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.

 

Christianity & Hobby Lobby

page: 17
17
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 09:14 PM
link   
a reply to: windword


Again, Hobby Lobby nor your employer is required to provide equal protection. That's the Government's job.


And that is where ACA fails and is unConstitutional.







posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc




the entire point of the act in the first place--to confirm and solidify protections under the First Amendment


LOL Yeah that's right! That's why the law explicitly states when and how the government MAY burden "person's' rights.

The ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE" left that out!


ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE

The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.
www.law.cornell.edu...

edit on 21-7-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 09:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: windword


Again, Hobby Lobby nor your employer is required to provide equal protection. That's the Government's job.


And that is where ACA fails and is unConstitutional.





Of course. It all comes down to the same basic problem.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 09:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: windword


Again, Hobby Lobby nor your employer is required to provide equal protection. That's the Government's job.


And that is where ACA fails and is unConstitutional.





I'd love you to lucidly expand that argument, to convince the rest of us as to your logic.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 09:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc




the entire point of the act in the first place--to confirm and solidify protections under the First Amendment


LOL Yeah that's right! That's why the law explicitly states when and how the government MAY burden "person's' rights.

The ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE" left that out!


ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE

The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.
www.law.cornell.edu...


Well, again, since you obviously did not read the Constitution, we can't expect you to know what is or isn't Constitutional. The establishment clause is very important and essential to a free society--but also is the free exercise clause and you cannot follow one but ignore the other, even if you knew that it was part of the first amendment in the first place.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: windword


Again, Hobby Lobby nor your employer is required to provide equal protection. That's the Government's job.


And that is where ACA fails and is unConstitutional.





I'd love you to lucidly expand that argument, to convince the rest of us as to your logic.



Why bother? You didn't even bother to know what the whole first amendment said, so it's a bit pointless.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: windword


Please show us word for word where the SCOTUS Hobby Lobby ruling establishes preference for any single religion.

No side-stepping.

Cite and quote.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 09:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: windword


Again, Hobby Lobby nor your employer is required to provide equal protection. That's the Government's job.


And that is where ACA fails and is unConstitutional.





I'd love you to lucidly expand that argument, to convince the rest of us as to your logic.



One example;

The ACA "discriminates" against Women by forcing people who can't get employer coverage (the 50 or more full time rule) either by law or no job and don't qualify for Medicaid to buy insurance or pay fines.

They then by law must buy their own insurance and pay for everything connected including a fine if necessary.

That is one example of unequal protection under the law.

That part of the ACA is unConstitutional by argument of the 14th Amendment.

Wait till that case hits the SCOTUS.




posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen


This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs.


There is only one group that claims the religious moral high ground on contraception, and that's a sect of Christianity.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 09:58 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc

The "Free Exercise Clause" is the KEY to the RFRA. The Constitution can stand on its own, but RFRA is nothing without the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.
edit on 21-7-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 10:01 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen




The ACA "discriminates" against Women by forcing people who can't get employer coverage (the 50 or more full time rule) either by law or no job and don't qualify for Medicaid to buy insurance or pay fines.


I agree. But i'm not convinced by your 14th Amendment argument. It might be in there, but you argument needs a little work.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 10:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: xuenchen


This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs.


There is only one group that claims the religious moral high ground on contraception, and that's a sect of Christianity.




That leaves the door open though doesn't it.

They didn't specify any religion by name.

And, they only addressed the complaint issues, not all religious issues with all religions.

The interpretations from now on in lower courts will make that statement swing in all directions.

But still doesn't establish a specific religion's preference as law of the land.

Next....



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 10:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: xuenchen




The ACA "discriminates" against Women by forcing people who can't get employer coverage (the 50 or more full time rule) either by law or no job and don't qualify for Medicaid to buy insurance or pay fines.


I agree. But i'm not convinced by your 14th Amendment argument. It might be in there, but you argument needs a little work.



The lawyers will do the work.

Just like they did with Hobby Lobby.



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 10:09 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Gee, I hope they do better than Congress did with their.... how many times did they vote to repeal it?



posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 10:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: xuenchen

Gee, I hope they do better than Congress did with their.... how many times did they vote to repeal it?


The House has tried as a retaliatory effort.

They also passed many single-issue bills that may have actually helped the problems.

The Senate has done nothing to help anything.


edit on Jul-21-2014 by xuenchen because:




posted on Jul, 21 2014 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Well, it should be a two party issue. Too bad this "Do Nothing" Congress vowed to "Just Say No" to anything this administration endeavored to accomplish. We might be in a different place had we all tried to get thing done.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 07:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

The "Free Exercise Clause" is the KEY to the RFRA. The Constitution can stand on its own, but RFRA is nothing without the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment.


Shrug. You didn't even know the wording of the First Amendment, so here you are talking about verbiage and what is "key" or not "key" and you didn't even know what the amendment said in the first place. You make comments out of sheer ignorance.

let's look at this gem again, shall we?




LOL The "Free Exercise Clause" isn't part of the 1st Amendment. It's part of the RFRA.. HAHA


I'd suggest you bow out of any thread that discusses the Constitution, stop using Huffpo talking points, and actually read the Document in question.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc




You didn't even know the wording of the First Amendment,


What the hell are you talking about? You failed to show any constitutional argument that supports the Hobby Lobby decision.


Shrug, You lost the debate a while back. The SCOTUS ruling is based on an unconstitutional congressional act, not on the Constitution. You're the one that should bow out of the thread.



It was held unconstitutional as applied to the states in the City of Boerne v. Flores decision in 1997, which ruled that the RFRA is not a proper exercise of Congress's enforcement power. However, it continues to be applied to the federal government
en.wikipedia.org...


The RFRA violates the Establishment Clause. It needs to be repealed.

ETA: Oh, and just for good measure!



edit on 22-7-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 10:13 AM
link   
www.abovetopsecret.com...

the federal subsidies have been ruled ilegal.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think this will pretty much kill obamacare making this discussion rather irrelevant.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 10:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc




You didn't even know the wording of the First Amendment,


What the hell are you talking about? You failed to show any constitutional argument that supports the Hobby Lobby decision.


Shrug, You lost the debate a while back. The SCOTUS ruling is based on an unconstitutional congressional act, not on the Constitution. You're the one that should bow out of the thread.



It was held unconstitutional as applied to the states in the City of Boerne v. Flores decision in 1997, which ruled that the RFRA is not a proper exercise of Congress's enforcement power. However, it continues to be applied to the federal government
en.wikipedia.org...


The RFRA violates the Establishment Clause. It needs to be repealed.

ETA: Oh, and just for good measure!




LOL. We showed several times where the first amendment was both referenced in the SCOTUS decision and the HL case in addition to the RFRA.

You said this:


Show us where in the ruling the Constitution is referred to once.


We not only showed you once, we showed you several times. Now, it is not surprising that you did not know it was referenced because YOU DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT SAID as evidenced by this comment:



LOL The "Free Exercise Clause" isn't part of the 1st Amendment. It's part of the RFRA.. HAHA


You lost the Constitutional argument because YOU DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE CONSTITTUION SAID. You thought that all of those references to the free exercise clause in both the SCOTUS decision and the HL brief were not references to the first amendment because YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT ACTUALLY SAID. That is the most pitiful part of you--that extreme level of ignorance. Well, that and the fact that when, confronted by the truth, you cannot even admit your mistake and still play the "I see nothing, I hear nothing, game."

Your ignorance was on display for all to see and now it is getting sad.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join