The Post's View: Congress should narrow the Religious Freedom Restoration Act

The Washington Post ^ | June 30, 2014 | The Editorial Board

[2ndDivisionVet]

WHEN BUSINESS owners enter the public marketplace, they should expect to follow laws with which they might disagree, on religious or other grounds. This is particularly true when they form corporations, to which the government offers unique benefits unavailable to individuals.

The Supreme Court weakened that principle Monday. Congress should revitalize it.

The justices ruled on the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate, which requires employer-based health insurance policies to provide contraception to covered employees. Several corporations challenged the law, insisting that the mandate unlawfully infringes on their owners’ religious rights. In a 5 to 4 ruling, the court agreed with the corporations, which included Hobby Lobby, a large arts and crafts chain, and Conestoga Wood Specialties, a cabinetmaker.

By historical accident, the country has based its health-care system on employers arranging for their employees’ coverage. Transforming that system would have been disruptive, so President Obama’s Affordable Care Act largely sustained it, with Congress mandating that large and medium businesses offer essential benefits in their health plans.

But the court demanded Monday that the government accommodate corporation owners who bring their religious convictions into the public sphere. Some accommodations might be expensive, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. admitted in the majority opinion, but that’s not the court’s main concern....

[Mouton]

I bet they don’t want the interstate commerce clause done in either.

[Nuocmam]

“WHEN BUSINESS owners enter the public marketplace, they should expect to follow laws with which they might disagree, on religious or other grounds. This is particularly true when they form corporations, to which the government offers unique benefits unavailable to individuals.”
Even more important: When people become politicians and are elected to office they should be expected to follow laws with which they might disagree, on religious or other grounds. After all, they take an oath swearing to do so!
Doesn’t the government offer these guys some “unique benefits” unavailable to other individuals? It doesn’t seem to bother the WAPO that their guy is the prime example of not following that with which he disagrees.

[Mad Dawgg]

"The constitution is supreme law, and when it says things like, “Congress shall make no law...”, it means exactly that."

I think the Founders made a huge mistake when writing the Bill of Rights.

The Bill should've said: "Congress shall make no law." and stopped right there. We would have all been much better off.

[TurboZamboni]

Gore-bull Warming IS the latest mainstream religion.

- there is the notion of sin (polluting)
- there are indulgences (carbon offset credits)
- there are oracles/prophets (GW researchers) and high-priests (Al Gore, celebrities) who cannot be questioned
- they rely on indoctrination at a young age
- it is considered blasphemy to go against their “wisdom”
- all evidence is to be interpreted only in light of their unquestionable “truths” (treated as sacred axioms)
- they are moral busybodies, wanting to push their views on everyone else
- people who do not strictly follow their guidelines are considered immoral
- people who publicly support opposing views are said to be possessed by evil entities (corporations)
- violence is advocated by many adherents (ELF, ALF, Earth First, etc) to promulgate their “truths”
- they say we are DOOMED FOR ETERNITY unless we listen to them
- if we go against the will of their god (Gaea), their god will punish us (hurricanes, floods, disease, searing heat)

“Global Warming” has become the modern god of weather whose existence results from magical powers granted to carbon dioxide. Algore is their PROFIT.