Supremes vote for religious bigotry

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by whell

By the way, if you read yesterday's SCOTUS decision, it relies heavily on a 1993 law that " your guy" Clinton signed, and passed through the House and Senate with near unanimity.

They don't want to see and hear that.

[ebacon]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Having just read it, I disagree. They seem to be saying that because previous rulings have conveyed certain rights of people to corporations that all rights of persons should thereby convey in the future. The seem to stretch the concept of precedence a bit IMO. I gotta call BS on this ruling.

It is not all rights. The case is limited to religious rights.

This morning I reviewed the dissent. They say that because the court previously disallowed religious exception for employees that use peyote the court should continue with that logic and disallow religious exception for contraceptives, including abortifacients. IMO that stretch of logic does not pass muster. It is equivalent to saying that employers who choose to want sober employees must also tolerate murderers, which abortion is through the eyes of the instant class of employers.

It is a tough case. The majority explains that it is a tough case simply because of the recent trend towards prolific legislation. If the ACA had never been written the way it was then this case would not have been brought.

I look at laws as the software of life. The more lines of code there are the more debugging that has to happen for the software to stay stable. The court does the debugging. It is tough work and impossible to keep everyone happy. I do not envy their jobs when it comes to the hard work of keeping peace among different religions. However, given the laws they had to weave the peace through, I still think they got it right.

If we were a homogeneous society their work would be easier and less contentious. But we are not and it is not.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

By the way, if you read yesterday's SCOTUS decision, it relies heavily on a 1993 law that " your guy" Clinton signed, and passed through the House and Senate with near unanimity.

Finn was a Clinton guy? Finn's a center right Eisenhower Republican, IIRC. You really are speaking through your rectum these days Mike.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

By the way, if you read yesterday's SCOTUS decision, it relies heavily on a 1993 law that " your guy" Clinton signed, and passed through the House and Senate with near unanimity.

FYI, I wasn't a Clinton guy. In fact, I served in the George H. W. Bush administration. I didn't bail from the GOP until the Iraq invasion was shown to have been based on hype, falsehoods, and bad intelligence.

[finnbow]

IMO, those supporting this opinion are mostly doing so not out of concern for corporate religious freedom but out of their enmity towards Obamacare. Such folks will jump on board any effort to criticize Obamacare. Regardless of whether the decision was proper (I believe it wasn't), it stands to make women aware of the dangers of electing wingnuts to public office.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by ebacon

It is not all rights. The case is limited to religious rights.

This morning I reviewed the dissent. They say that because the court previously disallowed religious exception for employees that use peyote the court should continue with that logic and disallow religious exception for contraceptives, including abortifacients. IMO that stretch of logic does not pass muster. It is equivalent to saying that employers who choose to want sober employees must also tolerate murderers, which abortion is to the instant class of employers.

It is a tough case. The majority explains that it is a tough case simply because of the recent trend towards prolific legislation. If the ACA had never been written the way it was then this case would not have been brought.

I look at laws as the software of life. The more lines of code there are the more debugging that has to happen for the software to stay stable. The court does the debugging. It is tough work and impossible to keep everyone happy. I do not envy their jobs when it comes to the hard work of keeping peace among different religions. However, given the laws they had to weave the peace through, I still think they got it right.

If we were a homogeneous society their work would be easier and less contentious. But we are not and it is not.

Except that these contraceptives are not abortifacients. They only prevent implantation. Sorry, Ed but both science and current law do not consider a fertilized ova a fetus. I'm no lawyer but how do the Greens and Hahns have any standing to protect non people?

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Finn was a Clinton guy? Finn's a center right Eisenhower Republican, IIRC. You really are speaking through your rectum these days Mike.

Thhhbbbt?

[ebacon]

Originally Posted by finnbow

IMO, those supporting this opinion are mostly doing so not out of concern for corporate religious freedom but out of their enmity towards Obamacare. Such folks will jump on board any effort to criticize Obamacare. Regardless of whether the decision was proper (I believe it wasn't), it stands to make women aware of the dangers of electing wingnuts to public office.

I think we can agree on one thing -- that we wish religious practice was more about compassion than fervor. But that is not the hand we are dealt.

Deal?

[icenine]

Activist court trying to codify Romney's edict that corporations are people too.
Use of a religious freedom law to actually restrict the freedom of employees to make decisions about their own bodies.

I guess a corporation could convert to Christian Science and refuse to pay for any health insurance since it violates their beliefs?

This is really Roberts and Co trying to protect the 1 percent.

[ebacon]

Originally Posted by icenine

Activist court trying to codify Romney's edict that corporations are people too.
Use of a religious freedom law to actually restrict the freedom of employees to make decisions about their own bodies.

I guess a corporation could convert to Christian Science and refuse to pay for any health insurance since it violates their beliefs?

This is really Roberts and Co trying to protect the 1 percent.

I dunno that converting to Christian Science would do the trick. IMO management would have trouble convincing the court that they were practicing the religion in good faith instead of just using it as an excuse for financial gain. In plain language, they would have trouble passing the laugh test.