![Clap :clap:](https://www.booktalk.org/images/smilies/ges_clap.gif)
-
In total there are 30 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 29 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 1000 on Sun Jun 30, 2024 12:23 am
Supreme Court Ruling Protects Religious Freedom
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.
All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.
All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
- ant
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 5935
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
- 13
- Has thanked: 1371 times
- Been thanked: 969 times
- Interbane
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 7203
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
- 19
- Location: Da U.P.
- Has thanked: 1105 times
- Been thanked: 2166 times
Re: Supreme Court Ruling Protects Religious Freedom
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.
This is a terrible decision from the supreme court.
“In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
- bionov
-
Agrees that Reading is Fundamental
- Posts: 285
- Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 7:14 pm
- 11
- Location: Sierra Foothills, CA
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 25 times
- Contact:
Re: Supreme Court Ruling Protects Religious Freedom
![:appl: :appl:](https://www.booktalk.org/images/smilies/appl.gif)
Charles Vrooman
http://chvrooman.wix.com/thrillers
http://chvrooman.wix.com/thrillers
- ant
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 5935
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
- 13
- Has thanked: 1371 times
- Been thanked: 969 times
Re: Supreme Court Ruling Protects Religious Freedom
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.
Last edited by ant on Mon Jun 30, 2014 12:12 pm, edited 2 times in total.
- ant
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 5935
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
- 13
- Has thanked: 1371 times
- Been thanked: 969 times
Re: Supreme Court Ruling Protects Religious Freedom
bionov wrote:Individuals who own there own companies have rights. This is why the Supreme Court ruled to protect these religious freedoms.
![Bananadance 2 :bananadance2:](https://www.booktalk.org/images/smilies/non_banana2.gif)
- LanDroid
-
- Comandante Literario Supreme
- Posts: 2808
- Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 9:51 am
- 21
- Location: Cincinnati, OH
- Has thanked: 199 times
- Been thanked: 1168 times
Re: Supreme Court Ruling Protects Religious Freedom
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"?
- ant
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 5935
- Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
- 13
- Has thanked: 1371 times
- Been thanked: 969 times
Re: Supreme Court Ruling Protects Religious Freedom
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!
Last edited by ant on Mon Jun 30, 2014 12:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Chris OConnor
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 17034
- Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
- 22
- Location: Florida
- Has thanked: 3521 times
- Been thanked: 1313 times
- Gender:
- Contact:
Re: Supreme Court Ruling Protects Religious Freedom
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.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 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!
- Interbane
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 7203
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
- 19
- Location: Da U.P.
- Has thanked: 1105 times
- Been thanked: 2166 times
Re: Supreme Court Ruling Protects Religious Freedom
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.A person automatically forfeits their religious convictions when they are an OWNER of a for-profit corporation?
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.When did the US market become purely secular?
What if the requested religious liberty was the right to own a slave?The HHS position became burdensome on religious liberty when it imposed a necessity that was in direct conflict with a particular religious conviction.
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.Can you tell me what law requires an owner of a for-profit company not be influenced by his or her religion?
I'll take that as a compliment.Again, I am beginning to seriously question the way you think.
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.In the context of this nation's values of religious freedom, this ruling makes a lot of sense.
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.
You mean religious oppression?Welcome to the land of religious freedom and religious expression.
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?bionov wrote:Individuals who own there own companies have rights.
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.
“In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
- LanDroid
-
- Comandante Literario Supreme
- Posts: 2808
- Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 9:51 am
- 21
- Location: Cincinnati, OH
- Has thanked: 199 times
- Been thanked: 1168 times
Re: Supreme Court Ruling Protects Religious Freedom
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.ant wrote:That's not at issue here.LanDroid wrote: purge their employee rolls of "The Gay"?
Could these corporations, citing Old Testament verses, purge their employee rolls of "The Gay"?