Are Laws that Favor One Religion over Another a Violation of the First Amendment?

a reply to: windword

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment does not apply.

Obama.Care in whole or part is not protecting any rights or laws.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: xuenchen

What's you point? Women come in different flavors?

HaHa. No answer to that question.

Me point is I bet the SCOTUS decision applies to other religions.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: windword

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment does not apply.

Obama.Care in whole or part is not protecting any rights or laws.

I gather that's your scholarly legal opinion?

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: windword

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment does not apply.

Obama.Care in whole or part is not protecting any rights or laws.

I gather that's your scholarly legal opinion?

Yes.

Along with the SCOTUS.

a reply to: xuenchen

Although the court ruled on the contraception mandate, this opinion will have vast implications, IMO.

From the SCOTUS syllabus: (that I have downloaded to my desktop, so no link)

The belief of the Hahns and Greens implicates a difficult and important question of religion and moral philosophy, namely, the circumstances under which it is immoral for a person to perform an act that is innocent in itself but that has the effect of enabling or facilitating the commission of an immoral act by another. It is not for the Court to say that the religious beliefs of the plaintiffs are mistaken or unreasonable.

It's a scary thought, but it's true! SCOTUS ruled that corporations have the right to prevent or hinder their employees from committing a LEGAL act the owner sees as immoral.

a reply to: windword

It's a scary thought, but it's true! SCOTUS ruled that corporations have the right to prevent or hinder their employees from committing an act the owner sees as immoral.

This does not break any existing laws or create any new laws by any default.

Perhaps they had no choice.

It was the PPACA and HHS that threw the first stone of infringement on established religious freedom.

This is what happens when arrogant Progressives attempt to circumvent Constitutional Law and Statutory Law.

a reply to: xuenchen

Yes.

Along with the SCOTUS.

Can you please cite where SCOTUS has said that women don't qualify for equal protection under the ACA?

a reply to: xuenchen

This does not break any existing laws or create any new laws by any default.

It creates a dangerous precedent of corporate personage. The ruling was based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which in no way ever was intended to protect big business.

Congress can remedy the consequences of this this unconstitutional ruling of SCOTUS by amending that document to reflect it's intent. Many politician have already made that suggestion.

a reply to: windword

Dear windword,

It would certainly be a scary situation if the Supremes ruled that an employer could prohibit a legal act while away from the job. Of course it happens all the time anyway. Brandan Eich (sp?) was fired for donating $1000 bucks to a Proposition 8 group, not to mention the untold hundreds who have been fired for saying something goofy on Facebook or Twitter.

But, again, that's not what the Court ruled. It ruled that the Birth Control mandate promulgated by HHS could not be enforced because it violated RFRA.

As you'll recall, Hobby Lobby was already covering 80% of the birth control methods for it's employees without objection.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: charles1952

As you'll recall, Hobby Lobby was already covering 80% of the birth control methods for it's employees without objection.

That's not the point. The ruling violates the 14th Amendment, specifically, the part about equal protection, no pun intended.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: xuenchen

Yes.

Along with the SCOTUS.

Can you please cite where SCOTUS has said that women don't qualify for equal protection under the ACA?

I doubt anything referring to the 14th is in there.

It doesn't apply, although the 14th *IS* tricky.

from your 14th link... long shot argument in this quote, but it may apply to both sides of the HL issue..

The 14th amendment is not by its terms applicable to the federal government. Actions by the federal government, however, that classify individuals in a discriminatory manner will, under similar circumstances, violate the due process of the fifth amendment.

The original Hobby Lobby petition and all the arguments that were presented in all the cases, I don't see anybody bringing up the 14Th.

Here's a link to all the cases...
Legal Documents for Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius

a reply to: windword

"corporate personage" was established in many past "precedents".

That's why the SCOTUS used those "precedents".

a reply to: xuenchen

You won't find any constitutional reference in the syllabus. The ruling wasn't based on the constitution. It was based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

That's the document we need to change.

a reply to: windword

It's a scary thought, but it's true! SCOTUS ruled that corporations have the right to prevent or hinder their employees from committing a LEGAL act the owner sees as immoral.

Employers are not preventing anybody from doing any legal act are they.

In this case, the use or non use of contraception is voluntary.

The SCOTUS rulings are not creating any new laws.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: windword

"corporate personage" was established in many past "precedents".

That's why the SCOTUS used those "precedents".

Again, none of that is constitutional. All those congressional acts can be amended. It's all corruption and money, in my opinion.

a reply to: xuenchen

In this case, the use or non use of contraception is voluntary.

It is a legal requirement of basic health insurance, that these women are already paying for. They have been and continue to be denied access to these legal remedies, that they are paying for.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: xuenchen

You won't find any constitutional reference in the syllabus. The ruling wasn't based on the constitution. It was based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

That's the document we need to change.

Good Luck with that. Maybe it's possible, but it looks like the Administration along with the 111th Congress and the HHS failed to circumvent the existing laws by force.


Maybe it's time for some "Church'in Up".....

The Obama Administration needs to listen here, since they can't read to well....

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the LORD
www.youtube.com...

a reply to: windword

It is a legal requirement of basic health insurance, that these women are already paying for. They have been and continue to be denied access to these legal remedies, that they are paying for.

The SCOTUS said there are less infringing avenues that don't violate freedoms.

a reply to: windword

Dear windword,

That's not the point. The ruling violates the 14th Amendment, specifically, the part about equal protection, no pun intended.

Maybe, but I doubt it. Consider the situation. Obamacare is the president's one legacy. He has fought for it every step of the way. The government has some of the best lawyers in the country and could hire anyone in the country they thought they might need.

No one from the government or HHS ever raised the question of the 14th Amendment. My guess is that they saw it as a loser issue. I can not believe that the idea never crossed their collective mind.

Besides, who wasn't being equally treated? All of the women employees at Hobby Lobby were treated exactly the same way. Women wanting the company to pay for their abortifacients aren't anywhere near a protected class (yet).

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: windword

Dear windword,

You won't find any constitutional reference in the syllabus. The ruling wasn't based on the constitution. It was based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

That's the document we need to change.

ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, WELL DONE!

Change RFRA, and the whole battle has to be fought on other grounds. It's not going to be changed in an election year, and considering that 21 years ago it passed both houses unanimously (except for three Senators) I'm not sure it will be changed in the near future.

With respect,
Charles1952