http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/30/politics/ ... ?hpt=hp_t1

You're cheering for the fact that some for-profit corporations are considered to have religious rights?

This is a terrible decision from the supreme court.

Individuals who own there own companies have rights. This is why the Supreme Court ruled to protect these religious freedoms.

Interbane wrote:You're cheering for the fact that some for-profit corporations are considered to have religious rights?

This is a terrible decision from the supreme court.

A person automatically forfeits their religious convictions when they are an OWNER of a for-profit corporation?
So only "secular" convictions are admissible if you want to participate in a free market?

When did the US market become purely secular?

What fascist country were you born in?

The RFRA clearly applies in this case.
You're blind to that for personal reasons.

The HHS position became burdensome on religious liberty when it imposed a necessity that was in direct conflict with a particular religious conviction.
In order for an HHS mandate to be sustained, its enforcement must be minimally restrictive.
In this case it was because the Court reasoned that;

there are other ways in which Congress or HHS could insure that every woman has cost-free access to the particular contraceptives at issue here and indeed to all approved FDA-approved contraceptives

**OPINION OF THE SUPREME COURT**

You are blind to several things here because of the emotional posture you take whenever the word "religion" comes up in conversations.

In this case you are:

Ignoring the substance of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act

A market economy that allows people of any religious persuasion to participate, unfettered by demands that would require them to forfeit their religion of choice

Contraception is damn easy to get these days. There is no need compel anyone to make it available. That's a no brainer here. The Court reasoned this faster than you can break wind.


Can you tell me what law requires an owner of a for-profit company not be influenced by his or her religion?

Again, I am beginning to seriously question the way you think.
In the context of this nation's values of religious freedom, this ruling makes a lot of sense.
In the context of some Utopian Secularized Society, maybe you'd have a reason to whine.

But you don't.

Welcome to the land of religious freedom and religious expression.

bionov wrote: Individuals who own there own companies have rights. This is why the Supreme Court ruled to protect these religious freedoms.

How narrow is this ruling, does it apply only to contraception? Could these corporations, citing Old Testament verses, purge their employee rolls of "The Gay"?

LanDroid wrote: purge their employee rolls of "The Gay"?

That's not at issue here.
Let's try to stay on topic for once and not introduce red herrings, okay?

Post a slippery slope question in another thread and engage accordingly.


Here's a profound thought regarding THIS SPECIFIC CASE:

You also have the freedom NOT TO WORK for an christian / catholic / Musim / Quaker owner of a corporation that doesn't provide you with the morning after pill or a condom!

Wow! Imagine that!!

Freedom is such a wonderful thing!

Ant wrote:You also have the freedom NOT TO WORK for an christian / catholic / Musim / Quaker owner of a corporation that doesn't provide you with the morning after pill or a condom!

Wow! Imagine that!!

Freedom is such a wonderful thing!

And blacks have the freedom to work for an employee that doesn't make black people work in a special "Coloreds Only" room down in the basement.

And handicapped people have the freedom to work for an employer that provides a wheelchair accessible front door.

Women have the freedom to work for an employer that doesn't tell dirty jokes or stare at their tits.

Everyone needs to just quit whining. Right?

Freedom is awesome!

A person automatically forfeits their religious convictions when they are an OWNER of a for-profit corporation?

No one is being asked to forfeit their convictions. Having a conviction is not the same thing as forcing the consequences of your conviction on other people, which is what the ruling allows.

When did the US market become purely secular?

It always has been, in the eyes of the law. We’re not talking about the US market in general, we’re talking about the law that regulates the market.

The HHS position became burdensome on religious liberty when it imposed a necessity that was in direct conflict with a particular religious conviction.

What if the requested religious liberty was the right to own a slave?

Can you tell me what law requires an owner of a for-profit company not be influenced by his or her religion?

To not be influenced by it? You mean, to prevent them from having a dissenting opinion? There is no law that does that. Because that’s not what’s happening here. What’s happening is that their dissenting opinion is now affecting the lives of other people who do not share their convictions.

Again, I am beginning to seriously question the way you think.

I'll take that as a compliment.

In the context of this nation's values of religious freedom, this ruling makes a lot of sense.

There are countless restrictions against religious freedom ant. If there is a zealot who thinks slavery is condoned by the bible, his “religious freedom” will be restricted. If there is a person who thinks Thetans are coming to save them, and they must commit mass murder to save certain people, his “religious freedom” is restricted. This applies to people under their employment, there is no special exemption to laws for religious reasons.

The contraception ruling passed because it’s a grey area, not as clear cut an obvious as slavery or murder. They may be different religious convictions in terms of degree, but the same logic applies. One man’s religious convictions are negatively influencing the lives of other people.

Welcome to the land of religious freedom and religious expression.

You mean religious oppression?

bionov wrote:Individuals who own there own companies have rights.

The right to push their convictions onto other people? The right to own slaves? The right to form cults? Saying that some people have "rights" is ambiguous and doesn't translate to anything here. What about the rights of those who work for the company?

It's not as simple as saying that some people have rights. It's a balancing of one person's rights against those of another person, there must be equal consideration.

ant wrote:

LanDroid wrote: purge their employee rolls of "The Gay"?

That's not at issue here.

Correct, that is not an issue in the case that was just decided. However I asked how narrow the ruling is, how will it be applied in the future? I don't know, so I repeat my question.

Could these corporations, citing Old Testament verses, purge their employee rolls of "The Gay"?