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

[Vox]

Beating of the wife is not a religious belief.

You must not be familiar with Islam.

yes, I am familiar with Islam.
But I do not engage in a strawmen argument.

 

[Vox]

Where did you get that idea? Would that mean Muslims can't be punished for beating their wives then?

paying for your privileges ( including the whole insurance) has nothing to do with violence against the private citizen. Beating of the wife is not a religious belief.

Please don't dodge the point. There are, or at least have been, religions which practice human or animal sacrifice. I'm assuming you wouldn't argue they should get a pass in the name of religious freedom. Surely you can see that the point of the first amendment isn't to protect religious practices when the come into conflict the law. The point is to keep the law from targeting religions.

there is NO point.
Violence against someone's human rights has absolutely nothing to do with violence in imposing the oppression to PAY for somebody's life style.

 

[manifold]

Beating of the wife is not a religious belief.

You must not be familiar with Islam.

yes, I am familiar with Islam.
But I do not engage in a strawmen argument.

It's commonplace for Muslim men to beat their wives.

That's a fact, not a strawman.

Go buy a dictionary or learn to fuck'n google already.

 

[Vox]

I'd like to believe that. But it looks the opposite to me. The more groups that can score their own exemptions, the more likely it will remain law. That's why they're cutting all the deals in the first place.

that is your personal opinion and a wrong one. The Constitution is there to protect us from the government not to protect one group of private citizens from the other group of private citizens. employer's denial do pay for your privileges does not impose anything on you( you can walk away from the employer), government pressure on the employer of it's, government, values - is OPPRESSION and a direct violation of the First Amendment - you can not walk away from the government's oppression. Or, you can walk away by harming YOU, a private citizen, but staying in scope of government oppression - and the end result is going to be more harm for the end receiver - you, a private employee, because of that government oppression of the private employer.

Right or wrong academically, your reasoning would also suggest that minimum wage laws and a whole litany of other labor laws are unconstitutional. Since stare decisis clearly shows that's not the case, outside of an academic vacuum your argument has no legs to stand on.

so far the Supreme Court ALWAYS been strucking down the violation by the government of religious freedom, we will see what will happen this time.

Labor laws have ABSOLUTELY ZERO relevance to First Amendment and if they have - those are exactly IN PROTECTION of religious beliefs.

 

[Vox]

You must not be familiar with Islam.

yes, I am familiar with Islam.
But I do not engage in a strawmen argument.

It's commonplace for Muslim men to beat their wives.

That's a fact, not a strawman.

Go buy a dictionary or learn to fuck'n google already.

stop showing your IGNORANCE, which is not surprising in the stupid leftard

commonplace TRADITION has absolutely nothing to do with RELIGION.

 

[dblack]

that is your personal opinion and a wrong one. The Constitution is there to protect us from the government not to protect one group of private citizens from the other group of private citizens. employer's denial do pay for your privileges does not impose anything on you, government pressure on the employer of it's, government, values - is OPPRESSION and a direct violation of the First Amendment.

I completely agree. Which is why the entire requirement should be struck down, and not simply exempted for religious groups.

the religious group has the LEVERAGE under the First Amendment and by this can pave the road to strucking down the whole absurdity.

You don't get it, don't you?

The Supreme Court ruled that individual mandate as a TAX is constitutional.
Which does not mean that that TAX can be in violation of the First Amendment.

But it IS. So using that venue one can overturn the whole mandate - if one succeeds in a small portion of it.

It is using the availability of possibilities.

On the philosophical basis I agree with you, but philosophical basis is not in the First Amendment

As I've said, if the challenge prompts the court to strike down the entire law, or even just the contraception requirement, as long as it applies equally to everyone, I'm totally with you. But rule of law is too important to sacrifice in the name of a 'partial' victory. In fact, I'd argue that it wouldn't be a victory at all. Without rule of law, rights are meaningless and become, essentially, arbitrary privileges that can be revoked at will by the regime in power.

 

[dblack]

paying for your privileges ( including the whole insurance) has nothing to do with violence against the private citizen. Beating of the wife is not a religious belief.

Please don't dodge the point. There are, or at least have been, religions which practice human or animal sacrifice. I'm assuming you wouldn't argue they should get a pass in the name of religious freedom. Surely you can see that the point of the first amendment isn't to protect religious practices when the come into conflict the law. The point is to keep the law from targeting religions.

there is NO point.
Violence against someone's human rights has absolutely nothing to do with violence in imposing the oppression to PAY for somebody's life style.

Sigh. You are dodging. Are willing to say that ANY religious practice, no matter how heinous, should be protected from legal restriction?

 

[dblack]

Vox,

I'm trying to understand your position here. Do you think religious people should have to follow the same laws as everyone else? Or can they pick and choose based on their religious beliefs?

 

[koshergrl]

No, he didn't say that, he never said that.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION DOES NOT EXTEND TO THE VIOLATION OF THE FREEDOMS/RIGHTS OF OTHERS.

 

[manifold]

that is your personal opinion and a wrong one. The Constitution is there to protect us from the government not to protect one group of private citizens from the other group of private citizens. employer's denial do pay for your privileges does not impose anything on you( you can walk away from the employer), government pressure on the employer of it's, government, values - is OPPRESSION and a direct violation of the First Amendment - you can not walk away from the government's oppression. Or, you can walk away by harming YOU, a private citizen, but staying in scope of government oppression - and the end result is going to be more harm for the end receiver - you, a private employee, because of that government oppression of the private employer.

Right or wrong academically, your reasoning would also suggest that minimum wage laws and a whole litany of other labor laws are unconstitutional. Since stare decisis clearly shows that's not the case, outside of an academic vacuum your argument has no legs to stand on.

so far the Supreme Court ALWAYS been strucking down the violation by the government of religious freedom, we will see what will happen this time.

Labor laws have ABSOLUTELY ZERO relevance to First Amendment and if they have - those are exactly IN PROTECTION of religious beliefs.

If Hobby were to win their challenge and be exempted from following this law due to religious objections, what's to stop someone like [MENTION=20947]The Rabbi[/MENTION] from refusing to comply with minimum wage laws on account of they violate his religious beliefs?

 

[koshergrl]

Well then you get into whether min wage is a right.

I don't think it is.

 

[manifold]

yes, I am familiar with Islam.
But I do not engage in a strawmen argument.

It's commonplace for Muslim men to beat their wives.

That's a fact, not a strawman.

Go buy a dictionary or learn to fuck'n google already.

stop showing your IGNORANCE, which is not surprising in the stupid leftard

commonplace TRADITION has absolutely nothing to do with RELIGION.

Damn yo

You really don't know anything about Islam.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/01/egyptian-muslim-cleric-offers-instructions-on-proper-way-beat-ones-wife-never-harshly-and-with-simple-object-like-a-pen/

 

[manifold]

Well then you get into whether min wage is a right.

I don't think it is.

So you agree then that a Hobby victory would open up a huge can of worms.

It just so happens to be a can you want to see opened.

OK, at least you're consistent anyway.

 

[dblack]

Right or wrong academically, your reasoning would also suggest that minimum wage laws and a whole litany of other labor laws are unconstitutional. Since stare decisis clearly shows that's not the case, outside of an academic vacuum your argument has no legs to stand on.

so far the Supreme Court ALWAYS been strucking down the violation by the government of religious freedom, we will see what will happen this time.

Labor laws have ABSOLUTELY ZERO relevance to First Amendment and if they have - those are exactly IN PROTECTION of religious beliefs.

If Hobby were to win their challenge and be exempted from following this law due to religious objections, what's to stop someone like [MENTION=20947]The Rabbi[/MENTION] from refusing to comply with minimum wage laws on account of they violate his religious beliefs?

What prevents that from happening is the Court making the call on what constitutes a 'legitimate' religious belief and what is simply a spurious claim to avoid following the law. Ironically, this approach to freedom of religion turns the intent of the first amendment inside out and, rather than keeping government out of religion, injects it squarely into the business of religion, endorsing some beliefs and rejecting others.

 

[koshergrl]

Well then you get into whether min wage is a right.

I don't think it is.

So you agree then that a Hobby victory would open up a huge can of worms.

It just so happens to be a can you want to see opened.

OK, at least you're consistent anyway.

Yup.

 

[dblack]

No, he didn't say that, he never said that.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION DOES NOT EXTEND TO THE VIOLATION OF THE FREEDOMS/RIGHTS OF OTHERS.

Do you think religious people should have to follow the same laws as everyone else? Or can they pick and choose based on their religious beliefs?

 

[Vox]

Well then you get into whether min wage is a right.

I don't think it is.

So you agree then that a Hobby victory would open up a huge can of worms.

It just so happens to be a can you want to see opened.

OK, at least you're consistent anyway.

no, it won't. it will fall exactly where the First Amendment stays on guard of the religious beliefs of the private citizens against the oppressive government.

 

[koshergrl]

I think in this country, they are afforded religious freedom to the extent that it impedes upon the rights of others.

I do not believe our government, or any of our laws, have the authority to compel churches to act in a way that is in conflict with their religious beliefs.

 

[dblack]

I think in this country, they are afforded religious freedom to the extent that it impedes upon the rights of others.

I do not believe our government, or any of our laws, have the authority to compel churches to act in a way that is in conflict with their religious beliefs.

Regardless of what those religious beliefs might be? Seriously?

 

[manifold]

Well then you get into whether min wage is a right.

I don't think it is.

So you agree then that a Hobby victory would open up a huge can of worms.

It just so happens to be a can you want to see opened.

OK, at least you're consistent anyway.

no, it won't. it will fall exactly where the First Amendment stays on guard of the religious beliefs of the private citizens against the oppressive government.

And what happens the The Rabbi files a suit claiming that following minimum wage laws violates his religious beliefs?