Posted on 06/30/2014 11:23:41 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
In a strong dissent on the so-called Hobby Lobby case Monday morning, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sharply disagreed with the deciding justices in language so harsh Justice Anthony Kennedy felt the need to respond in his own concurring opinion.
“In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs,” Ginsburg wrote.
“In the Court’s view, RFRA demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation’s religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on third parties who do not share the corporation owners’ religious faith—in these cases, thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga or dependents of persons those corporations employ.”
Ginsburg excoriated the majority justices for ignoring the intent of the the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and extending its protections, for the first time, to for-profit entities, which she saw as existentially distinct to the point of rendering their owners’ potential religious beliefs irrelevant to their practice of business.
“The distinction between a community made up of believers in the same religion and one embracing persons of diverse beliefs, clear as it is, constantly escapes the Court’s attention,” she wrote. “One can only wonder why the Court shuts this key difference from sight.”
Kennedy, whose opinion was largely concerned with limiting the scope of the decision, disagreed with Ginsburg’s assessment of the majority’s ruling. He argued “that the Court’s opinion does not have the breadth and sweep ascribed to it by the respectful and powerful dissent,” and maintained that the Court disagreed over the interpretation of the RFRA, but not its intent.
Gosh. I thought she was dead!
Ask yourself, “why is routine care as expensive as it is?”
Insurance is for catastrophe... except for routine medical care. Why is that?
All those insurance company buildings cost money, as do all those insurance company workers, lawyers, etc etc etc, all that cost has to be paid somewhere.
Yep -just prop her up for 24 months.
She sounds shocked that the right of the employer paying the cost is supreme to the desires of the employees.
How dare they decide where their monies are best spent!
And yes, they COULD decide that they find baking cakes for homosexual ceremonies violates their religious beliefs in an unconscionable way. Oh the freakin horror. Coerced "cooperation" with the law how these frauds force their agenda on the rest of us. Once it is established that we can opt out, we will go far in restoring some sanity in the legal system.
Well, right. It’s more “acceptable” to say women “need” contraceptives, that this is good medical care. However, this is not true, no matter how many people (who haven’t read the package inserts) believe it.
She is Fransisco Franco in drag!
Indeed, if individuals were responsible for their own care costs would decrease dramatically.
Imagine how great it would be not to have to pay for someone else’s sex change, viagra, or prenatal care ( especially if you are a man) For those who can’t pay in one lump sum, payment plans can be worked out.
The cliched old question persists….is health care a basic human right provided for by the government or something you work to afford for yourself?
Wasn't there a feminist slogan that said "Keep your laws off my body"?
Yeah...
Liberal Logic in full display:
Hobby Lobby to woman: I am going to give you a job
Hobby Lobby to woman: I am going to pay you money
Hobby Lobby to woman: I am going to give you work experience
Hobby Lobby to woman: I am going to give you health insurance
Woman: Thank you so much
Hobby Lobby to woman: But, You are going to have to buy your
own birth control, $6 a month
Woman: WHAT????, WHY ARE YOU DECLARING WAR ON ME?
Liberal Logic in full display:
Hobby Lobby to woman: I am going to give you a job
Hobby Lobby to woman: I am going to pay you money
Hobby Lobby to woman: I am going to give you work experience
Hobby Lobby to woman: I am going to give you health insurance
Woman: Thank you so much
Hobby Lobby to woman: But, You are going to have to buy your
own birth control, $6 a month
Woman: WHAT????, WHY ARE YOU DECLARING WAR ON ME?
Wouldn't that imply there should be no law against rape, since her body is outside the boundaries of law?
Free enterprise generally produces lowering prices and increasing availability, which is the opposite of cartelized markets and government social programs. Free enterprise best serves human rights.
These are people who believe you gestate a baby in your ovaries. I think it’s safe to say that thinking isn’t their best skill.
“In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs,” Ginsburg wrote.”
Correct me if I am wrong, but is that not the heart of religious liberty?
What would the Founding Fathers have said if someone had proposed that the federal government should have the power to enact laws restricting the free exercise of religion?
Let's hope she can be propped up for another 30 months.
“Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be perceived as favoring one religion over another, the very risk the Establishment Clause was designed to preclude.”
Forcing a business to systematically endorse and participate in behavior its owners find repellent to their deeply held religious beliefs could be perceived as a government intrusion on the free practice of religion, the very institution the Free Practice Clause was designed to protect.
RE: What would the Founding Fathers have said if someone had proposed that the federal government should have the power to enact laws restricting the free exercise of religion?
I’m not defending Ginsberg, but apparently her reasoning is that if we allow this for Hobby Lobby, what’s to stop ANY business owner from providing LEGITIMATE healthcare ( e.g. vaccination, blood transfusion ) under the guise of religious belief?
That’s why I prefer to argue this on the basis of a greater idea -— FREEDOM.
Whether we like it or not, businesses are in the business of making money, not providing for healthcare.
They DO provide healthcare because they believe that doing so will help retain good people.
If their healthcare does not provide the exact service that you want, YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO WORK FOR THEM.
That’s how a free society should work.
I worked in the kitchen at a 7th Day Adventist owned hospital when I was in college. They are vegetarians and the food served to all patients and in the cafeteria adhered to that. So I went out for lunch.
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.