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.
Trouble is, Justice Kennedy really does think it was a “respectful and powerful dissent.” That explains why he is getting ready to foist gay marriage on the whole country - and crush anybody who dares dissent from his opinion.
She won't retire while Obama is President. She knows that he would appoint a Muslim (or some other type of Liberal who hates Jews and Israel) as her replacement.
I just she does not retire before President Cruz is in the Oval Office.
You’ve missed a step. No business can withhold “healthcare” from anyone. The employer can fail to offer insurance that covers (X), but the employee can go out in the market and buy what he wants.
For example, I was at the dermatologist this morning to have a creepy-looking mole removed and biopsied. While there, I asked them about removing some other moles that don’t show any signs of pathology. The technician looked it up, and found that it would cost $50 for removal and over $100 for lab work, because if they take it off, they think they have to get it tested.
I can pay for this in cash, if it’s worth it to me. I can also look for another practice, perhaps one specializing in cosmetic procedures, which will just remove the moles and skip the lab work.
Either way, the failure of our insurance company to cover this procedure is not stopping me from accessing the “healthcare,” any more than it stopped me from getting a shingles vaccine that was not covered for patients my age. My doctor called in the prescription to the pharmacy, and I paid them.
“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?”
I would like to say, “common sense,” the application of the reasonable man standard. To which you might well reply, “Have you (dsc) been living under a rock?”
Back in the days of the draft, you couldn’t get conscientious objector status just by saying you were Amish; you had to prove it.
What legitimate religion believes in refusing all medical treatment? Christian Scientists? Well, there aren’t that many of them, and I did say “legitimate” religion.
It’s something that can be worked out. Once word gets around that “guises” get you fined, things will settle down.
Also, see my 84. “Insurance coverage” is not the same as “healthcare,” may that word be chiseled from every dictionary. If your flaked-out employer has a policy that excludes blood transfusions, the hospital will give them to you anyway, if necessary to save your life, and then you’ll work out a way to pay.
If your employer’s policy doesn’t cover vaccines, you can go to the county health department, or explain to your doctor and arrange to pay cash.
Where on earth did this idea come from, that you can’t get something unless someone else pays for it?
She is of course referring to a religious community versus a diverse community under a corporation.
Get that?
A business to her is a community.
In her view a business is not so much private property as it is a 'community'.
I would ask her, if the owner of the business were to decide tomorrow to close the doors and shutdown, what then would be the community?
This is the case in a nutshell.
In her view this is not about private property, private ownership or the religious convictions of the business owners, it's about a group of workers meeting on company grounds who she thinks are entitled to things.
This is pure progressive communist thought. It's exactly how Marx laid it out, It's the community of workers that control the fruits of production, in this case the 'benefits'. There is no ownership role to play in the caring and feeding of workers other than a role specified by the state.
LOL, sad but true.
That’s a very good analysis. Help yourself to a drink after actually reading for detail in a deranged screed of the undead Ruth Ginsburg.
That is the original point I was making.
I paid premiums until Obama put a stop to that.
Now, the taxpayer foots around 55% of the bill (~$5500 annually including capitation) and FED/borrowed money "pays for" the rest.
NO NOT YET!!!
“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.”
I agree with you with the following addendum: What I require from a business I work for is a paycheck. Healthcare subsidies are fine, and I’ll take them if offered, but I’d rather get a full paycheck with as little taken out as possible and a free and open insurance system that allows me to make informed choices about my specific needs instead of requiring a catch-all system. Insurance is a complicated business, and non-insurance companies shouldn’t be required to engage in it.
Witchipoo is pissed!
I think many people would like that.
“...can opt out of any law they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”
What an irony that she just described what obama has been doing since 2009.
:o)
I’d quit if I could.
Eve Ensler said she did her thinking between her legs. I take it she never grasped the advantage of using what’s between one’s ears.
One gets the idea Eve Ensler is a barking moonbat. That doesn’t require being hawg-stupid, but it probably helps.
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.