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.
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.
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc
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.
"The First Amendment was referenced"
Bwahahahahah!
LOL, it had nothing to do with the ruling, however.
Go back to your Navy job of defending the Vatican and the corporate interests of America, the land of corporate people.
I'm done with your rhetorical BS.
You made a statement, you were proven wrong,
The Court assumes that the interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods is a compelling governmental interest, but the Government has failed to show that the contraceptive mandate is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc
You made a statement, you were proven wrong,
No. You were proven wrong.
For the last time: The Hobby Lobby SCOTUS Ruling
The Court assumes that the interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods is a compelling governmental interest, but the Government has failed to show that the contraceptive mandate is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.
The ruling is not based on the 1st Amendment or the "Establishment Clause". It's based on a Congressional Act, that SCOTUS ruled unconstitutional in 1997.
The ruling is unconstitutional in that it violates the 1st Amendment by establishing laws that respect religion. The ruling, coupled with the Wheaton College injunction, also violate the 14 Amendment by denying Equal Protection on the (ACA) law.
You're wrong and I'm right.
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc
How can you say it violates first amendment when you did not even know what the first amendment said?
Repeating lies doesn't make them magically come true.
LOL The "Free Exercise Clause" isn't part of the 1st Amendment. It's part of the RFRA.. HAHA
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc
What you quoted, what I said is partially true. The "Free Exercise Clause" is part of the RFRA. When I posted that comment, I didn't know that the 1st Amendment "Establishment Clause" was also, sometimes, referred to as the "Free Exercise Clause". However, when the "free Exercise Clause" is mentioned the SCOTUS syllabus, its referring to the RFRA, because the decision was based on the "Free Exercise Clause" of the RFRA.
Is your pretty little jar head satisfied yet?
Once again, just for good measure. Your'e wrong. I'm right.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
Two clauses of the First Amendment concern the relationship of government to religion: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. Although the clauses were intended by the framers to serve common values, there is some tension between the two. For example, some people might suggest that providing a military chaplain for troops stationed overseas violates the Establishment Clause, while others might suggest that failing to provide a chaplain violates the Free Exercise Clause rights of the same troops. I will, however, postpone discussion of how the two clauses ought to be reconciled, and begin with an examination of the meaning of the Establishment Clause.
At an absolute minimum, the Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion, such as existed in many other countries at the time of the nation's founding. It is far less clear whether the Establishment Clause was also intended to prevent the federal government from supporting Christianity in general. Proponents of a narrow interpretation of the clause point out that the same First Congress that proposed the Bill of Rights also opened its legislative day with prayer and voted to apportion federal dollars to establish Christian missions in the Indian lands. On the other hand, persons seeing a far broader meaning in the clause point to writings by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison suggesting the need to establish "a wall of separation" between church and state.
The Establishment Clause (Separation of Church and State)
I wish I had a dollar for every time a conservative said: “The term separation of church and state appears nowhere in the constitution.” This is true, but the terms political party, democracy, and ‘checks and balances’ do not appear in the constitution either, yet they are part of the language we use to explain the meaning of various elements found the constitution. Thomas Jefferson was the one who coined the term “separation of church and state” to describe the meaning of the “establishment clause” of the First Amendment. Let’s examine the establishment clause:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
Period. End of sentence. When used in conjunction with the Fourteenth Amendment , ‘congress’ also means any other legal body in the United States “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The Ten Commandments on government property is in fact an establishment of religion by the government, therefore unconstitutional. With the addition of ‘under god’ in the Pledge of Allegiance , requiring students to recite this phrase in public schools also shows religious favoritism which ‘respects’ or encourages the belief of monotheism versus polytheism or atheism; none of which can be a favored religious belief by the U.S. government.
The Free Exercise Clause
The free exercise clause is what confuses many people who believe erecting manger scenes or displays of The Ten Commandments on government property is an issue of free exercise of religion. Let’s examine the exercise clause (the establishment clause has been purposely taken out for clarity of the exercise clause; my interpretation is in the brackets).
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc
Any of that might matter IF the SCOTUS decision has anything to with the 1st Amendment alone, but it didn't. The entire ruling is dependent on the "Free Exercise Clause" of the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, that SCOTUS ruled unconstitutional in 1997.
You didn't understand this because you did not know that the free expression clause was in the first amendment,
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc
You didn't understand this because you did not know that the free expression clause was in the first amendment,
That's BS that exists only in your mind. Not knowing the name of a phrase has nothing to do with comprehending the Constitution, the RFRA or the SCOTUS ruling.
You're just nit-picking, trying attack my character and my intelligence to win a point that you've obviously lost.
LOL The "Free Exercise Clause" isn't part of the 1st Amendment. It's part of the RFRA.. HAHA
lecturing people on the Constitution when you did not even know the text of the first Amendment
The Free Expression clause as a reference to the first amendment by SCOTUS existed long before the RFRA act
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc
lecturing people on the Constitution when you did not even know the text of the first Amendment
Again, this is a reality that exists only in your mind.
The Free Expression clause as a reference to the first amendment by SCOTUS existed long before the RFRA act
How ever did we get along for all these years without the RFRA? How did corporations survive without having the express right to closely held beliefs? /sarc
The fact of the matter is, Hobby didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning this case based on the 1st Amendment. The ONLY reason it won was because its defense was based on the RFRA. PERIOD!
The fact of the matter is, Hobby didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning this case based on the 1st Amendment. The ONLY reason it won was because its defense was based on the RFRA. PERIOD!
The Court assumes that the interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods is a compelling governmental interest, but the Government has failed to show that the contraceptive mandate is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc
Again, you're wrong.
I lied when I said I was posting this for the last time, apparently:
The Court assumes that the interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods is a compelling governmental interest, but the Government has failed to show that the contraceptive mandate is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.
This is the crux of the decision. The decision is based on the premise that the government has every right to impose the contraception mandate, however, it didn't meet the standard of the law, the RFRA law, that states that the government MUST use the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. The COURT ruled that government failed under the RFRA.
There is no 1st Amendment protection against the ACA or any government mandate. The government is NOT obligated to consider special people's "closely held religious beliefs" when considering enacting laws.
If you think the phrase "Free exercise clause" refers to the RFRA, then all of those cases above and many more dating all of the way back to the 1800's must have been judged by men who went forward in time so that they could reference the RFRA because they all used that reference in reference to the first amendment.
SEC. 3. FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION PROTECTED.
(a) IN GENERAL. -- Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).
(b) EXCEPTION. -- Government may burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person --
(1) furthers a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
The Court assumes that the interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods is a compelling governmental interest, but the Government has failed to show that the contraceptive mandate is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.
originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc
If you think the phrase "Free exercise clause" refers to the RFRA, then all of those cases above and many more dating all of the way back to the 1800's must have been judged by men who went forward in time so that they could reference the RFRA because they all used that reference in reference to the first amendment.
This is the "Free Exercise Clause" of the RFRA
SEC. 3. FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION PROTECTED.
(a) IN GENERAL. -- Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b).
(b) EXCEPTION. -- Government may burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person --
(1) furthers a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
This is from the ruling:
The Court assumes that the interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods is a compelling governmental interest, but the Government has failed to show that the contraceptive mandate is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.
In separate actions,they sued HHS and other federal officials and agencies (collectively HHS) under RFRA and the Free Exercise Clause, seeking to enjoin application of the contraceptive mandate insofar as it requires them to provide health coverage for the four objectionable contraceptives. In No. 13–356, the District Court denied the Hahns and their company—Conestoga Wood Specialties—a preliminary injunction.
Affirming, the Third Circuit held that a for-profit corporation could not “engage in religious exercise” under RFRA or the First Amendment, and that the mandate imposed no requirements on the Hahns in their personal capacity.
(iii) Also flawed is the claim that RFRA offers no protection because it only codified pre-Smith Free Exercise Clause precedents, none of which squarely recognized free-exercise rights for for-profit corporations. First, nothing in RFRA as originally enacted suggested that its definition of “exercise of religion” was meant to be tied to pre-Smith interpretations of the First Amendment. Second, if RFRA’s original text were not clear enough, the RLUIPA amendment surely dispels any doubt that Congress intended to separate the definition of the phrase from that in First Amendment case law.