Tweet
Originally posted by exlude
View Post
-
Precedents that violate the constitution are not valid in a Constitutional republic otherwise internment is a valid option and in constitutional as it not only has been done before but the SC upheld it.I wear a Fez. Fez-es are cool -
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Tomorrow, the Supreme Court is likely to release its decision in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby, a widely anticipated ruling expected to have far-reaching implications for businesses.
The question before the justices is whether a for-profit corporation can refuse to provide certain contraceptive services in health plans offered to employees, on the grounds that doing so would violate the owners' particular Christian beliefs.
Business owners claim they should not have to make sacrifices in their belief system just because the Affordable Care Act requires employers to cover contraception for employees. The government claims allowing business owners' religious views to burden the family planning decisions of employees will open the door for corporations to consider denying other benefits on the grounds of religious belief.
Do you believe corporations should have the ability to object on religious grounds to government mandates?
Madeleine Roberts of the Faithful Democrats organization stated on the Patheos blog numerous problems will be created if the Supreme Court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby:
"The Hobby Lobby case asks a simple question - can corporations refuse to cover certain kinds of birth control for women by claiming First Amendment religious freedom protections, despite the fact that the Affordable Care Act requires insurance to cover birth control? So, should corporations have this power - yes or no? It is a simple question, with a simple answer of 'no,' but it is the far-reaching implications that come from studying the issue that make things a bit more complicated.
"Should the Supreme Court rule in Hobby Lobby's favor and agree that women's right to contraception can be restricted, hundreds of thousands of women and their families would be put in jeopardy. As Democrats, we must raise our voices in defense of the fundamental right of women to plan when they will have a family and what size it will be. And as people of faith, we should think hard about the best ways to support our families and let all people make the decisions that fit best with their values and beliefs. Dr. Jackie Roese puts it well:
"'I want to consider how fortunate I am to have choices. I want to spend a second grieving for women around the globe who don't. And I at least want to contemplate what this court decision means on a broader scope for us as women, women who have had choice for so long we are eating burgers and drinking ice cold cokes while watching fireworks as those in power make powerful decisions - about me. A woman.'"
Mark Goldfeder , senior fellow at the Center for the Study of Law and Religion said in Forbes that Monday's ruling will not change things in American businesses:
"If you have read any of the countless articles published about the case over the last several months, you get the sense that if Hobby Lobby wins, it would destroy the America we have all worked so hard together to build.
"The government -- along with countless media outlets --Perhaps they will no longer offer equal pay to women, if their religion happens to find women inferior. Perhaps they will no longer offer health-care for employees in same-sex marriages, if their religion frowns upon such unions.
"If the court decides that secular, for-profit corporations are entitled to First Amendment Free Exercise rights, then every business owner in the United States will suddenly be exempt from anti-discrimination laws, because they could now claim that their racist/misogynistic/homophobic/anti-semitic/fill-in-the-discriminatory-blank policies are based on religious belief. Goodbye, progress. Hello, legitimized hate.
"At least that is what opponents of Hobby Lobby want you to believe. Fortunately, that is totally false. No matter what happens, America, and the American workplace, will remain safe."
University of Chicago Law College professor Eric Posner said in Slate Magazine the case is similar to other free speech cases:
"Imagine that Congress passes statute No. 1, which says that everyone must dress elegantly, and then passes statute No. 2, which says that everyone must wear tall hats. Can I wear an inelegant hat, like the Cat in the Hat, or must I dress like Rex Harrison in My Fair Lady?
"Thousands of law students have dozed off while pondering such conundrums. Courts use various tricks to reconcile statutes, usually in the hope of discerning an overarching legislative intent.
"And so with Hobby Lobby. Statute No. 1 (the Religious Freedom Restoration Act) says that laws "shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion." Statue No. 2 (the Affordable Care Act) says that employers who provide health insurance must cover contraceptives. What happens if insuring contraceptives violate your religious beliefs? Then you have a conflict. The court will need to decide how substantial a burden is too substantial.
"Why the fuss? I think something else is going on, and I think we get a clue from the recent free speech cases. McCullen v. Coakley, decided Thursday, struck down a state law that created a buffer zone around abortion clinics designed to protect employees and patients from harassment by protestors. Harris v. Quinn which the court will probably decide on Monday, will determine whether the First Amendment restricts the ability of public-sector unions to charge nonmembers for representing them. Think also of Citizens United, where the Supreme Court held that certain campaign finance rules violated the First Amendment. And a range of commercial speech cases, where the court has struck down laws that restrict what corporations can say to the public in advertising. Or arguments against hate speech laws and university codes that try to protect minorities from offensive speech. What all of these cases have in common is that conservatives have used the First Amendment to challenge liberal policies."Comment
-
And that when shit starts getting blown up all over the place. There are many people who are NOT going to give in to it. I am hoping that the shit starts hitting the fan big time and all of the fuckers that voted for it start getting wiped off of the map.Originally posted by CJ View PostComment
-
In a way, I am to. Some of the lefties that wanted it so badly are already having second thoughts.Originally posted by Broncojohnny View PostComment
-
-
IMO there are going to be much wider implications than Obamacare if the Supreme Court rules in Hobby Lobby's favor. The Supremes have already given corporations 1st Amendment free speech protections, in effect saying that any corporation has the exact same rights as any person walking down the street. There are going to be a lot of unintended consequences if they push that into religious beliefs.Comment
-
They just did.Comment
-
Well this could get interesting.Comment
-
Maybe not as interesting as people were hoping. The "closely held corporation" will be debated from here on out...Comment
-
What the fuck!? Now employers can force employees to live by their religious tenets? Fuck this. They get one right with the cell phone decision a while back, then they go and fuck it up with this bullshit.Comment
-
This is going to have far reaching negative implications. Disturbing.Comment
-
They aren't forcing shit. The employees can still buy birth control and work there, the company just isn't going to pay fir it,Originally posted by racrguy View PostComment
-
"If I asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses." - Henry FordComment
-
Right answer...
They aren't forcing the employee to do anything.
They aren't forcing the employer to do anything.
If the employee doesn't like it, purchase it personally, or find a new job.
Comment
Comment