To be fair, it's not 1800's America - it's 2010 America. Prior to Obamacare, there was no contraception requirement, and no one really thought it was some kind of horrible, backwards thing. And per the workaround suggested by SCOTUS, this should have no actual impact on people's healthcare options anyway.
Prior to hobby lobby there wasn't a religious exercise exemption for artificial corporate people- and nobody thought it was a horrible backwards thing. Same thing prior to Citizens United, Heller, and a host of other 5-4 specials. All of them were masked in the same way by the same apologist logic ("This is very narrow, not really a big deal") but if you don't see the underlying theme of the Roberts court, you're about as dense as the Citizens United opinion's reasoning (which predicted a glorious new Era of campaign funding transparency) .
I'm going to start advising my clients that are owners of small closely held corporations, most of my clients, that we can start ignoring regulations because of religious beliefs. We don't need to put in another bathroom because under Hinduism unclean activities should be limited.
Another problem I have with this ruling is that it to a certain extent it goes against the idea of corporate personhood. The whole idea of having a corporation is that it provides liability protection to the owners and is a separate entity from the owners. This ruling though says that corporations really aren't people but they are fictional entities that are subject to the religious beliefs of the owners. In other words the owners belief exempts them from certain regulations and not that the corporation is a separate entity. The Roberts' court is basically having it both ways. On one hand corporations are people that have an individual right to speech but on the other hand they aren't when it comes to the religious views of owners.
Certainly true - but there wasn't not one either. It was just something that had never been tested. People were OK with contraception not necessarily being covered by health plans. People didn't think it was the end of the world or a totally backwards 1800 system. If this requirement hadn't been in Obamacare, no one would have blinked an eye or thought twice about it. It's become a huge issue - on both sides - primarily for political reasons rather than health reasons. I don't recall anyone suggesting Citizens United was a narrow ruling of any sort. Everyone agreed it opened a whole new world of campaign finance - some people just were happy about it because they wanted it that way. You're certainly welcome to do that and take it to court, but nothing in this decision would support your case.
Except before this case many said that there was no basis to support the idea of a religious exemption for for profit companies to be able to opt of out regulation.
There was a law on the books that had not been interpreted by the Supreme Court in a case dealing with a religious exemption for for profit companies. Now the SC has ruled on it.
Sure, it's become an issue for political reasons, and the court took it up for political reasons, and issued a political decision to help its political allies which lays the groundwrok for other big victories. WIth hte newly created corporate free exercise right viewed in context with Alito's undisguised belief that we shoudl create more and more religious exemptions to federal regulatory schemes, it's not hard to see which way this points and looking at it in isolation is naive. Fine, it wasn't a narrow ruling, but there has been a concerted campaign on the right to try to downplay Citizens United's impact and define it as narrow. Not the least of which was Alito's famous SOTU headshake. Whether the impact or the ruling is defined as narrow - it's all part of the same "death by 1000 cuts" approach the Roberts court has made it's hallmark on divisive issues.
Stupid argument is stupid. SC rules in favor of Obamacare... Libs everywhere rejoice SC rules in favor of Hobby Lobby... Libs everywhere angry The thing about America is we are a country made up of differing viewpoints. GET OVER IT!
What an obtuse post. I can't remember if it was you or another right-wing D&D poster who complained about Indians having body odour and lacking personal hygiene. Some of them take multiple showers and spray copious amounts of deodorant and/or fragrance. The issue is the spices in their food cling to their house and clothes very easily.
The thing libertarians and/or far-right posters like you don't understand is some viewpoints are not allowed. You don't get to do anything you want. You don't get to live your life like you want. 160 years ago, there were viewpoints that simply wanted to own personal property and tell others to mind their own business. They got their comeuppance. Attitudes change, laws change. Nothing is set in stone. The current direction is anti-organized religion and pro-secular/pro-science. Either get with the program, or stand aside and watch the train go by.
I'm just interpreting a post RJ made. If they take so many showers why don't they want to obey federal bathroom regulations? Also Indians were never mentioned, you just stereo typically made that leap. I wait for your apology.
The problem with this is you are not in the majority. Most of America loves God and holds dear the constitution. The problem has been these people have been a silent majority for quite the time allowing others that have their differing views to do as they please, because that is what our country is all about. But now, that this minority has got some confidence; they now think they can dictate to this country what they believe and tell others to get on board the progressive train, or we will try to legislate you out of the country. But, the silent majority is now becoming awakened and starting to stand up for itself and its God given freedom, and the LIBS don't like it and are screaming out on liberal media about how unfair it all is. Grow up, know that people are allowed to believe differently than you and have every allowance and protection under the law from other groups telling them what to do with their lives.
The last two presidential elections (and 3 of 4) indicate otherwise. But if this were actually true - I'm sure you'd be absolutely thrilled with constitutional reform to move to a more proportional system that removes the distortion inherent in the current model. You do, right?
That's why it is called a silent majority. Many God lovers don't vote, they just live their lives. There is no distortion inherent in the current model.
