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

[Vox]

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?

there are no religious beliefs against minimum wages and in order to prove in front of the court that something IS a religious belief violation, there has to be a log-standing established proof it is. Abortion and contraception is a DIRECT violation of numerous religious ESTABLISHED beliefs and the established rules go back centuries in some cases.

more straw men arguments on your part, or the proof of your ignorance

 

[Vox]

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.

Egyptian Muslim Cleric Offers Instructions on Proper Way Beat One?s Wife: Never ?Harshly? and With Simple Object Like a Pen | Video | TheBlaze.com

American Constitution does not extend to Egypt.

 

[manifold]

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?

there are no religious beliefs against minimum wages and in order to prove in front of the court that something IS a religious belief violation, there has to be a log-standing established proof it is. Abortion and contraception is a DIRECT violation of numerous religious ESTABLISHED beliefs and the established rules go back centuries in some cases.

Debating made easy: Just make up your own facts.

Made up facts bolded for your convenience.

But at least Vox admits that in his opinion the government gets to dictate what is and what is not considered a religious belief. Unfortunately he's still dumb enough to think he's making a case FOR 1st Amendment protection.

 

[Vox]

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?

seriously.

others people beliefs is just others people beliefs, they are not more or less valid.

you don't like this private citizen or enterprise BELIEFS - you do not associate with them or work for them.
Simple.

 

[manifold]

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.

Egyptian Muslim Cleric Offers Instructions on Proper Way Beat One?s Wife: Never ?Harshly? and With Simple Object Like a Pen | Video | TheBlaze.com

American Constitution does not extend to Egypt.

I'd say nice strawman, but it's even weak for a strawman.

try harder gilligan

 

[Vox]

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?

there are no religious beliefs against minimum wages and in order to prove in front of the court that something IS a religious belief violation, there has to be a log-standing established proof it is. Abortion and contraception is a DIRECT violation of numerous religious ESTABLISHED beliefs and the established rules go back centuries in some cases.

Debating made easy: Just make up your own facts.

Made up facts bolded for your convenience.

But at least Vox admits that in his opinion the government gets to dictate what is and what is not considered a religious belief. Unfortunately he's still dumb enough to think he's making a case FOR 1st Amendment protection.

government does not get to dictate what constitutes religious belief - and THIS exactly is the reason for the court action.
but you are too obtuse to comrehend this.
p.s. there is no debate with an ignorant leftard( you) who brings straw men "arguments" to the discussion all the time and clearly does not understand what is it about
so - adieu.

 

[dblack]

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?

there are no religious beliefs against minimum wages and in order to prove in front of the court that something IS a religious belief violation, there has to be a log-standing established proof it is. Abortion and contraception is a DIRECT violation of numerous religious ESTABLISHED beliefs and the established rules go back centuries in some cases.

more straw men arguments on your part, or the proof of your ignorance

It's a hypothetical, to explore weaknesses in an argument. Can you just answer it? If there were religious beliefs that minimum wage, or stopping at stop signs, or whatever, was wrong - should that give religious people a free pass to ignore the law?

koshergirl is saying, from what I gather, 'yes, as long as they don't violate the rights of others', and I ideally, I agree with that. But that is a general principle that should apply to ALL beliefs, not just religious beliefs. No one should face coercion from government unless they are violating someone else's rights.

But the sad fact is, our government is not ideal. There are many laws of expedience wherein breaking them wouldn't violate anyone else's rights. Should religious people feel free to skip out on those whenever it conflicts with their religious views?

 

[dblack]

there are no religious beliefs against minimum wages and in order to prove in front of the court that something IS a religious belief violation, there has to be a log-standing established proof it is. Abortion and contraception is a DIRECT violation of numerous religious ESTABLISHED beliefs and the established rules go back centuries in some cases.

Debating made easy: Just make up your own facts.

Made up facts bolded for your convenience.

But at least Vox admits that in his opinion the government gets to dictate what is and what is not considered a religious belief. Unfortunately he's still dumb enough to think he's making a case FOR 1st Amendment protection.

government does not get to dictate what constitutes religious belief - and THIS exactly is the reason for the court action.
but you are too obtuse to comrehend this.
p.s. there is no debate with an ignorant leftard( you) who brings straw men "arguments" to the discussion all the time and clearly does not understand what is it about
so - adieu.

So, you're of the view that any belief someone calls 'religious' can be used as a justification for ignoring the law?

 

[manifold]

there are no religious beliefs against minimum wages and in order to prove in front of the court that something IS a religious belief violation, there has to be a log-standing established proof it is. Abortion and contraception is a DIRECT violation of numerous religious ESTABLISHED beliefs and the established rules go back centuries in some cases.

Debating made easy: Just make up your own facts.

Made up facts bolded for your convenience.

But at least Vox admits that in his opinion the government gets to dictate what is and what is not considered a religious belief. Unfortunately he's still dumb enough to think he's making a case FOR 1st Amendment protection.

government does not get to dictate what constitutes religious belief - and THIS exactly is the reason for the court action.
but you are too obtuse to comrehend this.

I guess you must've failed civics class in high school, so let me clue you in...

The courts is one of three branches of GOVERNMENT.

And if the courts say that opposition to birth control is a protected religious belief but opposition to minimum wage laws is not, then the GOVERNMENT is ABSOLUTELY dictating what is and what is not a protected religious belief.

Damn you're fuck'n slow.

 

[Vox]

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?

there are no religious beliefs against minimum wages and in order to prove in front of the court that something IS a religious belief violation, there has to be a log-standing established proof it is. Abortion and contraception is a DIRECT violation of numerous religious ESTABLISHED beliefs and the established rules go back centuries in some cases.

more straw men arguments on your part, or the proof of your ignorance

It's a hypothetical, to explore weaknesses in an argument. Can you just answer it? If there were religious beliefs that minimum wage, or stopping at stop signs, or whatever, was wrong - should that give religious people a free pass to ignore the law?

koshergirl is saying, from what I gather, 'yes, as long as they don't violate the rights of others', and I ideally, I agree with that. But that is a general principle that should apply to ALL beliefs, not just religious beliefs. No one should face coercion from government unless they are violating someone else's rights.

But the sad fact is, our government is not ideal. There are many laws of expedience wherein breaking them wouldn't violate anyone else's rights. Should religious people feel free to skip out on those whenever it conflicts with their religious views?

hypothetical does not apply here.
there are clear, long time ago delineated religious beliefs and the First Amendment stands as a guard for them not to be violated BY THE GOVERNMENT.

On the hypothetical nonsense you are welcome to discuss it with manifold - as he clearly thinks that bringing an opinion of some obscure cleric from some pit outside the US borders IS an argument.
so he ( or you) might find out a newly invented sect which will say that paying certain amount of money for certain work is their religious belief. oh, wait, there is such a sect - it is called leftist progressivism

 

[dblack]

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?

there are no religious beliefs against minimum wages and in order to prove in front of the court that something IS a religious belief violation, there has to be a log-standing established proof it is. Abortion and contraception is a DIRECT violation of numerous religious ESTABLISHED beliefs and the established rules go back centuries in some cases.

more straw men arguments on your part, or the proof of your ignorance

So, are you contending religious freedom applies only to 'long standing, established' religions? I don't see that stipulation in the first amendment.

 

[Vox]

Debating made easy: Just make up your own facts.

Made up facts bolded for your convenience.

But at least Vox admits that in his opinion the government gets to dictate what is and what is not considered a religious belief. Unfortunately he's still dumb enough to think he's making a case FOR 1st Amendment protection.

government does not get to dictate what constitutes religious belief - and THIS exactly is the reason for the court action.
but you are too obtuse to comrehend this.

I guess you must've failed civics class in high school, so let me clue you in...

The courts is one of three branches of GOVERNMENT.

And if the courts say that opposition to birth control is a protected religious belief but opposition to minimum wage laws is not, then the GOVERNMENT is ABSOLUTELY dictating what is and what is not a protected religious belief.

Damn you're fuck'n slow.

you, idiot, I was referring to THIS PARTICULAR court case.

but a leftard is exactly that - a tard.

 

[Againsheila]

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..........................

Hobby Lobby has made it's intentions clear. If they have to pay for the abortion pill, they are going out of business. How many jobs lost is that in an economy that needs those jobs?

 

[dblack]

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?

there are no religious beliefs against minimum wages and in order to prove in front of the court that something IS a religious belief violation, there has to be a log-standing established proof it is. Abortion and contraception is a DIRECT violation of numerous religious ESTABLISHED beliefs and the established rules go back centuries in some cases.

more straw men arguments on your part, or the proof of your ignorance

So, are you contending religious freedom applies only to 'long standing, established' religions? I don't see that stipulation in the first amendment.

And Vox, if this is your view, how long-standing? how well established? What is the cutoff? More importantly, who decides? Government?

 

[Vox]

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?

there are no religious beliefs against minimum wages and in order to prove in front of the court that something IS a religious belief violation, there has to be a log-standing established proof it is. Abortion and contraception is a DIRECT violation of numerous religious ESTABLISHED beliefs and the established rules go back centuries in some cases.

more straw men arguments on your part, or the proof of your ignorance

So, are you contending religious freedom applies only to 'long standing, established' religions? I don't see that stipulation in the first amendment.

I am applying only that so far the SCOTUS did upheld only those and only in the cases when others rights are not violated.
and don't subsitute my argument of a proof of long-standing BELIEF to the long-standing religion.

although I am not aware about any SCOTUS ruling on the behalf of the scientology sect. Maybe there is some, just can't remember one

 

[manifold]

government does not get to dictate what constitutes religious belief - and THIS exactly is the reason for the court action.
but you are too obtuse to comrehend this.

I guess you must've failed civics class in high school, so let me clue you in...

The courts is one of three branches of GOVERNMENT.

And if the courts say that opposition to birth control is a protected religious belief but opposition to minimum wage laws is not, then the GOVERNMENT is ABSOLUTELY dictating what is and what is not a protected religious belief.

Damn you're fuck'n slow.

you, idiot, I was referring to THIS PARTICULAR court case.

but a leftard is exactly that - a tard.

And when someone goes to court to challenge minimum wage laws on religious grounds, what would you want the court to do?

 

[dblack]

there are no religious beliefs against minimum wages and in order to prove in front of the court that something IS a religious belief violation, there has to be a log-standing established proof it is. Abortion and contraception is a DIRECT violation of numerous religious ESTABLISHED beliefs and the established rules go back centuries in some cases.

more straw men arguments on your part, or the proof of your ignorance

So, are you contending religious freedom applies only to 'long standing, established' religions? I don't see that stipulation in the first amendment.

I am applying only that so far the SCOTUS did upheld only those and only in the cases when others rights are not violated.
and don't subsitute my argument of a proof of long-standing BELIEF to the long-standing religion.

although I am not aware about any SCOTUS ruling on the behalf of the scientology sect. Maybe there is some, just can't remember one

So do you see why mani and I are contending that this actually violates the spirit of the first amendment, by putting the Court in charge of deciding what is a legitimate religion and what isn't?

 

[manifold]

there are no religious beliefs against minimum wages and in order to prove in front of the court that something IS a religious belief violation, there has to be a log-standing established proof it is. Abortion and contraception is a DIRECT violation of numerous religious ESTABLISHED beliefs and the established rules go back centuries in some cases.

more straw men arguments on your part, or the proof of your ignorance

So, are you contending religious freedom applies only to 'long standing, established' religions? I don't see that stipulation in the first amendment.

And Vox, if this is your view, how long-standing? how well established? What is the cutoff? More importantly, who decides? Government?

No no, government doesn't get to decide, the court gets to decide.

 

[Vox]

there are no religious beliefs against minimum wages and in order to prove in front of the court that something IS a religious belief violation, there has to be a log-standing established proof it is. Abortion and contraception is a DIRECT violation of numerous religious ESTABLISHED beliefs and the established rules go back centuries in some cases.

more straw men arguments on your part, or the proof of your ignorance

So, are you contending religious freedom applies only to 'long standing, established' religions? I don't see that stipulation in the first amendment.

And Vox, if this is your view, how long-standing? how well established? What is the cutoff? More importantly, who decides? Government?

The court decides in every particular instance - there have been numerous cases already.
You can not claim that your religious belief forbids you to provide services to green-eyed man over 6 feet tall because of his height and the color of his eyes.
But you can and should claim that your particular religious belief forbids you to pay for abortions and birth control to your employees.

BTW, abortion has been already decided and it is outside any coercion from the government. And birth control ( especially abortifacients) are in the same religious belief's category, so I do not see any reason, the government coercion in this instance should not be overturned.

 

[dblack]

So, are you contending religious freedom applies only to 'long standing, established' religions? I don't see that stipulation in the first amendment.

And Vox, if this is your view, how long-standing? how well established? What is the cutoff? More importantly, who decides? Government?

The court decides in every particular instance - there have been numerous cases already.
You can not claim that your religious belief forbids you to provide services to green-eyed man over 6 feet tall because of his height and the color of his eyes.
But you can and should claim that your particular religious belief forbids you to pay for abortions and birth control to your employees.

BTW, abortion has been already decided and it is outside any coercion from the government. And birth control ( especially abortifacients) are in the same religious belief's category, so I do not see any reason, the government coercion in this instance should not be overturned.

Again, neither do I. But I see no reason why some should be coerced because of their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) and some should not. The way to deal with a law that conflicts with a religious belief is to strike down the law, not cut special deals.