The New Law of Religion

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Monday’s decision in Hobby Lobby was unprecedented. Much of the commentary has focused on the Supreme Court’s decision to extend rights of religious free exercise to for-profit corporations. Hobby Lobby is for religion what Citizens United was for free speech—the corporatization of our basic liberties. But Hobby Lobby is also unprecedented in another, equally important way. For the first time, the court has interpreted a federal statute, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (or RFRA), as affording more protection for religion than has ever been provided under the First Amendment. While some have read Hobby Lobby as a narrow statutory ruling, it is much more than that. The court has eviscerated decades of case law and, having done that, invites a new generation of challenges to federal laws, including those designed to protect civil rights.

Micah is a UVA law professor btw.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/07/after_hobby_lobby_there_is_only_rfra_and_that_s_al l_you_need.html

[boutons_deux]

"The court has eviscerated decades of case law"

or, as that magnificent sand-bagger and liar John Roberts said at his confirmation, the court's role is "just calling balls and strikes"

The extremist, right-wing hyper-activist SCOTUS5's damage to America, THANKS, REPUGS!, will last for decades and there's much more SCOTUS5 rulings to come for many more years, even decades.

America is fucked and unfuckable.

[TheSanityAnnex]

http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s679/thefuzzylumpkins/holly-fisher-hobby-lobby_zps6e49ae38.jpg (http://s1311.photobucket.com/user/thefuzzylumpkins/media/holly-fisher-hobby-lobby_zps6e49ae38.jpg.html)

[boutons_deux]

http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s679/thefuzzylumpkins/holly-fisher-hobby-lobby_zps6e49ae38.jpg (http://s1311.photobucket.com/user/thefuzzylumpkins/media/holly-fisher-hobby-lobby_zps6e49ae38.jpg.html)

... until she needs an abortion.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s679/thefuzzylumpkins/holly-fisher-hobby-lobby_zps6e49ae38.jpg (http://s1311.photobucket.com/user/thefuzzylumpkins/media/holly-fisher-hobby-lobby_zps6e49ae38.jpg.html)

The issue here is legal entities once again being given equal footing as you and I. Whatever individual religious practice whatever someone wants to practice is their own business. What we are talking about here is a the government shielding groups from liability for their actions and then affording them all of the rights that people that do not organize under that umbrella enjoy.

It's using the wording of the 14th amendment to construct something that takes a shit on the notion of 'all men are created equal.' this country has a history of overcoming this type of bullshit. First with the Brits not affording Americans rights then with the oppression of darkie by whitey and now with this.

Sheila there is a good church girl. I don't give a fuck about that as it's not the issue. She like you is oblivious to what Citizens United and this really mean. Bow down to your corporate overlords, bitches.

[TheSanityAnnex]

:cry spending my own money to abort my own baby :cry

[Th'Pusher]

:cry spending my own money to abort my own baby :cry

Like a chimp banging away at his keyboard.

[Shastafarian]

Like a chimp banging away at his keyboard.

Chimps have actually displayed altruism in the wild and captivity so that's kind of a diss to chimps.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Thing is that the ruling was about birth control and not abortion. i guess he thinks he is trolling but making himself look like a deplorable halfwit is not accomplishing what he thinks it does.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Thing is that the ruling was about birth control and not abortion. i guess he thinks he is trolling but making himself look like a deplorable halfwit is not accomplishing what he thinks it does.

Thing is that Hobby Lobby was never against birth control you dipshit. It's always been about abortion for them.
Halfwit :lol

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/28399997-452/hobby-lobby-ruling-about-abortion-not-contraceptives.html#.U7ibGWS9LTp


The major media’s account of the Supreme Court’s decision in the Hobby Lobby case was typical of the way the case has been misreported from the start. The New York Times headline read, “Supreme Court Rejects Contraceptives Mandate for Some Corporations.” Politico led with “SCOTUS sides with Hobby Lobby on birth control.” Others were similar.


That’s not what the case was about. The litigants — the Green and Hahn families, owners of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties respectively — did not have religious objections to contraception. They might have if they were Catholic, but they weren’t, and they didn’t.


The Hahns are Mennonites and the Greens Christians of no particular denomination. Both families provided coverage for contraceptives in their health plans. Hobby Lobby provided coverage for 18 different methods of birth control. What both the Greens and the Hahns objected to were the regulations promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services that would have required them, on pain of severe fines, to cover four more methods, including the morning after pill, that the litigants consider abortifacients.


No matter how many times the press calls this a case about contraception, the truth is that it was about abortion.

[Shastafarian]

So the countless millions of "babies" that don't implant are naturally aborted in your opinion? So many lives down the drain...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This is from the SCOTUS decision itself:


At issue here are regulations promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA), which, as relevant here, requires specified employers’ group health plans to furnish “preventive care and screenings” for women without “any cost sharing requirements,” 42 U. S. C. §300gg–13(a)(4). Congress did not specify what types of preventive care must be covered; it authorized the Health Resources and Services Administration, a component of HHS, to decide. Ibid. Nonexempt employers are generally required to provide coverage for the 20 contraceptive methods approved by the Food and Drug Administration, including the 4 that may have the effect of preventing an already fertilized egg from developing any further by inhibiting its attachment to the uterus. Religious employers, such as churches, are exempt from this contraceptive mandate. HHS has also effectively exempted religious nonprofit organizations with religious objections to providing coverage for contraceptive services. Under this accommodation, the insurance issuer must exclude contraceptive coverage from the employer’s plan and provide plan participants with separate payments for contraceptive services without imposing any cost-sharing requirements on the employer, its insurance plan, or its employee beneficiaries.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/13-354

TSA as usual is wrong.

[Shastafarian]

http://s22.postimg.org/gc3rnav35/10449948_582831621838221_7443428642233263351_n.jpg (http://postimage.org/)

[TheSanityAnnex]

So the countless millions of "babies" that don't implant are naturally aborted in your opinion? So many lives down the drain...

I was just pointing out what Hobby Lobby considers abortion. I'm pro-choice. I just find the outrage over this ruling comical, this isn't a war on women. They'll still get everything they got before, only difference is who's paying for it now.

[TheSanityAnnex]

This is from the SCOTUS decision itself:



http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/13-354

TSA as usual is wrong.
Hobby Lobby considers those 4 abortifacients. It's okay to admit you didn't know that and were wrong. Knowing you it won't happen and you'll continue to dig a deeper hole.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hobby Lobby considers those 4 abortifacients. It's okay to admit you didn't know that and were wrong. Knowing you it won't happen and you'll continue to dig a deeper hole.

That is not what they argued in court. And after all this time of me beating you over the head with the notion of mutual exclusivity, you still don't get it.

this is why i call you dumb.

[TheSanityAnnex]

As predicted, more digging.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

As predicted, more digging.

No, I made an argument and then mocked you for your lack of vision and critical thinking.

The arguments that were made in court can be found at the link that was provided. Literally from the horses mouth in regards the case that HL brought to the Supreme Court. Now HL may be going through other outlets to make other claims but when it comes time to put their money where there mouth is then it is what it is.

And can you tell me in your own words what mutual exclusivity means? I really do not think that you can as you never ever seem able to determine when it does or does not apply as you make arguments. Your oblivious and at this point that is sad.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I had forgotten how entertaining it is to watch you flail around.

[boutons_deux]

The War on Vaginas isn't about the proxy issue of abortion.

It's about controlling, limiting women's non-reproductive sexuality (aka, slut shaming), and thereby tying them to uncontroled child raisin,g and excluding them from competing with men in the workplace, where they earn 25% less than men for the same job.

The Bible thumpers "know", esp Baptists, from the Bible that women's place is secondary to the man's.

When TX was hot on the trail of shutting down Planned Parenthood, a TX politician said it was really a war on contraception

(of course, being an ignorant Texan elected by ignorant Texans, he probably thinks contraception IS abortion)

[boutons_deux]

Conclusion

God created both men and women in His own image and made them equal custodians of all His creation. But, because of their disobedience, God punished Adam and Eve and evicted them from the Garden of Eden. Eve's punishment was to suffer pain in childbirth and be ruled over by her husband.

Jesus broke with tradition and treated women in a much more egalitarian way than was normal in the society of that time. The early Christian churches followed Jesus' lead and gave women much higher status and more privileges than was common in the rest of the world. But Paul and other Christian leaders continued to affirm the principle of a husband's family leadership and authority over his wife.

Christians disagree over whether this principle should apply in the modern world. Is the man's authority over his wife and family a great spiritual principle decreed by God for all time, or is it, like the Bible's teachings about slavery, just a reflection of the realities of Biblical-era culture?

Today, many Christians believe women should enjoy all the same rights and privileges as men. Other Christians, however, continue to advocate a secondary role for women based on Genesis 3:16 and other Bible passages.

http://www.christianbiblereference.org/faq_womensrights.htm

[TDMVPDPOY]

lol the bible a story of a cuck who never got his revenge....

[xrayzebra]

Whine, cry, screaming fits, whine, whine, whine......war on women.......

We Won, You Lost. This time. Next time we may lose. Suck it up and let the unborn children live. Oh, and did you forget, you can now demonstrate at the front door of the baby slaughter houses. Oh, what is this world coming to........