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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Christianity & Hobby Lobby

page: 18
17
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 10:59 AM
link   
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.

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




posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 11:21 AM
link   

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, and, by your own words, you didn't even know what you were talking about. Having failed miserably, you now resort to a moronic ad hominum, which is typical of a failed argument and shows us your real ideology--and it's not supporting individual rights nor the Constitution.

My suggestion to you is a much more reasonable one.
And then actually read the Constitution so that you actually know what it says before you spout off about what is Constitutional or not. You may act dismissive, but you were caught out in being a fraud. Next time, read the doggone thing before you run your pie hole.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 12:12 PM
link   
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, RFRA, that SCOTUS ruled unconstitutional in 1997.

The ruling is unconstitutional in that it violates the 1st Amendment by establishing laws that "respects" religion. The ruling, coupled with the Wheaton College injunction, also violate the 14 Amendment by denying Equal Protection underthe (ACA) law.

You're wrong and I'm right.



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



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 12:14 PM
link   

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.




LOL. How can you say it violates first amendment when you did not even know what the first amendment said? That is your disconnect--your cognitive dissonance. Do you lack self insight so badly you cannot even see how laughable your premise looks given you did not even know the test of the first amendment?



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 12:17 PM
link   
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.
edit on 22-7-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 12:32 PM
link   

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.


Where the heck do you get off calling someone else a liar.

You said this:


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


and it was quoted before you could edit it and hide it. Now you are saying you didn't say that? Man, you are a dishonest person.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 12:40 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 01:08 PM
link   

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.

Now you are being disingenuous and are trying to back out of a real mistake and your sad attempt to do so even makes you look less intelligent.




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


See that comma between the establishment clause and the free exercise clause? That makes them separate clauses. Always did and they were always considered separate clauses because they express different thoughts. That's why they are referred to as such. The establishment clause is not referred to as the free exercise clause because they are, and listen closely, SEPERATE CLAUSES that express specific ideas. You didn't know this because you do not know your Constitution. The "Free exercise clause" expressed in BOTH the SCOTUS decision AND the RFRA both refer to the first amendment because that is where the "free exercise clause" originates and that phrase has always referred to the first amendment because that is where it was coined in the first place.

You were wrong because you were ignorant of the subject matter and you remain wrong even though you are trying to slime your way out of being caught in your ignorance and your machinations and attempt at semantic gymnastics does not change the fact that you were wrong because you were ignorant of the subject matter.

The professors at Cornel law know the difference:
www.law.cornell.edu...




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.



These guys know the difference:


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).



fpffressminds.blogspot.com...

So if everybody else in the world knows and treats them as two separate clauses except for you, what does that make you, educated on the subject or not?



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 01:20 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 01:32 PM
link   

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.






See, this is where your lack of understanding comes into play, The Free expression clause in both the SCOTUS decision and the RFRA are referring to the first amendment. It does not matter if the RFRA was declared unconstitutional, the first amendment still stands. In addition, the first amendment and the free expression clause in the first amendment were cited by SCOTUS as we have shown you several times in this thread. You didn't understand this because you did not know that the free expression clause was in the first amendment, now that you do, you are just being intentionally obtuse because you don't want to admit that you didn't know what you were talking about in the first place.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 01:36 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 01:52 PM
link   

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.



Language is important and in the law even more so. That you were smugly and condescendingly lecturing people on the Constitution when you did not even know the text of the first Amendment and then try to weasel out of it with this nonsense of "I didn't know the establishment clause was also called the free expression clause" when everybody who has read the text can clearly see they are two separate clauses and they have been treated as two separate clauses by, well, everybody since it was written, goes to show that you don't understand the subject matter. When you obviously don't understand the subject matter--the most basic part of the subject matter even--then you have no right to tell others what is or isn't so. You cannot educate when you come from a position of ignorance. When you didn't even know that the free expression clause was in the first amendment and you spout off with this nonsense:


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


Then you really are in no position to tell anyone what the SCOTUS is referring to in their decision because you didn't understand the basic references in the first place.

SCOTUS referred to the First Amendment quite clearly in their decision both directly and indirectly. This has been demonstrated to you multiple times and explained to you multiple times. That you did not even know the verbiage of the basic amendment we are discussing, you have zero ground to say that they were not referring to the first. How could you? You did not even understand what the first said.

The Free Expression clause as a reference to the first amendment by SCOTUS existed long before the RFRA act, and as such, their reference to the first amendment when using it is obvious to anyone who has read and studied and knows the subject matter. Obviously that excludes you.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 02:06 PM
link   
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!


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



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 02:29 PM
link   

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!



Again. You are in no position to do the silly headslap meme because you have demonstrated that you have no knowledge of the subject matter at hand. You are right, we don't need the RFRA and we shouldn't have it because, as you previously were ignorant of, the free exercise of religion is guaranteed by the First Amendment, and if people and politicians would simply follow that simple document, as intended, we would not have these issues arise.

However, you were wrong. The First Amendment was referenced in both the SCOTUS decision and the HL amicus brief. The Freedom of Exercise clause is in the First Amendment, it is not just another name for the establishment clause, as you ignorantly claimed, as it conveys a separate thought and it has been referred to in SCOTUS decisions for over 200 years before the RFRA came into being so suggesting that the mention of the freedom of exercise clause was a reference to the RFRA and not the first amendment is moronic.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: windword


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!


Perhaps you can write the "Moot Court" decision that would have not upheld the lower court decision.

Use the 1st Amendment argument only.

Might be interesting to see your "final ruling".






posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   
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.




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



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 03:03 PM
link   

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.





Again, you are wrong. You, since you have demonstrated a clear lack of understanding on the subject matter, you really have no standing to tell anyone that they are wrong.

And, given your lack of understanding of the Constitution, it is not surprising that you don't understand that the Constitutional standard is not "The government is NOT obligated to consider special people's "closely held religious beliefs" when considering enacting laws", but that the state must show clear need and reasonable accommodation before deciding "screw your religious objections." Otherwise, the Amish would have been drafted into WWI and WWII, the Amish would have been forced into state schools (Yoder decision 1972), 7th Day Adventists would have been denied unemployment benefits (Sherbert), Alaskan Natives would have been banned from hunting moose (1979 in Frank v Alaska), Lyng v Northwest Protective Cemetery Association in 1988 provided a major hint of the revolution in Free Exercise law to come by adopting a per se rule that the government need not concern itself with the impact that its land use decisions might have on religious practices. All done before the RFRA, so if you think that this is all from the RFRA, you are wrong.

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. You r argument is silly and you lost it in a plume of ignorance a long time ago.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 03:18 PM
link   
a reply to: NavyDoc


Yes, the Amish redressed the law, and were given exemption as Conscientious Objectors, but Congress didn't suspend the law.

A person is required to pay a registration fee and obtain a drivers license if they want to drive on our roads. If someone thinks that those items are "mark of the beast" items, they don't have to drive. Their beliefs don't override the law.

Congress is strictly forbidden to consider or respect religion when drafting laws. The Constitution allows avenues of redress on an individual bases. The Hobby Lobby decision didn't overturn the law, the law is still in tact.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 03:25 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 03:31 PM
link   

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.





Taken from this: 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

And referred as such in many, many SCOTUS cases that preceded the RFRA. Without a time machine, mind you. When the SCOTUS refers to the First Amendment, they refer to the first amendment or the specific clause therein, when they refer to the RFRA, the refer to the RFRA by section. Very specifically.

But then, since you have demonstrated an abominable understanding of the Constitution and the Court, this is not surprising. You should really find your old civics teacher and slap him silly for having failed you.

SCOTUS made a distinction between the two here:



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.


Not the "Free exercise clause OF the RFRA" but the RFRA AND the Free Exercise clause (something you didn't know existed but a few pages ago) of the First Amendment. Two separate entities. Remember, language is important and you need to learn some comprehension.

SCOTUS also showed us what they meant here:



(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.



FIRST AMENDMENT! All you have is your Huffpo talking points that you clutch onto with both hands, but that's all you have because your knowledge on the subject is so awful.
edit on 22-7-2014 by NavyDoc because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
17
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join