Christianity & Hobby Lobby

a reply to: NavyDoc

Except that the they didn't win on 1st Amendment grounds, they only won the right to "claim" 1st Amendment rights as a Corporation, so the RFRA would apply to them. The 1st Amendment would not have sufficiently protected them without the RFRA.

You are incorrectly assuming the 1st Amendment won them their case, it didn't. It only allowed them to present their case, as individual people, and only because of activist judges that declared corporations could hold "sincerely held beliefs" for the first time ever. They won their case based on the RFRA, not on the 1st Amendment.

If the RFRA were to be repealed, their ruling would fall apart.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

Except that the they didn't win on 1st Amendment grounds, they only won the right to "claim" 1st Amendment rights as a Corporation, so the RFRA would apply to them. The 1st Amendment would not have sufficiently protected them without the RFRA.

You are incorrectly assuming the 1st Amendment won them their case, it didn't. It only allowed them to present their case, as individual people, and only because of activist judges that declared corporations could hold "sincerely held beliefs" for the first time ever. They won their case based on the RFRA, not on the 1st Amendment.

But now you are changing your criteria. You started out this challenge by stating:

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

You were proven wrong--probably because you never really read the whole document but rather were relying on Huffpo talking points--because it was mentioned a heck of a lot more than once.

Certainly the first amendment won them their case. The whole case was based on the First Amendment and the RFRA was based directly on the first amendment. The only contribution of the RFRA was that it attempted to support previous cases where civil rights extensions were given to companies since companies are simply collaborations of individuals who sure as heck have civil liberties.

a reply to: NavyDoc

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

Fine. I overstated my case. However, I'm not wrong that the ruling depends on the RFRA, not the 1st Amendment, and if the RFRA were to be repealed, the ruling would fall apart.

Ironically, the RFRA was originally written to foil a SCOTUS decision.

The test is inapplicable to an across-the-board criminal prohibition on a particular form of conduct. A holding to the contrary would create an extraordinary right to ignore generally applicable laws that are not supported by "compelling governmental interest" on the basis of religious belief.

Nor could such a right be limited to situations in which the conduct prohibited is "central" to the individual's religion, since that would enmesh judges in an impermissible inquiry into the centrality of particular beliefs or practices to a faith. Cf. Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S. 680, 699. Thus, although it is constitutionally permissible to exempt sacramental peyote use from the operation of drug laws, it is not constitutionally required.
Justice Scalia

www.law.cornell.edu...

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

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

Fine. I overstated my case. However, I'm not wrong that the ruling depends on the RFRA, not the 1st Amendment, and if the RFRA were to be repealed, the ruling would fall apart.

Ironically, the RFRA was originally written to foil a SCOTUS decision.

The test is inapplicable to an across-the-board criminal prohibition on a particular form of conduct. A holding to the contrary would create an extraordinary right to ignore generally applicable laws that are not supported by "compelling governmental interest" on the basis of religious belief.

Nor could such a right be limited to situations in which the conduct prohibited is "central" to the individual's religion, since that would enmesh judges in an impermissible inquiry into the centrality of particular beliefs or practices to a faith. Cf. Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S. 680, 699. Thus, although it is constitutionally permissible to exempt sacramental peyote use from the operation of drug laws, it is not constitutionally required.
Justice Scalia

www.law.cornell.edu...

Shrug. That's your opinion, but I think we all have seen in this thread the tenuous base your opinion has.

a reply to: NavyDoc

It's not only my opinion. The only reason that I'm up on this, and yes I did my due diligence and studied up on it, but the MSM was all over it.

I watched an interview with Hillary Clinton, in which she advocated amending the RFRA, in order to "fix" the Supreme Court ruling, as well as several other politicians, talking heads and the Congress members who wrote the bill. They all understood and relayed the fact that the ruling could be nullified by repealing or amending the RFRA.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

It's not only my opinion. The only reason that I'm up on this, and yes I did my due diligence and studied up on it, but the MSM was all over it.

I watched an interview with Hillary Clinton, in which she advocated amending the RFRA, in order to "fix" the Supreme Court ruling, as well as several other politicians, talking heads and the Congress members who wrote the bill. They all understood and relayed the fact that the ruling could be nullified by repealing or amending the RFRA.

Shrug. It's your opinion and I'd suggest given the issues you've had with understanding simple Constitutional concepts that it's obvious that the only "due diligence" you've done was to take Hillary's word on it, which is even more suspect.

Blaming the RFRA is part of the left's talking points on this subject and that is there whole meme. I've seen it all over and it is simply them pointing fingers and dodging the true issues. It's not surprising that you've taken this hook, line, and sinker.

a reply to: NavyDoc


Whatever dude. You don't like the truth of the matter. I get it.

The Scalia opinion/ruling, that I posted above, proves that the Hobby Lobby case couldn't have held up without the RFRA. The RFRA was authored to nullify the Court's denial of religious rights of Native Americans to use peyote for religious purposes. That's a well documented fact.

Repeal the RFRA and the Hobby Lobby ruling falls apart. That's also a fact.

given the issues you've had with understanding simple Constitutional concepts

Again, repeating lies, insults and slurs, over and over again don't make those lies, insults and slurs true. It's an obvious propaganda tactic and a ploy used by someone backed into a corner because they're losing an argument.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc


Whatever dude. You don't like the truth of the matter. I get it.

The Scalia opinion/ruling, that I posted above, proves that the Hobby Lobby case couldn't have held up without the RFRA. The RFRA was authored to nullify the Court's denial of religious rights of Native Americans to use peyote for religious purposes. That's a well documented fact.

Repeal the RFRA and the Hobby Lobby ruling falls apart. That's also a fact.

given the issues you've had with understanding simple Constitutional concepts

Again, repeating lies, insults and slurs, over and over again don't make those lies, insults and slurs true. It's an obvious propaganda tactic and a ploy used by someone backed into a corner because they're losing an argument.

Shrug. No, it's a statement of fact. You demonstrated a rather large ignorance of the Constitution and the First Amendment and you just admitted that you were just parroting Clinton and leftist talking points. You went from saying that the first amendment was not mentioned once, proven wrong. Then you stated that the free exercise clause was not in the first amendment, proven wrong. Then you made the silly excuse that you didn't know that the establishment clause was also called the free exercise clause. Proven wrong. Then you stated that they meant the RFRA when referring to the "free exercise clause." Proven wrong. Now you admitted that, as I said earlier, that you were just parroting the talking points and didn't have a basic knowledge of the subject matter.

You don't care about the Constitution or civil rights, your underlying motivation came out when you got frustrated and called me a tool of the Vatican conspiracy and a corporate shill--that's your real motivation. You, like most progressives, give lip service to freedom and the law because your real agenda is not that pleasant. Thus we even learned more about you in this discussion.

You hate religion and you hate business and this is where you are coming from and thus this decision must really upset the heck out of you to see both your prejudices combined in one case. LOL.

You are the one who kept changing his story when challenged and you are the one who demonstrated a lot of ignorance and you are the one who just admitted that you are following Hillary's lead. You've been outed.

OK Folks.

Let's step back from the personal remarks.


Please address the topic sans the snipping and baiting .

Again.... Stop making it personal .


It's not needed nor conducive to productive debate.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Shrug. No, it's a statement of fact. You demonstrated a rather large ignorance of the Constitution and the First Amendment and you just admitted that you were just parroting Clinton and leftist talking points.

As I explained, the MSM provided the information that sent me on my journey to understand why and how the SCOTUS decision was made. My opinion and my words are my own.

I am merely and consistently defending my position that the SCOTUS ruling was NOT based on the 1st amendment. It matters not what the various clauses are called, or that a "Free Exercise Clause" exists, in name, in both the 1st Amendment and the RFRA, (They are very different in meaning and application) or that I was previously under the assumption that the entire 1st Amendment is called "The Establishment Clause".

As soon as the Supreme Court decided for Hobby Lobby and against the Obama administration’s contraception mandate on Monday (June 30), critics called for the repeal of the 1993 law that the justices relied on to make their 5-4 decision.

A Washington Post editorial suggested the next day that the statute — the Religious Freedom Restoration Act — could be narrowed in scope.
www.washingtonpost.com... bc8d_story.html

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act should be repealed because it is unconstitutional, unprincipled and a sword believers gladly wield against nonbelievers.
www.nytimes.com... treme-religious-liberty

Ironically. The Religious Freedom and Restoration Act is an Orwellian conundrum that actually outlines when and why the government can burden or obstruct the free exercise of religious practices. It needs to be mended or ended. This is not only my opinion, but the opinion of many, on both sides of the political spectrum.

Repeal Religious Freedom Restoration Act

a reply to: spirited75

Contraceptive mandate set forth in regulations implementing Affordable Care Act, as applied to closely-held for-profit corporations whose Christian owners believe that life begins at conception, violates Religious Freedom Restoration Act, despite contention that corporations are not “persons” who can engage in “exercise of religion” under RFRA, since Dictionary Act defines word “person” as including corporations, non-profit corporations are protected under RFRA, and argument that furthering religious autonomy of non-profit corporations serves to further individual religious freedom applies equally to for-profit corporations. www2.bloomberglaw.com...

notice the words "applies equally" within that quote??

they didn't apply it equally since they did not address any individuals right to refuse to buy insurance covering dependents that include birth control coverage!!

a reply to: dawnstar
dawn star you have me confused with one of the other posters.

i applaud the scotus ruling on the matter.

originally posted by: spirited75
a reply to: dawnstar
dawn star you have me confused with one of the other posters.

i applaud the scotus ruling on the matter.

I do too but for different reasons than most. I'm not Christian, I do no believe in the supernatural, and I don't care about birth control. I am coming from the standpoint of limited government that interferes the least and thus am against government mandates. What many people fail to understand that if they give the government power and precedent to force people they don't like to do stuff they don't want, they also give the government power and precedent to force themselves to do things they don't want. It may be fine and dandy when "your side" is winning the culture wars, but it will be awful when that political pendulum swings. If someone does not want an all powerful theocracy then for crying out loud do not give the government the tools to become that powerful an entity.

a reply to: NavyDoc

and it is much better that the businesses have such power???

I am not a christian either really I've just attended some really conservative churches throughout my life.

Hobby Lobby claims that they have a problem with including birth control in the healthcare benefits they provide to their employees.. Okay I do understand their feelings really I do.

But I have to ask...
I have read the bible many times from cover to cover... although I see where it clearly gives the parents the responsibility to teach their children the ways of God you have to do a little twisting of words to say that employers have that responsibility to their employees.
I may be wrong but I don't see any way for the parent of the teenage daughter to avoid having to buy coverage that covers birth control. If she even find coverage that excludes it I don't see where she could avoid the penalty to the gov't.

Although they have given a business that option.

The idea that the businesses pay the bulk of the costs I also have a problem with. I think that may be true sometimes but I am registered with alot of temp agencies and have for some reason got the information about their health plans and they have all gave the information about the heathcare plans but then directed them to the federal exchange because they know their employees in no way can afford it.. they would take most of their paychecks! I think the last arrangement at my former's employer was more like 50/50 and they spend hours with different providers to come up with an arrangement that both the employer and the employee could accept! And obviously the employers still can't pick and chose their options as to what is in their plans because he gave them heck over certain things in it he didn't like (not having the freedom to go outside their network for care for one) at the meeting we had so they could explain the plan to us!

Although I agree for the most part that the mandates themselves should go and that business should be able to run their businesses the way they want within reason the supreme court has ruled against us on both these issue!

But the supreme court seems to left the door open for all kinds of discrimination to take place in the employee-employer relationship (as long as they can find a religious grounds for it) but so far hasn't taken into consideration the religious views of the people who also have religious beliefs similar to hobby lobby and the other businesses.
I disagree that the businesses have the obligation to protect people from themselves more than the parent has that obligation to protect their child!

And this seems to lead me to the conclusion that the whole argument is less about people's religious rights and more about the business's rights to "run their business as they see fit"!

Well here's some clues as to how some of those christian businesses would chose to run them.
Some they are doing now although it is probably illegal. It's just that it's hard to prove that they are doing it!

I want to reveal to you a little strategy that I picked up on when I was going to church..
Want God to bless you with more money??? Ya??? Okay as much as you can try to make sure that every penny you earn stays within the family!!
choose christain businesses over non christian ones to spend you money at as often as you can.
And...it also means choosing christian employees over non christain.

The christian religions are all pretty much stuck in a patriarchal mindset...
God put men in charge and the women are to be just followers that should center their attention on keeping the home, raising the kids, and helping their husbands...
They teach that the women are to be obedient to their husbands. Yes they have tried to soften that down somewhat but it is still taught! It is the reason Ieft the church to begin with and I've tried a few different churchs since. You see if you are a wife who has a husband who really doesn't want you spending time at church this rule kind of leaves you in catch 22!
But since they believe that an employer might decide that you shouldn't be working...unless of course your husband wants you to and demand a permission slip from your husband for you to keep your job!

Or they could just say that the workplace is no place for women!!!

How are any of these beilefs different than the belief about birth control?
Should they also not be respected??

And if the supreme court ever decided that they should..

would the relgious rights of the people be respected yet? or would the parent still be force to have insurance covering birth control even after the religious rights of the business caused her to lose her job?

If religious rights are to be considered relevant in the workplace then shouldn't the employees also be protected?
if an employee is instructed to do something they feel is not right -lie, cheat, endanger others, ect. can they refuse without repercussions?
finding another job is the equivalent of hobby lobby having to pay the fine by the way!
it was deemed that they should be relieved of the fine
so should not the employee also be deemed not to have to face the repercussions of refusing to do something they feel is wrong?

the hobby lobby decision is wrong!!
It was made only as a fix to other wrongs that the supreme court has already made!
They should have decided against the idea of the mandate to begin with.
And it has given businesses way more power than they deserve!

a reply to: dawnstar


The simple answer is that a business might suck, but you can avoid the ones you dislike for the most part, they have completion, even the big ones, and they cannot control every aspect of your life. OTOH, the government is the largest monopoly of power in the country--perhaps the world, given the size of the US bureaucracy--and they have no competition and you cannot avoid them if you want.

Big government is the greater evil and the more likely evil than big business.

IMHO, SCOTUS decision was in keeping with the Constitution and the principle of limited government. The government should not be in the business of mandating healthcare or employee compensation.

Just to be fair, I also disagree with DOMA, for example, because the federal government has no business protecting "marriage" or deciding who should or should not get married. It is not one of their enumerated powers.


Mod Note: Excessive Quoting – Please Review This Link

originally posted by: NavyDoc


IMHO, SCOTUS decision was in keeping with the Constitution and the principle of limited government. The government should not be in the business of mandating healthcare or employee compensation.

Simple? Yes. Let's be clear.

5 male Catholic conservative judges made this decision.

The rest of the judges were in opposition. Some very vocal in their opposition.

The 8 Best Lines From Ginsburg's Dissent on the Hobby Lobby Contraception Decision

www.motherjones.com...