Unintentional consequence of ruling for religious business against Obamacare

[realibrad]

OK, and it really doesn't highlight anything other than the level of ignorance people will stoop to because they simply "disagree" with a court decision.

I may not agree with a ruling, but it doesn't help me any by wasting the time of the courts and my litigators by making up a frivolous lawsuit.

Wasting time in the courts, or making thousands of posts about religion. You do use your time well I suppose.

 

[nehalem256]

To be honest I think the case has real merit even if the plaintiffs aren't totally serious. They are highlighting the dangerous precedents set by Hobby Lobby in an effort to have them either scaled back or overturned.

What dangerous precedence would that be? Obama already exempted certain organizations from the mandate on religious grounds.

Perhaps you should take up this issue of setting "dangerous precedents" with Obama.

 

[fskimospy]

What dangerous precedence would that be? Obama already exempted certain organizations from the mandate on religious grounds.

Perhaps you should take up this issue of setting "dangerous precedents" with Obama.

Look who doesn't understand the difference between regulation and constitutional rights.

Maybe you should get a civics 101 book.

You've fulfilled your quota of stupid posts for the day, so I'm done with you.

 

[nehalem256]

Look who doesn't understand the difference between regulation and constitutional rights.

Maybe you should get a civics 101 book.

You've fulfilled your quota of stupid posts for the day, so I'm done with you.

Looks like someone doesn't understand the idea of equality.

SCOTUS said if you can exempt certain organizations based on their religious beliefs you also have to exempt closely held corporations.

 

[Jaskalas]

Christian bakers refusing to sell devils food cake on religious groundsD:

Why not?

 

[Retro Rob]

To be honest I think the case has real merit even if the plaintiffs aren't totally serious. They are highlighting the dangerous precedents set by Hobby Lobby in an effort to have them either scaled back or overturned.

So the point is to simply reverse a decision they don't like, not to present a sound argument as to why you should be exempt from providing birth control. Leave it to them, and there would be no religious freedom in this country, as every ruling in favor of religious conscious sets this imaginary "dangerous precedent".

I think you're to intelligent to take this seriously.

 

[fskimospy]

So the point is the simply reverse a decision, not to present a sound argument as to why you should be exempt from providing birth control. Leave it to them, and there would be no religious freedom in this country, as every ruling in favor of religious conscious sets this imaginary "dangerous precedent".

I think you're to intelligent to take this seriously.

No, they are presenting an argument that they view as functionally identical to exempt themselves from laws that they don't like. This highlights why Hobby Lobby is a bad, bad precedent to set.

I don't care what they think about religious freedom in this country, as I know they would never get their way if they did want to extinguish it. Religious freedoms are protected by a wide range of constitutional and statutory means. That doesn't change the fact that the idea that a corporation can assert the right to exempt itself from regulations based on beliefs of how something works that are demonstrably false is a bad precedent to set.

 

[nehalem256]

No, they are presenting an argument that they view as functionally identical to exempt themselves from laws that they don't like. This highlights why Hobby Lobby is a bad, bad precedent to set.

Ah. So they are like the dude who sued to marry his porn filled Apple computer.:sneaky:

 

[realibrad]

The silver lining in this could be that people have to put their money where their mouth is. If a company back an idea that is unpopular, people can vote that company out by not buying their products. I believe that they would lose money, and change views. Then again, I could be wrong and people may actually enjoy that view. Democracy through capitalism!

 

[Retro Rob]

No, they are presenting an argument that they view as functionally identical to exempt themselves from laws that they don't like. This highlights why Hobby Lobby is a bad, bad precedent to set.

I don't care what they think about religious freedom in this country, as I know they would never get their way if they did want to extinguish it. Religious freedoms are protected by a wide range of constitutional and statutory means. That doesn't change the fact that the idea that a corporation can assert the right to exempt itself from regulations based on beliefs of how something works that are demonstrably false is a bad precedent to set.

But Statanists don't have that as a "belief", let alone something sincerely held, or included in thousands of years of doctrine. You cannot compare something arbitrary with something that has been part of a religious foundation for centuries...that's the ignorant part about this, and why I think its silly.

Sure, they have every right to be heard, but also, rejected.

 

[nehalem256]

But Statanists don't have that as a "belief", let alone something sincerely held, or included in thousands of years of doctrine. You cannot compare something arbitrary with something that has been part of a religious foundation for centuries...that's the ignorant part about this, and why I think its silly.

Sure, they have every right to be heard, but also, rejected.

Wait. You mean that being asked to monetarily support murder isn't the same as having to listen to something that makes you feel butt-hurt?

 

[fskimospy]

But Statanists don't have that as a "belief", let alone something sincerely held, or included in thousands of years of doctrine. You cannot compare something arbitrary with something that has been part of a religious foundation for centuries...that's the ignorant part about this, and why I think its silly.

Sure, they have every right to be heard, but also, rejected.

Actually they do. After reading up on it Satanists basically embrace free will, rationalism, and individualism. Saying you shouldn't be forced to jump through various hoops before doing something with your body clearly falls within that. Additionally, how old a religion is is totally irrelevant under US law. If a religion is 5,000 years old or 5 seconds old it is afforded the same protections.

By the way I want them to lose too, but I want them to lose because the fundamental logic behind the Hobby Lobby ruling is flawed and should be overturned.

 

[Theb]

That website is great.

Authorities in Portland, Ore. have discovered detectable levels of gluten in the city’s water supply, causing a citywide panic.

The city’s water bureau discovered the contamination yesterday and is desperately trying to find out how gluten got into the water. A preliminary report found that the contamination may have occurred “at least eight or nine months ago” when a child dropped a loaf of bread into a local river.

Officials have declared a state of emergency and plan to drain all of the city’s reservoirs. The mayor has also deployed city’s spiritual and wellness counselors to provide relief to beleaguered residents who drank the gluten-contaminated water.

http://dailycurrant.com/2014/06/03/gluten-found-in-portlands-water-supply/

 

[nehalem256]

Actually they do. After reading up on it Satanists basically embrace free will, rationalism, and individualism. Saying you shouldn't be forced to jump through various hoops before doing something with your body clearly falls within that. Additionally, how old a religion is is totally irrelevant under US law. If a religion is 5,000 years old or 5 seconds old it is afforded the same protections.

By the way I want them to lose too, but I want them to lose because the fundamental logic behind the Hobby Lobby ruling is flawed and should be overturned.

The issue is that Satanism isn't a religion.

It is an atheistic philosophy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaVeyan_Satanism

Or is atheism now considered a religion? Seems like if you arguing that, that could create some interesting problems with other court rulings where atheists where butt-hurt about having to see items that mentioned religion.

 

[Jaskalas]

That website is great.

http://dailycurrant.com/2014/06/03/gluten-found-in-portlands-water-supply/

I don't know... that could seriously be a news article coming from Oregon. :'(

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

assuming the story in the OP is true, this situation is a completely different scenario than what was in the Hobby Lobby decision.

Which is why it won't stand on those grounds. The HL controversy didn't involve competing religious rights.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

No, they are presenting an argument that they view as functionally identical to exempt themselves from laws that they don't like. This highlights why Hobby Lobby is a bad, bad precedent to set.

I don't care what they think about religious freedom in this country, as I know they would never get their way if they did want to extinguish it. Religious freedoms are protected by a wide range of constitutional and statutory means. That doesn't change the fact that the idea that a corporation can assert the right to exempt itself from regulations based on beliefs of how something works that are demonstrably false is a bad precedent to set.

I'm sorry, what corporation passed informed consent laws? You want it to apply as a basis on which to attack the HL ruling, but the government isn't a corporation. Better luck next time.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm sorry, what corporation passed informed consent laws? You want it to apply as a basis on which to attack the HL ruling, but the government isn't a corporation. Better luck next time.

Your argument doesn't appear to make any sense. The Satanists are suing the government because the government passed informed consent laws. The HL ruling says you can get a religious exemption on generally applicable laws, and that's what they're going for. Seems they are plenty lucky.

 

[nehalem256]

Your argument doesn't appear to make any sense. The Satanists are suing the government because the government passed informed consent laws. The HL ruling says you can get a religious exemption on generally applicable laws, and that's what they're going for. Seems they are plenty lucky.

Satanism isn't a religion.

It is an atheistic philosophy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaVeyan_Satanism

If atheism is now considered a religion that would seem to create a lot of interesting problems with court rulings that essentially mandate secularism.

And of course that isn't even getting into the issue that even mainstream publications call what they are doing trolling.

So if you really think the case has any merit at all I would assume you support marrying porn filled Apple computers too right?

 

[Retro Rob]

Actually they do. After reading up on it Satanists basically embrace free will, rationalism, and individualism. Saying you shouldn't be forced to jump through various hoops before doing something with your body clearly falls within that.

I think they're stretching it a bit there.

Additionally, how old a religion is is totally irrelevant under US law. If a religion is 5,000 years old or 5 seconds old it is afforded the same protections.

They're the ones comparing made-up beliefs with sincerely held ones, so how old a religion is is indeed relevant to that point.

 

[Theb]

I don't know... that could seriously be a news article coming from Oregon. :'(

That's what makes is so great. I'm thinking about sending it to my brother's gf to see what kind of reaction I get (they live in Portland).

 

[fskimospy]

I think they're stretching it a bit there.

How?

They're the ones comparing made-up beliefs with sincerely held ones, so how old a religion is is indeed relevant to that point.

What made-up beliefs?

 

[alzan]

I think they're stretching it a bit there.



They're the ones comparing made-up beliefs with sincerely held ones, so how old a religion is is indeed relevant to that point.

You are welcome to your opinion but Levayan Satanists, Luciferians, Palladists, etc. all hold their belief system just as sincerely as you hold your belief system.

I would also add that the various belief systems surrounding Satan are just as old as Christianity.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Your argument doesn't appear to make any sense. The Satanists are suing the government because the government passed informed consent laws. The HL ruling says you can get a religious exemption on generally applicable laws, and that's what they're going for. Seems they are plenty lucky.

That's fascinating. Apparently the court didn't apply any context or limitations and said we can just not pay taxes or follow any law at all. No wait, they didn't do that. Considering that no one else is taking the position of the Satanists as a legally valid argument, good luck with that. With your reasoning approving gay marriage means people can now legally wed their dog. Scare tactics from the other side of the coin.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

That's fascinating. Apparently the court didn't apply any context or limitations and said we can just not pay taxes or follow any law at all. No wait, they didn't do that. Considering that no one else is taking the position of the Satanists as a legally valid argument, good luck with that. With your reasoning approving gay marriage means people can now legally wed their dog. Scare tactics from the other side of the coin.

A dog cannot consent in any possible way