna2
Oh, btw, i was joking about the atheists paying all the taxes. None of us should carry that water. But hey. Really??? Big corporations do not pay many taxes. Yet they should be carrying the water for all of us. We should not be paying taxes at all on food, water, clothing, and our personal wages that come from our sweat. Only from our gain was there ever meant to be taxed. If you invest andmake clear profit, tax it... i hope that all doesnt sound too hypocritical for ya?a reply to: mOjOm

No, not at all. I'm happy to hear that you were just joking about what you said earlier too. What you wrote above is pretty much how it's supposed to be IMO as well.

At least we can agree on something, huh?!?! Around here that doesn't happen too often either.

originally posted by: manna2

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: manna2
How about this aspect. A thread needs to be started on it.
Justice Roberts stated that in order for the aca to be legal it is a tax. So if we follow this thought through the s.c. is stating we can opt out of paying taxes on religeous grounds. I see this a not a good thing but a GREAT thing. It could be the end of the irs when it gains speed.

Somebody would need to prove "taxes" are against religious beliefs.

Catch 22 ?

ok, start with abortion and it being attached to all foreign aid. And pacifism, if you do not eat meat, etc... the mormons and jw's have their lists made I am sure. And muslims. But abortion alone is a huge game changer on taxes. Not hard to prove at all. What a concept that can occur, I.e., taxation with full representation

Hi mana - so I see you are expanding the interpretation here to include taxation? I think that was specifically kept out of the ruling, so Corporate Entities that have 'religion' will still have to pay those. The ruling, when picked apart, does not make much sense, imo. It creates more questions than it answers. So, if I'm following your logic, you are saying the Mandate imposed a tax on people for non-compliance, per the SCOTUS's own ruling. It's possible that they still consider it "fines" for businesses, and "a tax" for individuals. That would untie the legal knot, otherwise they are being exempted from a tax based on the religious objections of the owners, while the same ruling says they are not exempt from taxes due to the ruling...Weird...

A tangled web the SCOTUS weaves! (That sounds best in a Yoda voice...)

- AB

Glad you spoke up about joking, too...

Those fines for businesses are only for officers of the corp. Its in the definition of "person". I am refering to Justice Roberts opinion when they passed the aca. That opens the door wide open. I think he did it on purpose. He destroyed the democrats if this plays out. And itmight give us a chance at restoring things. If we can opt out of the aca, per law, it applies to all taxation by the fed. The aca and all that is going on with the scotus rulings effect the entire tax code. This seriously could lead to the end of that corporation called the irs. Roberts brief is a mind blower. I believe he was extorted for the ruling. The NSA has the goods on everyone. But he might be too smart for all of them. In his brief he opens the room to the light of day and shows us the tricks they used to hide our way through it. In just this one brief he exposes there are 3 different definitions for "person" if you search out the legal codes. a reply to: AboveBoard

Giving corporations human rights the same as an individual is a bad idea. Now, a powerful self preserving entity can force its will on an individual, like religion. I can see how the last anti-christ can get all powerful, thanks to christians.

originally posted by: MOMof3
Giving corporations human rights the same as an individual is a bad idea. Now, a powerful self preserving entity can force its will on an individual, like religion. I can see how the last anti-christ can get all powerful, thanks to christians.

But yet you seem to have no problem at all with a government (non person) forcing its will on individuals.

Good thing we have a few Christians willing to fight for causes that benefit the majority of citizens for once.

I see you as nothing more than an agent of division. You choose sides as fast as you can type and seek enemies where there are none.a reply to: MOMof3