Now corporations soon to have "freedom of religion"? Really?

[dblack]

Ah, but what if the courts rule against Hobby Lobby? What then? I'll tell you what will happen; all those bad things you mentioned above, but reversed and against religion.

The Hobby Lobby will have every incentive to join those of us fighting to repeal an unjust law.

What, exactly, do you think they are doing?

They're fighting for the privilege of being exempted from a law everyone else has to follow.

 

[Political Junky]

With the humanization of corporations, when will Texas execute one.

 

[billyerock1991]

It seems that the people who own Hobby Lobby are going to protest the ACA on the grounds that it makes provisions for birth control, and because the owners are against birth control, they should be allowed "freedom of religion" for their business......................


Supreme Court and Obamacare contraception mandate: Are companies ?persons? with religious freedom rights?

Now...............the ACA already exempts non profit religions organizations from this law, but does that mean that we should now allow for profit companies to impose their religious views on their workers?

What next? Giving corporations that are owned by devout Christians the ability to discriminate against hiring workers because they are Islamic or Jewish because their belief systems clash with what Christianity teaches?

It's a slippery slope that is being trod upon here..........................

if they do they will have to become a church Run organization and non-profit...
I don't see that happening anytime soon

 

[manifold]

prescription is needed for some devices which are not medical treatment

such as...?

Air purifiers, air ionizers, numerous walkers, wheelchairs, penile enlargement devices, commodes, beds, seats, hearing aides, vision aids, the list is endless...

most of those can be purchased online, without a prescription.

Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

 

[billyerock1991]

The Hobby Lobby will have every incentive to join those of us fighting to repeal an unjust law.

What, exactly, do you think they are doing?

They're fighting for the privilege of being exempted from a law everyone else has to follow.

when you become a profit company, you have to accept the commerce clause ...you have to follow the law for the majority ... not for your beliefs

 

[billyerock1991]

such as...?

Air purifiers, air ionizers, numerous walkers, wheelchairs, penile enlargement devices, commodes, beds, seats, hearing aides, vision aids, the list is endless...

most of those can be purchased online, without a prescription.

Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

why should you have to pay for something that every body else gets with the payment of their health care... why do they get to force their religious beliefs on their employees ... when they are clearly violating the constitution of freedom of religion...

 

[manifold]

They're fighting for the privilege of being exempted from a law everyone else has to follow.

Cannot be stated any more succinctly or accurately.

If a law violates anyone's freedom of religion, then surely it is an unjust law in it's entirety and should therefore be struck down. As slim a chance as that has of happening, it's about the only chance Hobby has in this case. The idea that the Supreme Court would grant them an exemption to the law just because they object to it on religious grounds is pretty preposterous. I'm not so cynical as to believe the Court could be that stupid.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Liberty University's appeal on religious grounds was denied hearing yesterday by SCOTUS, which ends that avenue.

 

[dblack]

Air purifiers, air ionizers, numerous walkers, wheelchairs, penile enlargement devices, commodes, beds, seats, hearing aides, vision aids, the list is endless...

most of those can be purchased online, without a prescription.

Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

why should you have to pay for something that every body else gets with the payment of their health care... why do they get to force their religious beliefs on their employees ... when they are clearly violating the constitution of freedom of religion...

No, you're mistaken. The constitutional freedom of religion pertains to the government's ability to legislate regarding religion and has nothing to do with the demands made or benefits offered by a business to its employees. A business has no power to coerce it's employees, so it can't violate their freedom of religion.

 

[dblack]

What, exactly, do you think they are doing?

They're fighting for the privilege of being exempted from a law everyone else has to follow.

when you become a profit company, you have to accept the commerce clause ...you have to follow the law for the majority ... not for your beliefs

Well, that's definitely where the problem is. This isn't a freedom of religion issue, it's a freedom issue, and the broad interpretation of the commerce clause you're citing is a gross violation.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Hobby Lobby will have every incentive to join those of us fighting to repeal an unjust law.

What, exactly, do you think they are doing?

They're fighting for the privilege of being exempted from a law everyone else has to follow.

Just because they are better at asserting their rights than you does not mean that you will not benefit.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

With the humanization of corporations, when will Texas execute one.

This is from a person that is quite willing to assert that corporations have rights when the position benefits her in some way.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They're fighting for the privilege of being exempted from a law everyone else has to follow.

Cannot be stated any more succinctly or accurately.

If a law violates anyone's freedom of religion, then surely it is an unjust law in it's entirety and should therefore be struck down. As slim a chance as that has of happening, it's about the only chance Hobby has in this case. The idea that the Supreme Court would grant them an exemption to the law just because they object to it on religious grounds is pretty preposterous. I'm not so cynical as to believe the Court could be that stupid.

Except that you refuse to allow the courts to strike down laws simply because it violates freedom of religion. That is your problem, not mine.

 

[manifold]

They're fighting for the privilege of being exempted from a law everyone else has to follow.

Cannot be stated any more succinctly or accurately.

If a law violates anyone's freedom of religion, then surely it is an unjust law in it's entirety and should therefore be struck down. As slim a chance as that has of happening, it's about the only chance Hobby has in this case. The idea that the Supreme Court would grant them an exemption to the law just because they object to it on religious grounds is pretty preposterous. I'm not so cynical as to believe the Court could be that stupid.

Except that you refuse to allow the courts to strike down laws simply because it violates freedom of religion. That is your problem, not mine.

Reading for comprehension, it's all the rage... give it a try sometime.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Liberty University's appeal on religious grounds was denied hearing yesterday by SCOTUS, which ends that avenue.

Liberty University challenged the entire fucking mandate on employers on the grounds that it violated the constitution, they didn't challenge it on religious freedom grounds. I guess that makes you wrong, as usual.

 

[manifold]

Liberty University's appeal on religious grounds was denied hearing yesterday by SCOTUS, which ends that avenue.

Liberty University challenged the entire fucking mandate on employers on the grounds that it violated the constitution, they didn't challenge it on religious freedom grounds. I guess that makes you wrong, as usual.

So now you're arguing that violating religious freedom is not violating the Constitution?

 

[Dot Com]

they need to either go non-profit or abide by the law.

 

[Sallow]

Nope, it can't.

educate yourself before showing your ignorance to the world.

If the court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby? All medical procedures would be subject to religious scrutiny by corporations.

Additionally, corporations could deny employment to people of different faiths.

It's a very dangerous case.

Thanks for displaying your complete ignorance.

Tell me something, why do you have to base every argument you make on lies?

What lie?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Cannot be stated any more succinctly or accurately.

If a law violates anyone's freedom of religion, then surely it is an unjust law in it's entirety and should therefore be struck down. As slim a chance as that has of happening, it's about the only chance Hobby has in this case. The idea that the Supreme Court would grant them an exemption to the law just because they object to it on religious grounds is pretty preposterous. I'm not so cynical as to believe the Court could be that stupid.

Except that you refuse to allow the courts to strike down laws simply because it violates freedom of religion. That is your problem, not mine.

Where the fuck did you come up with that?

Where the fuck did you ever argue that the fact that Mennonites are exempted from Social Security means that everyone should be exempted from it? Where the fuck did you ever argue that the fact that Obamacare regulations are specifically written to exempt churches from the mandates means that everyone should be exempted?

Until you start actually staking out, and defending, the position you just espoused, I am perfectly free to point out that your position is actually what it is.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Liberty University's appeal on religious grounds was denied hearing yesterday by SCOTUS, which ends that avenue.

Liberty University challenged the entire fucking mandate on employers on the grounds that it violated the constitution, they didn't challenge it on religious freedom grounds. I guess that makes you wrong, as usual.

So now you're arguing that violating religious freedom is not violating the Constitution?

No, I am arguing that Liberty University did not challenge the law on behalf of their being a religious institution, and that makes Jake wrong. The fact that you are attempting to defend him just reinforces my position.