Posted on 06/30/2014 7:24:01 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The U.S. Supreme Court has given the Obama administration (and, hopefully the world) a lesson in the first freedom. I'm sorry it was necessary, but it was—the government cannot (and must not) require people of faith to violate their sincerely-held beliefs.
The ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties underscores religious liberty as our "first freedom." The freedom to exercise religion, enshrined in our Constitution's Bill of Rights, has been called "the cornerstone of the American experiment" because it is from our religious freedom all of our other freedoms flow.
Below is a graphic from a LifeWay Research study conducted in November of 2012, showing that most Americans support mandatory contraception coverage through ObamaCare.
Before the ruling, former U.S. Solicitor General Ken Starr pointed out that religious liberty was certainly at stake behind the legalese of the arguments being made by the U.S. government:
If the Supreme Court accepts the government's formalistic argument (that a corporation cannot exercise a right to free exercise of religion), it will deal an unnecessary blow to the cause of religious liberty and simply create incentives for families of conscience to carry on their business enterprise in another form. The Greens will, win or lose, be able to carry on and continue their admirable mission to serve a cause higher and nobler than their own commercial success. But something very valuable—the nation's historic commitment to religious freedom—will have been needlessly compromised.
(Excerpt) Read more at christianitytoday.com ...
http://www.becketfund.org/littlesisters/
Quick! Get a bigger hammer!! Humpty Dumpty’s shell is cracking!!!
Just what I was thinking...
Four of the five did NOT see the Constitutionality of this decision and that is a very close call...
And we risk EVERYTHING in the next national election...
“Religions liberty is foundational to the US, obama, kapish?”
LIBERTY is foundational to the US. Once you start dividing liberty you end up with less and less. Why should anybody have to cite their religious beliefs to be free? I am a Christian.
Why would you believe that? Romney de facto instituted homosexual marriage in MA; he also has a history of appointing liberal judges who engage in judicial activism.
This should give some second thoughts to those who insist that a president has to be pure during the elections.
Nobody I know who refused to vote Romney did it because of purity — they did so because he was unacceptable, and would have voted for several good candidates.
IOW, just because there are candidates that are unacceptable does not mean that the only acceptable candidates are perfect.
I don't know… if you're talking about unamended, I don't think that would be a good idea with the Federal-Supremacy/State-Subjugation ideas that are currently embedded in the general population's thought, as the Bill of Rights are amendments.
If you're talking about the Constitution + Amendments, then I would say there are things that need changed:
My fellow conservative FReepers,
The U.S. Supreme Court made history today. I believe that this is the first time that a majority of the court has agreed with a plaintiffs argument that LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION!
This is a MAJOR DEFEAT for the abortion industry and liberals who have tried to argue that life only begins at birth.
Wow, you put way more thought into this than I did!
I just meant as written, not as interpreted or misinterpreted by activist judges. As one of the Founding Fathers said (Franklin?), when there is a question of their intent, look at their writings from the time. I’m sure no judge has ever done that.
Amendments - now we open a whole new discussion here;) One I would have to give considerable thought to.
Hey, how about starting a CWII ping list? Or one about rebuilding?
I see this topic getting lots of traction these days.
and the GOPE will confirm the next one almost unanimously too
Hm, maybe.
There are several ways I could swing such a list:
is this the spark?method, where I assume there would be a lot of overlap w/ Null and Void's
Nutjob Conspiracy-Theorylist.
I see this topic getting lots of traction these days.
Same here.
Though one of the bad/difficult things is that a lot of people have different notions of the line
[which must not be crossed] to trigger their resistance. The government could use this to great advantage by picking those off with more sensitive 'lines' than others. (I suspect the way they'd do this would be a preponderance of isolated incidents
, much like no-knock/wrong-house police raids; followed by a false-flag event and security measures
.)
No one is mentioning the severability clause lately. What about it? Anyone know? If one part of this horrible “law” is thrown out, it’s all thrown out? Right?
At this point I think they're more concerned about the appearance of legitimacy, rather than actually conforming to either the spirit or letter of the law. In other words, don't scratch the surface.
This was a regulation that got shot down, so it didn’t really touch the pea packer (Obamacare).
The survival/tactics list would overlap with Kartographer’s prepping list too.
No doubt, like Hitler and Stalin the first to go would be done to set an example. So all would just quietly be led to the slaughter.... like concentration camps and gulags.
That makes your list all the more important ;)
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.