[SeekAndFind]

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 women’s well being, Those interests are concrete, specific, and demonstrated by a wealth of empirical evidence.”

“Suppose an employer’s 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

[FlingWingFlyer]

Who the hell woke Ruthie up anyway!

[servo1969]

Ahem, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CONTRACEPTION. THIS ABOUT HELPING A WOMAN KILL HER BABY. They keep throwing that word around. Contraception. The woman has already conceived. These drugs are abortifacients.

[ilgipper]

Judge Ginsburg might want to look back two years to see when the courts created this minefield. It was making Obamacare legal as a tax that started the chaos.

[Adder]

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.”

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.

[dsc]

“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?

[IronJack]

“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.

[madprof98]

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.

[Hostage]

I just she does not retire before President Cruz is in the Oval Office.

[Hostage]

“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.”

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.

[Ray76]

Ginsberg is the radical.