Skip to comments.
Ruth Ginsburg Slams Decision of ‘Startling Breadth’ in Hobby Lobby Dissent
Meidaite ^
| 06/30/2014
| by Evan McMurry
Posted on 06/30/2014 11:23:41 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-113 next last
Read the full scathing dissent HERE
. KEY PASSAGES:
Even if one were to conclude that Hobby Lobby and Conestoga meet the substantial burden requirement, the Government has shown that the contraceptive coverage for which the ACA provides furthers compelling interests in public health and womens well being, Those interests are concrete, specific, and demonstrated by a wealth of empirical evidence.
Suppose an employers sincerely held religious belief is offended by health coverage of vaccines, or paying the minimum wage, or according women equal pay for substantially similar work?
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,
Would the exemption the Court holds RFRA demands for employers with religiously grounded objections to the use of certain contraceptives 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 (Christian Scientists, among others)? The Court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield, by its immoderate reading of RFRA
To: SeekAndFind
It was actually a pretty narrow ruling, Darth Vader
2
posted on
06/30/2014 11:25:38 AM PDT
by
GeronL
(Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans)
To: SeekAndFind; Mrs. Don-o
This is all predicated on the idea that contraceptives are good for women. Read all the warnings that come with a package of birth control pills, and then try to say, “This is good for you!” with a straight face.
3
posted on
06/30/2014 11:26:38 AM PDT
by
Tax-chick
(I don't feel obligated to provide you with a non-boring gun.)
To: GeronL
Time to retire Ruthie. Your SEX is showing.
To: SeekAndFind
Isn't this exactly what Obama does. Pick and choose what he wants to enforce?
To: SeekAndFind
Rush has it right — Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg.
6
posted on
06/30/2014 11:28:20 AM PDT
by
MUDDOG
To: SeekAndFind
I will never understand liberal Jews
7
posted on
06/30/2014 11:28:25 AM PDT
by
wardaddy
(we will not take back our way of life through peaceful means.....i have 5 kids....i fear for them)
To: Sacajaweau
8
posted on
06/30/2014 11:28:33 AM PDT
by
Tax-chick
(I don't feel obligated to provide you with a non-boring gun.)
To: Tax-chick
This is all predicated on the idea that contraceptives ABORTIFACIENTS
are good for women. Don't fall for the left's conflating of the two.
9
posted on
06/30/2014 11:29:18 AM PDT
by
MrB
(The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
To: wardaddy
They hate Christians, really bad, like all liberals do.
10
posted on
06/30/2014 11:29:55 AM PDT
by
MrB
(The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
To: GeronL
Hope she has a Conniption Fit!
To: SeekAndFind
Who’s payin’ for her birth control method of choice? Yewwwww!
12
posted on
06/30/2014 11:32:35 AM PDT
by
rktman
(Ethnicity: Nascarian. Race: Daytonafivehundrian)
To: Tax-chick
They are evil. I will not go back on them. I was put on them at 15 because of regularity and heavy flow issues. Turns out I have PCOS and the pill only masks the symptoms and cures nothing. It was just too easy for my docs to put me on the pill without actually seeing if I had a problem. After I went off of them and adopted a low carb diet, I feel so much better. PCOS? Not with a low carb lifestyle! Imagine that. A free cure.
13
posted on
06/30/2014 11:32:45 AM PDT
by
goodwithagun
(My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.)
To: SeekAndFind
This case illustrates why individuals, not employers, should be responsible for selecting and purchasing health care insurance that meets their needs. Individual choice assures the coverage each person wants, and insures portability, because where one works has no effect on the coverage as it is paid for by individuals...
14
posted on
06/30/2014 11:33:09 AM PDT
by
NCLaw441
To: MrB
I meant what I said. The principle of contraception is that it’s wrong to be a healthy woman.
15
posted on
06/30/2014 11:33:40 AM PDT
by
Tax-chick
(I don't feel obligated to provide you with a non-boring gun.)
To: SeekAndFind
Justice Ginsburg did not write that opinion. She no longer has the capacity to do such writing. That opinion was written by her carefully selected left wing clerks. She is just a figurehead being painfully propped up by the Left.
To: Tax-chick; Mrs. Don-o; All
I’d really like to hear FReeper’s take on Ruthie’s fear that this will open up refusals by various religiously oriented businesses - Jehovah’s Witness ( Blood transfusion ), Christian Scientist (Vaccinations), etc.
My personal take is this -— Businesses are not in the business of providing for healthcare. If they don’t provide what you want, you are NOT OBLIGATED to work for them.
That is how a free country should work.
What is your take?
To: SeekAndFind
" Suppose an employers sincerely held religious belief is offended by health coverage of vaccines, or paying the minimum wage, or according women equal pay for substantially similar work? Well, that's a supposition, isn't it? Stop inventing arguments that aren't being brought before the court and deal strictly with the ones before you!
P.S. - that vaccines thing would be the Jehovah's witnesses of several decades ago, but apparently they got over whatever whacky 'Biblical justification' they had.
18
posted on
06/30/2014 11:35:31 AM PDT
by
alancarp
To: SeekAndFind
Scary that 4 judges could completely disregard the clear and obvious meaning of “Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise (of religion)”
But then these are the times we live in.
19
posted on
06/30/2014 11:35:40 AM PDT
by
Cubs Fan
(liberalism is a cancer that destroys everything it gets control of.)
To: NCLaw441
Id really like to hear FReepers take on Ruthies fear that this will open up refusals by various religiously oriented businesses - Jehovahs Witness ( Blood transfusion ), Christian Scientist (Vaccinations), etc.
My personal take is this - Businesses are not in the business of providing for healthcare. If they dont provide what you want, you are NOT OBLIGATED to work for them.
That is how a free country should work.
What is your take?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-113 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson