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

a reply to: Gryphon66

This was explained to you somewhere along the line.

It was held unconstitutional as applied to the states in the City of Boerne v. Flores decision in 1997, which ruled that the RFRA is not a proper exercise of Congress's enforcement power.

However, it continues to be applied to the federal government

- for instance, in Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal - because Congress has broad authority to carve out exemptions from federal laws and regulations that it itself has authorized

Religious Freedom Restoration Act

a reply to: xuenchen

Dear xuenchen,

I missed that. (To be honest, I didn't even look very hard.) Nice catch, and thank you. I'll write a letter of recommendation for you to a law school.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: charles1952

This conversation is actually a perfect mirror of the situations between the two statutes we're discussing, to wit:

You make a statement about my earlier comment about the Hobby Lobby decision: "The Court didn't rely on any unconstitutional law, and the RFRA that the Court was referring to was an amended version which wasn't unconstitutional.

I pointed out your error in logic.

You AMENDED your first post by your second, in which you're trying to step aside from stating that, somehow, after RLUIPA, RFPA was now "fixed." That has never been questioned in court! Why? Because we soon have the Roberts Court in power after 2000.

The Decision at question ACKNOWLEDGES the finding in Flores.

The finding in Flores was that RFRA is unconstitutional because Congress overstepped its powers.

RLUIPA tries to "fix" or AMEND the faults by removing references to the First Amendment.

RFRA is not repealed or rescinded; RFRA is unconstitutional; and Hobby Lobby is based on RFRA unquestionably.

The situation is actually crystal clear.

a reply to: xuenchen

Was wondering how long it would take you to chime in ... I didn't need to have anything "explained" to me, perhaps you should find someone to explain to you what it means when a law is found to be Unconstitutional.

If you weren't blinded by your right-wing prejudices, you'd be as upset by this as anyone.

SCOTUS has just supplanted the rule of law. The "Highest Court in the Land" just defecated on the American system of justice.

ADDED IN EDIT: Yes, why don't you and Charles just keep glad-handing and patting each other on the back? LOL.

Meanwhile, you're dancing on the bones of our Republic.

Best,

a reply to: Gryphon66

Dear Gryphon66,

Thanks for adding the comment to your thread, I wondered what your point was.

Your assertion about groups not having souls only proves my point Charles. The personhood of corporations is and have always been referred to as "legal fictions." Yes the word "person" was used but always for the sake of ease of conversation. There was never any belief, on the part of any Court before the Roberts Court, that the legal fiction was a real person.

We do seem to keep having difficulty. The legal personhood of a corporation (in some areas) has been in existence since the early 1800s. It has been a part of federal law for at least 65 years. In fact, you can find it at 1 U.S.C. 1, the very beginning of our law. It is called the Dictionary Act.

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise—
words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things;
words importing the plural include the singular;
words importing the masculine gender include the feminine as well;
words used in the present tense include the future as well as the present;
the words “insane” and “insane person” shall include every idiot, insane person, and person non compos mentis;
the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;
“officer” includes any person authorized by law to perform the duties of the office;
“signature” or “subscription” includes a mark when the person making the same intended it as such;
“oath” includes affirmation, and “sworn” includes affirmed;
“writing” includes printing and typewriting and reproductions of visual symbols by photographing, multigraphing, mimeographing, manifolding, or otherwise. (Emphasis added)

This isn't something dreamed up by the Roberts Court.

With respect,
Charles11952

a reply to: Gryphon66

And somehow I knew the Alinsky tactics would spring up as well.

The Supreme Court won't just toss up the Constitution that easy.

You have to wait now and see if the Justice Department can challenge anything.

If they can they will. Otherwise ?????

The Administration has been clipped.

Obama's Constitution is not the same as the real one

a reply to: charles1952

But it sets the ground for a new debate over how much control the government has over the practices of religious people

I don't think that the federal government has control over the religious practices of people any more than they have control over the practices of non-religious people.

The government never required Hobby Lobby to take contraception. And, though we disagree, I don't think that HL has the right to take those options off the table for their female employees. That is more controlling than a government contraception mandate, in my opinion.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Dear Gryphon66,

Allow me to try a different approach. Please consider these statements. Tell me which you think are in error and why.

RFRA was passed in 1993.

RFRA was found to be unconstitutional (1997, I think)

RLUIPA was passed in 2000.

One of the things that RLUIPA did was amend the 1993 version of RFRA to fix it's unconstitutionality.

The (New? Amended?) form of RFRA has never been held to be unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court relied on RFRA (as amended by RILUPA in 2000) to find that HHS had violated the law in imposing the mandate in question.

No one from HHS or in the dissent claimed that RFRA was unconstitutional.

You alone seem to think RFRA is unconstitutional.

With respect,
Charles1952

P.s. If you are free to say nasty things about me, am I not allowed to say nice things to xuenchen? - C -

a reply to: charles1952

the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;

Charles, you can't possible believe that the words "person" and "Whoever" suddenly change the quality of the corporation into something more human?

Calling a ship "She" or "Her" doesn't make her a lady. Words often have more than one meaning, and this is a good example of that. Every time we see the word "person" it doesn't automatically apply to corporations too. But that was Justice Roberts seems to think.

The authors of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act never intended their document to apply to corporations.

a reply to: charles1952

CHARLES:

The references to "persons, et. al." were previously and clearly understood to be legal fictions, i.e., in terms of a corproation appearing in court, paying taxes, having a singular legal name, etc., we refer to a corporation as a "person" ... but there was never any apprehension on the part of any previous Court that a corporation was equivalent in all ways to a natural person. The idea, as is being bandied about here, is absurd.

The idea that a Corporation has free speech rights or the ability to have religious beliefs is absurd.

The fact that absurdity is being accepted and promulgated by otherwise intelligent people such as yourself, Charles, goes to the very heart of the problem I'm trying to bring attention to.

Does a corporation now vote in national or state elections? Can it commit murder or theft? Can it be executed for capital crimes?

FOXY:

The issue is you only have about three or four vectors of argument: Alinsky, cultural marxism, liberals and progressives are all communists who all believe the same things and work under a united agenda, and, of course, Obama is responsible for all bad things, everywhere.

I've seen 'em all, and I'm exhausted with trying to communicate with you reasonably. Every topic gets routed back around to one of these items. So, having seen this repeatedly, and given your obvious disdain, do us both a favor and please don't bother commenting toward me or my posts again; we're done. K?

Best,

Best,

a reply to: windword

Dear windword,

As much as I may agree or disagree, I have to go with what the law is. The Dictionary Act says, "Yo! Congress peeps! If you all gonna write a bill that's got the word "person" in it, all of those robed folks are gonna assume you meant to toss "Corporations" and that kind of stuff in there too, if you don't say what you mean."

And the Court said that there wasn't any indication that "person" in the act meant only human, natural people. So, corporations were covered, whether they had souls, minds, or anything else.

It may have been a Congressional oversight, but the Court can't go around saying "We know what you meant to say, so we'll throw out what you actually did say, and put in what we thought you meant."

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: windword

Here's the HHS explanation for non-profit exempted.

It might apply to Hobby Lobby now.....??

The final rules also lay out the accommodation for other non-profit religious organizations - such as non-profit religious hospitals and institutions of higher education - that object to contraceptive coverage. Under the accommodation these organizations will not have to contract, arrange, pay for or refer contraceptive coverage to which they object on religious grounds, but such coverage is separately provided to women enrolled in their health plans at no cost. The approach taken in the final rules is similar to, but simpler than, that taken in the proposed rules, and responds to comments made by many stakeholders.

With respect to an insured health plan, including a student health plan, the non-profit religious organization provides notice to its insurer that it objects to contraception coverage. The insurer then notifies enrollees in the health plan that it is providing them separate no-cost payments for contraceptive services for as long as they remain enrolled in the health plan.

Administration issues final rules on contraception coverage and religious organizations

a reply to: xuenchen

Dear xuenchen,

It might apply. The Court was giving them some leeway in saying "we know you can provide an alternative, because you already do." But I don't think the Court was telling HHS that they had to do it that way.

My guess, and I'm sad to admit it, is that the administration will find the most expensive, intrusive, and objectionable method in order to get women riled up for the 2014 elections. And why not? They did it with shutting down national parks and claiming it was because of the sequester.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: charles1952

I am hardly the "only one" who finds RFRA unconstitutional in it's entirely.

Justice Stevens from Flores

In my opinion, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) is a “law respecting an establishment of religion” that violates the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Marci Hamilton in her Amicus brief submitted to the Court in this case argues (1) RFRA violates the separation of powers, (2) RFRA violates Article V, (3) RFRA isn’t justified by any of Congress’s powers, and (4) RFRA violates the Establishment Clause. Please read this if you want to understand the legal basis of where I'm coming from on the matter: Amicus Curiae Brief

Scholarly Article by Ms. Hamilton Published in the University of Pennsylvania Legal Journal

... and so on.

originally posted by: charles1952
a reply to: xuenchen

Dear xuenchen,

It might apply. The Court was giving them some leeway in saying "we know you can provide an alternative, because you already do." But I don't think the Court was telling HHS that they had to do it that way.

My guess, and I'm sad to admit it, is that the administration will find the most expensive, intrusive, and objectionable method in order to get women riled up for the 2014 elections. And why not? They did it with shutting down national parks and claiming it was because of the sequester.

With respect,
Charles1952

I agree they probably will attempt to make everything as tough as possible in order to blame anybody but themselves for their massive failures.

The entire Administration is a jealous grudge holding bunch for sure.

They have no qualms about taking "prisoners" either.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I'll have to think about it.

But tentatively, NO

a reply to: Gryphon66

Dear Gryphon,

What in the world is wrong? Your own clip references RFRA of 1993. Don't you believe that it was changed by the law in 2000? I have no problem saying that RFRA 1993 was unconstitutional. But nobody, except perhaps you, thinks RFRA 2000 is unconstitutional.

Would you be so kind as to go back a few posts and deal with my statements?

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: charles1952

Yep, and Congress can also amend its documents to reflect when they are referring to natural people and when they're referring to bodies of people, because this court is dumb as rocks that way! That's what we need to lobby for, editing!

a reply to: windword

Dear windword,

Again, I agree with you (almost entirely). The Court isn't dumb, there just tasked with following the law as written. Some do a better job of that than others, but there will always be a mix.

You're right. Go in and amend the language. Pass a different act. Congress, if you want to fix this it's up to you. Definitely windword, lobby and pressure the legislators all you want. I don't think it will happen before the elections though.

When the new crop of legislators come in, and they don't have to face the people for another two years, that's your chance.

With respect,
Charles1952

a reply to: charles1952

Have you bothered to read anything that I've provided??? Apparently not.

NOTE: I hear and have heard your argument, it's simplistic: RLUIPA "fixed" RFRA ... except it didn't!

RLUIPA has not yet been given a constitutional test of any kind! Read the Amicus brief I provided or not. This is not some crazy scheme I came up with on my own; a modicum of research would reveal that.

You don't seem like the majority of right-wingers on this site at least in as far as you are willing to review reasonable facts. Trust me, if you look at the situation honestly you will at least see the other side of your assertions, even if you don't agree.

PS: Where was I nasty to you again? I'd still like to understand that claim.

Or continue to imply that I don't comprehend what you're saying ...