Posted on 06/30/2014 9:14:15 AM PDT by Citizen Zed
I’m not sure what you’re asking. The comment was made in response to Ginsburg’s Dissent.
I have Health Insurance through the Company Retired from, not Obamacare.
Dear Ruthie,
To your question: >”Would the exemption...extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations?”
The answers are “YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES and YES.”
>”Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community.”
This just shows how stupid even a right wing lawyer truly is and why the continued installation of lawyers as SCOTUS judges, particularly those from Liberal Ivy League law schools, has to stop!
You do NOT have to be a lawyer to be a federal judge, and you certainly do not have to be a lawyer to be a Supreme Court Justice. As a matter of fact, most SCOUTUS Justices where NOT lawyers prior to the twentieth century. Because of that, they had much better judicial rulings that where more closely related to the actual words written in the Constitution.
The entire Constitution was written in plain language in order for all citizens to understand the limitations of government power. It took lawyers to twist the meaning of the words to bring us the leviathan Federal Government.
This statement shows how a government employed lawyer should NEVER be advanced to the court!
Let’s break this statement down.
“Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith....”
Wrong! Religious organizations exist to advance the interests of GOD or at least the perceived interests of the god or gods that that religion is based upon! Dummy!
....Not so for profit corporations..” Idiot! The entire reason for a corporation is to foster the interests of the owners and those involved in the corporation. Their interests are to provide certain goods and services at a PROFIT. That is their interest that they intend to advance! Damn lawyers are so stupid to reality and way to smart fort heir own goods.
Prior to the passage of unconstitutional laws that eliminate a group of people to decide their right to free association whether that is a private club, a religious institution or even a corporation that decides that it will only employ one eyed followers of the God Vishnu, they HAD THAT RIGHT! AND SHOULD HAVE THAT RIGHT!
Let the market decide!
It Is a God given right to decide who you want to hire and what you want to offer in the form of pay and benefits for that position. Just as it is a God given right of a person or group of persons to refuse to work for or even patronize those institutions. It Is called the right to free association.
correct, but the obamacare law still dictates what insurance providers must cover.
So the question I am asking, is doesn’t the affordable healthcare act (aka obamacare) mandate they cover it?
Letting human beings think for themselves is dangerous
I’ll assume it does since it is a Life Saving Medical Procedure.
I wish this beast could now be killed on severability.
Understood that “you agree” with J-Ginsburg.
Tell us, which “religion”, that you know of, approves of pre-birth abortion?
Christianity?
Judea-ism?
Islam?
Neo-Islam (Nation of Islam, Black panthers, Prison-Islam, etc.)?
Bhuddism?
Tao-ism?
B’nai-brith?
Hunduism?
Scientology?
HeavensGate?
JimJones-ism?
Gaia-ism?
Animism?
Pan-theistic cults that don’t claim monotheism?
On your reply, I reserve the right to inquire of ^your^ religion.
Liberalism.
I may be wrong and will be happy to have the correct information if so, but wasn't the contraception mandate issued by the HHS as a regulation? If so, what exactly did the Supreme Court rule against? They don't seem to be interpreting a law written by Congress, scrutinizing the implementation of a law by the Executive that was written by Congress or interpreting the Constitution. At the end of the day, Obamacare is so far removed from the law as it was written I don't see how we can use the Judicial checks and balances to protect ourselves. Liberty may have prevailed this time, but one Judge slips on a banana peel and we're toast.
Good thing most of them don’t wanna have kids.
Sometimes the gene pool chlorinates itself.
Is that “your” religion (facetious and rhetorical question)?
I’m trying to dig down and determine which “religion”, as recognized currently by the United States of America actually proselytizes/preaches abortion. Not that a certain system simply “looks the other way” but truly says that “the killing of the unborn is part of our belief system”.
Once found, will it stand the litmus test of “a religion” or will it fail on the shifting sand of simply, “a belief system”?
For now, I’ll discount the Phaoroh of Moses’ birth and Herod of Jesus’ birth. Both of which correlate ^directly^ with your comment regarding “liberalism”.
Noat Bene: We have lost the desire to ask and answer the HARD questions!
Why is this an issue?
To be more blunt: why should an employer provide health-care at all?
Considering that the ObamaCare "law" compels the providing of health-care, why should that health-care violate the consciences of the people so compelled to give it? — especially when the 1st Amendment prohibits Congress from passing laws which prohibit the free exercise of religion?
>"Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community."
Irrelevant.
As stated above, congress is prohibited from passing laws which are prohibiting the free exercise thereof
.
>"Any decision to use contraceptives made by a woman covered under Hobby Lobby’s or Conestoga’s plan will not be propelled by the Government, it will be the woman’s autonomous choice, informed by the physician she consults."
This is true, it is her choice; however, the compelling of someone to pay for the contraceptives against their religious conscious is the issue at hand.
Nothing at all would prevent her from purchasing such contraceptives with her own monies; the point here is that the monies are compelled to be taken from someone else to pay for it and that the action is itself violative of their religion's strictures.
>"It bears note in this regard that the cost of an IUD is nearly equivalent to a month’s full-time pay for workers earning the minimum wage."
So?
>"Would the exemption...extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]...Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today’s decision."
I would be fine with such exemptions -- what's the point of exercising religious freedom if its exercise has no effect? Moreover, what's the point of religious liberty if your choice has no effect on how you live your life?
>"Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude."
Yes.
And yet that is exactly what following your dissent would do: make only the religions which agree with the government's policies matter while disregarding all those which do not.
>"The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield."
Only because the court has a history of sacrificing freedom in favor for government policy; even religious liberty:
The First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." "What does the First Amendment have to do with drugs?" you ask.(From Is the Bill of Rights a Casualty of the War on Drugs?)
I want to bring two examples to your attention: the first is the decision of the United States Supreme Court, Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith (494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 1990). In that case two Native Americans were discharged from employment in the drug treatment program for which they worked because they used peyote as part of their participation in the religious practices of the Native American Church. Peyote is the sacrament in that church. They applied for unemployment benefits after they were fired, and the State of Oregon turned them down. The Oregon Supreme Court, however, found that as participants in the Native American Church they had a right to use peyote, and said they were entitled to benefits.
But the Oregon Attorney General, Dave Frohnmeyer, Republican candidate for Governor, saw the case differently. In his view, the war on drugs can not tolerate drug use. If a drug treatment program demands a "drug-free" staff, Native Americans who worship with their sacrament ought to be fired. And an appropriate government weapon in the war on drugs is to deny such people unemployment benefits.
Notwithstanding well settled Supreme Court precedents that denial of these benefits impermissibly restricts the free exercise of religion, Attorney General/gubernatorial candidate Frohnmeyer appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
It is important to stress that peyote is the sacrament in the Native American Church—it is used by over 250,000 Native American worshippers. They don't consider it a drug anymore than Catholics think of communion wine as a drug, or as a refreshing beverage.
The Supreme Court, 5 to 4, reversed the Oregon Supreme Court, and in the process threw out the long-standing doctrine that a State's burden upon the free exercise of religion can only be justified by a State "compelling interest" that cannot be served by less restrictive means (Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 406 (1963), Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940)). Consider the background: the respondents were never prosecuted by Oregon for their use of peyote. There is no evidence that anyone has ever been harmed by the religious use of peyote. 23 States and the Federal government exempt the religious use of peyote from the Controlled Substances Act. Indians who use peyote as part of the Native American Church are less likely to abuse drugs or be alcoholic than those who do not.
Here is a case where use of a religious sacrament, because it has been classified by law enforcement authorities as a drug, but nevertheless an essential component of the way in which people worship and have worshipped for hundreds of years, became the basis for denying unemployment benefits. From the perspective of the international, multi-billion dollar war on drugs, this case was totally insignificant. Unlike crack or heroin, the use of peyote is not destroying people, their families, or cities like New York, or nations like Colombia.
Most importantly, this case was a purely a symbolic battlefield in the war on drugs. Yet this totally insignificant drug case became the occasion for restricting the religious freedom of all Americans by narrowing the applicability of the Free Exercise clause. Justice Blackmun wrote ironically in his dissent, "One hopes that the Court is aware of the consequences, and that its result is not a product of overreaction to the serious problems the country's drug crisis has generated." (Dissenting Slip Opinion at 2.)
Justice Blackmun put his finger on the problem: this trashing of the Free Exercise of Religion was purely an overreaction to the drug problem, and the Bill of Rights was a casualty. As we will see, this result is hardly new.
I'm no fan of Justice Ginsburg, but that just isn't true. If you watch the hour-long interview she and Justice Scalia did in April with The Kalb Report, you will see that she is very alert. She knows her subject matter quite well. She's wrong on many of her interpretations of the law, but she knows exactly what she's doing and saying.
I understand that you are arguing that all religions are against abortion. I assume you are wrong (the episcopal church in the US supports abortion on demand) but for the sake of arguing that you are correct my statement would still hold. The reason the minority opinion is valid is because the Courts should have never held that imposing health insurance on all of us is constitutional. Once they have done that, they will run into all sorts of contradictions because their initial premise or ruling was incorrect.
Your answer is more to my point; any
Episcopal Church USA claims to be a “denomination” of the Christian “religion”.
Said “religion” that, to this day, stills militantly denies preaching/proselytization of abortion.
We should ask, did Christianity leave EC-USA? or did the EC-USA leave Christianity?
Additionally, you state;
“I assume you are wrong (the episcopal church in the US supports abortion on demand).” .
First, you assume incorrectly!
Second, this statement shows that many might believe that the EC-USA ^IS^ the “of-all and end-all” of Christianity. Denominations such as these simply muddy the waters, n’cest pas?”
sorry, “any” is an editing orphan.
Good point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.