Supremes vote for religious bigotry

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

In an interesting twist (in my mind, anyway), the SCOTUS earlier found that the mandate under Obamacare was a tax. Now, they've as much as said you can pick which items of this tax you choose not to pay for.

That's convoluted. Roberts said that the government could impose a "tax" for an individuals failure to purchase coverage. The HHS's regulations on which contraception methods were covered under the elements of essential coverage came later, and were not in the original text of the law but part of regulations promulgated by HHS.

And, once again, the SCOTUS decision applies only to closely held organizations with a self funded plans and clearly articulated religious convictions. That's about as narrow as you can get.

How Christian is Hobby Lobby? Its Muzak is spiced with hymns. Some of its corporate meetings begin with prayer. It employs chaplains who evangelize not only to nominal Christians, but also to non-believing workers. More substantively, it gives employees Sundays off as church-and-family days, and pays more than twice the Oklahoma minimum wage to entry-level workers on Christian grounds. According to David Green, Hobby Lobby’s founder, and his son Steve, its President, the company also gives away roughly half its earnings, which would come to over $50 million a year– and make it something close to a steroidal Christian charity.

In other words, the company is about as Christian as it is possible for a corporation to get, which was essential in convincing the courts that some corporations could be considered “persons” protected by the 1993 law, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

http://time.com/2941342/supreme-cour...care-liberals/

What's up with the left's political agenda about making more out this ruling than it really is? From the same article:

But it (the SCOTUS decision) also enabled—indeed, invited—the Supreme Court to avoid ruling that non closely-held corporations, which is to say most of them, have any religious rights, and to rule out some of the more controversial claims even by closely-held businesses. As Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion, “the idea that unrelated shareholders—including institutional investors with their own set of stakeholders—would agree to run a corporation under the same religious beliefs seems improbable. In any event, we have no occasion in these cases to consider RFRA’s applicability to such companies.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

If that's the case then why do the Greens oppose providing copper wire IUD's in their coverage package? The copper wire IUD, and any other IUD's do not act to force a fertilized egg from it's attachment to the uterus. IUD's prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. So it's not an abortifacient. So why do the Green's object to it?

I'll tell you why. Because they object to any emergency contraception whether it constitutes, by the language you chose to put forth here, the act of dislodging a fertilized egg from the uterus or not. Whether it causes an abortion or not.

Religious intolerance my ass. Convenient hypocrisy that flies in the face of the medical description you provide and which supports religious beliefs being forced on others is what it is.

I don't know. Why do you think the Greens are covering 16 contraceptive treatments? Can't be the same hypocrisy, can it?

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by whell

No, that's not all of it. Religious freedom is about what the government can / cannot do. Under the 1st Amendment, the government can't establish a religion, nor can it impede the free exercise of religion.

In this case, the court also used the 1993 Religious Freedom restoration act. That act holds that "Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability."

So, using those two standards, the SCOTUS got it right. Period. You might not like it, but it is the law of the land.

What a bunch of silly shit. Nobody is impeding the Green's free exercise of their religion. They can go to church and be religious any time they have the urge. Providing health care insurance, regardless of the coverages can't burden the Green's getting up off their asses and going to church whenever they have the urge. Much less burden it "substantially".

If anybody is being burdened, it's a woman having the Green's religiosity burdening her access to her medical care by having some priest sitting in on her gynecological examination.

The SCOTUS fucked-up...bigtime. And it will be the law of the land until we get a majority of human beings on the supreme court.

[Oerets]

Put a turban and burqa on their them and I wounder how far their argument would of went!

I'm afraid this court has only begun it's reshaping of this United States.



Barney

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Oerets

Put a turban and burqa on their them and I wounder how far their argument would of went!

I'm afraid this court has only begun it's reshaping of this United States.



Barney

Yep, welcome to the American Taliban Theocracy, Barney.

They might as well rename it the Christian Corporate States of Amerikkka.

[Oerets]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Yep, welcome to the American Taliban Theocracy, Barney.

They might as well rename it the Christian Corporate States of Amerikkka.

It dawned on me today while day dreaming listening to some Omar & the Howlers that I will at my age never see a different court. It's been stacked so far to the right, yes no capital r because they be small minded.

Only see dark days ahead unless the new voters vote!



Barney

[bobabode]

I dunno Barney, both Scalia and Thomas are candidates for coronaries and/or strokes. There's always hope.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I'm fully tolerant of any and all religions up to the point that the practitioners thereof believe they have the right to impose their silliness on me, my neighbors or fellow citizens. I'm highly skeptical of anybody who wears their religion on their sleeve.

Amen to that, and when you stop and think about their idea that life begins at conception then the have a strange idea of what constitutes life. At conception sure things have been started but nature can end it any time it chooses only for semantics they call it a miscarriage.

Life is much much more than a zygote, a clump of cells with no mind, no thoughts,, no imagination. I have from time to time had recollections of events that I found later to have occurred during the 8th or 9th month but they are understandably vague. Yet some religions value the life of the foetus above that of the mother. The next thing they will be claiming is that life begins with erection and ends at resurrection.

We will never know because mo one is keeping such statistics but I wonder how many women will die because of this selfish decision.

If what I have written above has not made it clear it has been my experience in my few years on this earth that many (if not most) religions value their shibboleth above human life.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by bobabode

I dunno Barney, both Scalia and Thomas are candidates for coronaries and/or strokes. There's always hope.

In these times, since the process between the executive and legislative remains so dysfunctional and non-productive, the most important reason to have the White House is the President's responsibility for filling empty SCOTUS seats.

There's already been a change in voter demographics. The right realizes it, but doesn't know what to do about it. The only evidence needed to identify this is the fact that the GOP has lost 5 of the last 6 popular Presidential votes. The only reason Bush won the 2004 election was due to Dick Cheney's relentless (and I must admit, brilliant) fear tactics...terrorizing the electorate into believing that we're in for another WTC every 18 months.

Younger voters, aren't buying what the right and the GOP are selling. It's more and more a true pluralistic society. And it's particularly not buying the GOP's basic positions on social issues, women's rights, gay right's, bible study in public school science class, the GOP's relentless theocratic direction, anti-science, anti-school teachers, anti-workers rights, pro-corporate, pro-mega wealthy...and lots of other stuff. Unless there is some unforeseen catastrophe in the Democratic Party...I see no reason for this pattern in Presidential elections to change. And...if the left has the White House, good things happen in the SCOTUS...if the right has the White House, bad things happen in the SCOTUS.

Conservatives can call it "legislating from the bench." Conservatives can call it any fucking moronic thing they like...it matters not to me. But as I see it...since the legislative process is so hamstrung, this is why the Democrats holding the White House is so critical. And recent election results keep me cautiously hopeful that one more Democratic administration puts the SCOTUS where it oughta be, and puts it there for a long time.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by whell

I don't know. Why do you think the Greens are covering 16 contraceptive treatments? Can't be the same hypocrisy, can it?

You don't know why? Don't play this nauseating deliberately obtuse game with me, whell. You know good and goddamn well, why.

Hypocrisy is nothing more than having a convenient personal agenda. The Green's personal agenda, including which contraceptives they approve of and which they don't, is convenient to their delusional religiosity...and helps nobody who doesn't share that religiosity. It's the worst sort of power based hypocrisy. And you can roll your eyes all day long, at the wife, at the kids, at the dog if you fucking care to. Your eye rolling doesn't change the fact that the Green's, and most of the rest of religious fanatics of their ilk, are utter hypocrites.