FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Posted on 06/30/2014 11:43:41 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The left has been… animated in their objections to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Hobby Lobby case which declared the mandate in the Affordable Care Act which forced employers to provide employees with abortifacients drugs over their religious objections to be unconstitutional.
In spite of what many have characterized as the narrow and tailored ruling by the Court, some political and legal observers have determined that the ruling is a step toward the legalization of discrimination.
One of the more creative arguments in this direction was submitted by NPR’s legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg. On Monday, she suggested that the Court has created a legal pathway for employers to discriminate against their employees on the basis of race, sexual orientation, and even national origin.
Totenberg summarized Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote a concurring opinion in favor of the decision to strike down the mandate: “Don’t worry,” she said. “As long as I’m here, the floodgates won’t open and it won’t be hundreds and hundreds, and thousands and thousands of companies saying ‘Why me?’”
She went on to say that a future Court could rule that it was legal to not hire based on sex if the employer asserted that it violated their religious belief. “Or cases involving gays and lesbians,” she added. “Or cases involving people from different foreign origins. It’s just not clear.”
Federal Equal Opportunity Employment laws are clear that discrimination based on those guidelines is already prohibited. Furthermore, given that the decision was intentionally narrowly tailored to apply only to emergency contraceptives, as opposed to, say, vaccines, it seems unlikely that Totenberg’s nightmare scenario could materialize.
For his part, George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan Turley said on CNN on Monday that this decision the “flip side” to Citizens United; one extended speech rights to corporations, and this ruling extends religious freedom to some corporations. He added that decisions like that which prohibited an Arizona baker from refusing to provide his service to same-sex couples must now be revisited.
It would seem to me that failing to provide an employee a narrow set of health coverage benefits and flatly refusing to provide a service to a customer based on their identity are dramatically different situations. It seems like a stretch, but there is no doubt that emotions are running hot today.
RE: It’s kind of hard not to if you are in ANY equity mutual funds, isn’t it?
Of course, leftist sources will make this sound as if HL explicitly chose these investments. More than likely, it was unavoidable.
________________________
But why harp only on equity mutual funds?
If we really want to be strict about it, DEVOUT TAX PAYING CHRISTIANS are already funding abortions whether they like it or not.
just waiting for the sound of heads popping as these hystericals hold their breath
“No, this employer’s health plan wont cover your abortificants. So find another employer or pay for it yourself”
RASIST XENOPHOBES! WE KEEL YOU!
Their health is in jeopardy! All because they want to do the nasty and won't get their own contraception? Meanwhile millions of babies are maimed and killed in the name of keeping women "healthy". The White House occupants are evil.
Good. Its unconstitutional for the government to be deciding who businesses will serve or employ.
The real problem is that the left continually tries to confound prejudice and discrimination. Prejudice is offensive to many, but is NEVER illegal. Prejudice is thoght or speech that negatively targets a member of some group. Racism and xenophobia are certainly prejudice. Discrimination, on the other hand is positive action taken against a group member, such as refusal to hire someone because of sex,race or nationality. We have a First Amendment for a reason - thought and speech are protected, even if they are found offensive. We wouldn’t need an amendment to protect inoffensive speech after all. Discrimination is not protected and is illegal.
That's what GWB did ... never answered the Left's ridiculous accusations about Iraq, Katrina, the housing crisis, etc. And look what the electorate did in 2008 ...
IMO, it's way past time to put a stake in the heart of the Marquis of Queensbury. The bastards on the Left are not the 'loyal opposition': they are the ENEMY. They never give up: the ends always justify the means. We call them out every chance we get, and fight to politically destroy them just as hard as they do against us.
Yup, they are in full melt down.
What is it about these idiots that they don’t understand that RELIGIOUS LIBERTY is a preeminent constitutional RIGHT? The one this country was founded upon first and foremost!
I'm talking about savoring the victory mainly for the joy of poking the Left in the eye. That's a nice incidental result, certainly, but it turns into a distraction when we rest on our laurels because of it. We should be actively looking forward to undo ever MORE damage as soon as possible, building on this decision. The Left is hyperventilating, portraying this as a nightmare. Well, we need to fulfill their nightmare. We should encourage our conservative politicians to interpret this decision as broadly as possible, just as the Left would do.
Interesting that this guy draws a distinction at the end of the article between this ruling and it’s applicability to Christian bakers and gay wedding cakes.
I think it’s very much applicable. Closely held private companies now have an affirmed right to operate in accordance with their religious beliefs. It’s totally applicable.
“just waiting for the sound of heads popping as these hystericals hold their breath
“No, this employer’s health plan wont cover your abortificants. So find another employer or pay for it yourself”
“
Or *gasp* use an insurance company. That’s what they’re there for, after all. Craft stores aren’t designed to be in the insurance business.
There was a time when we could accept that people would walk the talk of their religion and if we didn't like that we would shop or seek employment elsewhere. Now, if liberals don't like a person or firm’s view they want to shove their liberal agenda down the firm’s throat. How sad.
Not relevant. Hobby Lobby's owner is Assemblies of God, not Roman Catholic. The owners willingly pay for standard birth control pills, including 16 of the 20 birth control options approved by FDA and required by HHS. Their objection is extremely narrow - they refuse to pay for a device (e.g., IUD) or medication (such as Plan B or other Morning After pill) that destroys a fertilized egg or prevents that egg from implanting, and they refuse to actively participate in making a payment or even completing paperwork to provide that coverage.
Ah, yes, Nina Totenberg, the woman who guaranteed Anita Hill a sweet career for life for an ugly, vicious slander against an innocent man. Why shouldn’t she lie about this as well? It’s what she does.
They want us to pay for eating their own entrails .. For hiring cooks preparing fetus burgers. They are so light footed sophisticates, they cannot handle a bit of stress.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
The truth about Hobby Lobby. Although they offer other avenues of contraception to their employees, they would not support the mandated abortion and abortifacients (Morning after pill and other products that destroy an embryo -- already fertilized.).
It's that simple because they are a closely held (family) business that believes and lives their religion in their business. They even play religious music in their stores. (And not just at Christmas!)
God bless them.
PS. This does not apply to corporations, etc. as the libs would have you believe.
But Hoboby Lobby already provides 16 kinds of contraception.
It’s just the abortion and the abortafacients that they didn’t want to be forced (mandated) to pay for.
Can these women get this through their thick skulls? I understood it the first day.
Ditto on the NPR — I hate it.
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.