"Religious freedom" does not allow you to break the law. When the laws of the nation and the laws of Jehovah intersect, the nation should win. Every. Single. Time.
I think you need to read the opinion and the scope of what they ruled on and how it would be dealt with.
That hardly applies here. But to respond, I think you've confused having the ability to pass the law with having the ability to violate the Constitution. When the laws and the Constitution are at odds, the Constitution should win. Every. Single. Time. So today we got a ruling that these people are not violating the law. The law itself was violating the law of the land.
The reasoning for the ruling is a law that was passed by Democrats and signed by a Democratic president. After a more thorough reading of the majority opinion, I'm not sure how many people who are opposed to the ruling actually even understand what the majority said today and that includes Ginsburg lol.
If all I have to do to skirt the law is claim religious exemption (thanks, Constitution!) then you pretty much just shot your whole "this is no big deal" and "the slippery slope is silly" argument in the foot. FYI to everybody who thinks this is "no big deal", the Supreme Court typically doesn't dabble in trifling matters. Ya dig?
Sorry I skipped this. The argument from Ginsburg is stupid. The majority cites the 2 pronged test setup by the law passed by democrats: 1) Is there a compelling interest involved? (They said yes in this case like they would in all of those other cases) 2) Is the least restrictive method being used to achieve the interest? #2 is where they said the government's argument fails because the law itself has a less restrictive method in play. Therefore they held that the less restrictive method had to be used in cases of tightly held corporations. The ruling doesn't change any law. Honestly the ruling should be seen as a victory for pro-choice people and anti-religious "freedom" people. (I mean that sincerely as in people who think that term is overused) The ruling holds that the government DOES have a compelling interest to force the coverage of these meds. They just ruled that there is a way to do it provided for in the law that is less restrictive of religious freedoms and therefore that method should be used instead.
It's hilarious how the left likes to hold up Jon Leibowitz (Stewart) as some kind of truth. He's a comedian.
Again, that doesn't jive at all with this ruling. And my statement to you was meant to be just as intentionally dumb as you pulling a quote from Jon Stewart that was irrelevant.
Question about the end result. 1) Does Hobby Lobby no longer have to pay for/provide co-pay for (certain) mandated contraceptives? 2) Were they granted this exemption/immunity based on their religious beliefs? If the answer to both is yes, then everything you said prior to this is pointless.
How in the hell is Hobby Lobby still in business? No one has hobbies anymore that require shadow boxes and needle art.
Well if you think everything said before is pointless then maybe you don't understand your own arguments.
Interesting to note: Roughly 90% of all companies in the U.S. are closely held, according to a 2000 study by the Copenhagen Business School. Hobby Lobby is privately held, but estimates on revenues range between $2-3 billion. Other examples of closely held companies include Mars Inc., the family-owned candy giant, takes in $33 billion in revenues and has about 72,000 employees. Closely held Cargill Inc. takes in more than $136 billion in revenue and has about 140,000 employees. And a question... if the real outcome of this ruling is that HL does not have to provide insurance coverage for certain forms of birth control but instead the insurance companies will, how exactly will that work? Will the employee contact the HL-provided insurance company that covers their other coverages and say... "you now cover my IUD?" Or how exactly does the employee get that IUD covered (other than completely out of pocket)?
I am also curious as to how you would answer those questions... since they seem pretty basic and I am sure someone effected by this ruling would also want to know...
LOL. Dodge much? You've managed to talk out of both sides of your mouth for a few pages now (as you so often do), so, we'll have to give it a rest I suppose. Bottom line: My argument isn't that overturning this mandate is legally wrong (the Constitution and RFRA open the door for lots of wiggle room as far as religious protection goes, far too much, IMO), my argument is that it is a bad idea. So far, your debate on the merits of the topic amount to "come on, it's not a big deal". Consider me unimpressed.
Yeah. First corporations are people and now corporations have religious beliefs. LOL. So ridiculous. I'd like to see corporations have to sign up for selective service, get sent to prison for breaking the law, oh you know just be subject up all the repercussions of being a person. I may have to incorporate myself.
This isn't really true at all. At justtx pointed out, the core of the reasoning doesn't lead down the slippery slope you suggest - in fact, it may just do the opposite and shut that down. The admin won on the most critical question of whether they have a compelling interest in regulating. They lost only because there was a simpler mechanism to achieve that interest built into the law. The union ruling should be more concerning to liberals - it's sort of the opposite. They more or less did decently on the particular case in that unions didn't get destroyed, but the underlying reasoning is more worrisome going forward. (though I'm not really sure public sector employees should be required to contribute funds to a union that does anything outside of negotiate for its members)
