Christianity & Hobby Lobby

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: xuenchen

Don't send me looking for data to back up your argument. Cite it!

Oh, bull#. I made several citations which you ignored. Don't play that "show me the cite game."

a reply to: NavyDoc

I posted multiple reverences and linked the original sources.

Where?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: xuenchen

Don't send me looking for data to back up your argument. Cite it!

OK!!!!!

page 2

In these cases, the owners of three closely held for-profit corporations have sincere Christian beliefs that life begins at conception and that it would violate their religion to facilitate access to contraceptive drugs or devices that operate after that point.

In separate actions,they sued HHS and other federal officials and agencies (collectively HHS) under RFRA and the Free Exercise Clause, seeking to enjoin application of the contraceptive mandate insofar as it requires them to provide health coverage for the four objectionable contraceptives. In No. 13–356, the District Court denied the Hahns and their company—Conestoga Wood Specialties—a preliminary injunction.

Affirming, the Third Circuit held that a for-profit corporation could not “engage in religious exercise” under RFRA or the First Amendment, and that the mandate imposed no requirements on the Hahns in their personal capacity. In No. 13–354, the Greens, their children, and their companies—Hobby Lobby Stores and Mardel—were also denied a preliminary injunction, but the Tenth Circuit reversed. It held that the Greens’ businesses are “persons” under RFRA, and that the corporations had established a likelihood of success on their RFRA claim because the contraceptive mandate substantially burdened their exercise of religion and HHS had not demonstrated a compelling interest in enforcing the mandate against them; in the alternative, the court held that HHS had not proved that the mandate was the “least restrictive means” of furthering a compelling governmental interest.

page(s) 3.4 -- flawed arguments from HHS collective

(iii) Also flawed is the claim that RFRA offers no protection because it only codified pre-Smith Free Exercise Clause precedents, none of which squarely recognized free-exercise rights for for-profit corporations. First, nothing in RFRA as originally enacted suggested that its definition of “exercise of religion” was meant to be tied to pre-Smith interpretations of the First Amendment. Second, if RFRA’s original text were not clear enough, the RLUIPA amendment surely dispels any doubt that Congress intended to separate the definition ofthe phrase from that in First Amendment case law.

Da Case

a reply to: NavyDoc

You can't cite/quote the passages that prove your point, because they don't exist.

The fact of the matter is, the Hobby Lobby SCOTUS decision wasn't based on the Constitution, it was based on the religious Freedom and Restoration Act.

SCOTUS SYLLUBUS

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) prohibits the “Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise ofreligion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless the Government “demonstrates that application of theburden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furtheringthat compelling governmental interest.” 42 U. S. C. §§2000bb–1(a), (b). As amended by the Religious Land Use and InstitutionalizedPersons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), RFRA covers “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” §2000cc–5(7)(A).

HHS argues that the connection between what the objecting parties must do and the end that they find to be morally wrong is too attenuated because it is the employee who will choose the coverageand contraceptive method she uses. But RFRA’s question is whether the mandate imposes a substantial burden on the objecting parties’ability to conduct business in accordance with their religious beliefs.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 actthat 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 orunreasonable.

The Court assumes that the interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods is a compellinggovernmental interest, but the Government has failed to show that the contraceptive mandate is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. Pp. 38–49.

The Court assumes that the interest in guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods is compelling within the meaning of RFRA.

There ya go.. Clear government interest in providing contraception. Clear ruling based on the RFRA, not the Constitution.

www.supremecourt.gov...

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

That's not how the Constitution works--please show me in the Constitution where it can enact laws outside it's mandate scope of reasonability. You have to prove that it is authorized by our founding government. The Burdon of proof is on the individual who wants to expand federal power

You can't prove your point. The Establishment Clause prevent Congress from creating laws "respecting" religion. Congress isn't required to be tippy toeing around people beliefs when they make laws. It's up to the people to declare conscious objection if a law offend them.

The RFRA is a law that dictate when and how the government can make laws that step on the toes of religious people. It's not Constitutional.

Someone should not have to prove that the Federal government can't do something, the government has to prove it can.

Naive and gullible?

LOL. Like a typical progressive who likes to cherry pick and gloss over those parts that don't support him you bring up the establishment clause and completely ignore the free exercise clause. We've never mentioned the establishment clause, the SCOTUS decision does not mention the establishment clause--we've been talking about the free exercise clause of the first amendment and it was mentioned in their decision several times and I have provided the citations for you several times above. That you are intentionally blind at the facts placed before you shows a lot of blind ignorance.

That you cannot even recognize that the first amendment has a "free exercise" part that is in addition to the "establishment" part event though a posted the entire text of the amendment shows just how much you embrace that blindness.

Not gullible or naïve. Just that I know my Constitution very well, as obviously you do not. Show me where, in the Constitution, that mandating health care or ensuring birth control are enumerated duties of the federal government. What section? What article?

a reply to: xuenchen

Hobby Lobby's defense was based on the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, which is clearly defined in the first paragraph of the SCOTUS syllubus. The RFRA attempt to expand the First Amendment.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) prohibits the “Government [from] substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise ofreligion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability” unless the Government “demonstrates that application of theburden to the person—(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furtheringthat compelling governmental interest.” 42 U. S. C. §§2000bb–1(a), (b). As amended by the Religious Land Use and InstitutionalizedPersons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), RFRA covers “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” §2000cc–5(7)(A).

Hobby Lobby didn't have case based on the 1st Amendment, which is why they invoked the RFRA.

a reply to: windword

I love it how you cherry pick something to only highlight things you think support your decision, hoping that others won't read THE WHOLE THING and find out things that put your premise at odds.

Your position was that the Constitution was not concerned with the Constitution, if fact, your exact words were that the first amendment was NOT REFERECNED ONCE.

agencies (collectively HHS) under RFRA and the FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE, seeking to enjoin application of the contraceptive mandate insofar as it requires them to provide health coverage for the four objectionable contraceptives.

contraceptive mandate substantially burdened their exercise of religion and HHS had not demonstrated a compelling interest in enforcing the mandate against them; in the alternative, the court held that HHS had not proved that the mandate was the “least restrictive means” of furthering a compelling governmental interest.

And the profitmaking objective of the corporations cannot explain it because the Court has entertained the free-exercise claims of individuals who were attempting to make a profit as retail merchants. Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U. S. 599. Business practices compelled or limited by thetenets of a religious doctrine fall comfortably within the understanding of the “exercise of religion” that this Court set out in Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U. S. 872, 877. Any suggestion that for-profit corporations are incapable of exercising

RFRA’s definition made reference to the First Amendment. See §2000bb–2(4) (1994 ed.) (defining “exercise of religion” as “the exercise of religion under the First Amendment”).

The Hahns and Conestoga sued HHS and other federal officials and agencies under RFRA and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, seeking to enjoin application of ACA’s contraceptive mandate insofar as it requires them to provide health-insurance coverage for four FDA approved contraceptives that may operate after the fertilization of an egg.

www.supremecourt.gov...

So you are wrong. SCOTUS mentioned the First Amendment, RFRA mentions the First Amendment, and HL's complaint mentioned the First Amendment--specifically the "free exercise clause" that comes form this text of the first amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

It's there, in the document, and if you actually read the full text instead of relying on Huffpo talking points, you'd have seen them too.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Look, the establishment clause doesn't protect Hobby Lobby's objection

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

What does protect Hobby Lobby? The Religous Freedom and Restoration Act.

FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION PROTECTED.

(a) IN GENERAL. -- Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection
prop1.org...

(b) EXCEPTION. -- Government may burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person --

(1) furthers a compelling governmental interest; and

(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

Hobby Lobby argued that the government didn't use " the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest". SCOTUS agreed and they won.

Therefore, PROOF, the SCOTUS ruling was based on the RFRA, not the Constitution.

a reply to: NavyDoc

never mind, they're interchangable.

originally posted by: windword

LOL The "Free Exercise Clause" isn't part of the 1st Amendment. It's part of the RFRA.. HAHA

The Free Exercise Clause is the accompanying clause with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read:
“ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Free Exercise Clause

busted again. and again. and again.

a reply to: xuenchen

Pfft. Yeah, I edited. But the "Free Exercise Clause" is the KEY part of the RFRA.

FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION PROTECTED.

(a) IN GENERAL. -- Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection
prop1.org...

(b) EXCEPTION. -- Government may burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person --

(1) furthers a compelling governmental interest; and

(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

This (unconstitutional) law outlines how and when the government can burden a person's free exercise. (Forget the part about Hobby Lobby NOT being a person).

Hobby Lobby presented their case based on RFRA, not the Establishment/Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution. They won their case based the RFRA, not the Constitution.

The SCOTUS ruling actually violates the Establishment Clause, in that it give preference to a certain sect of Chrisitanity, allowing those Christians to burden 2nd and 3rd parties, and denies tens of thousands of women their 14th Amendment rights of Equal Protection under the Law.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

I posted multiple reverences and linked the original sources.

Where?

Page 14, this page, and Xuenchen did the same on this page. Citations with links to the original texts.

a reply to: windword

Yes, it's very clear to me that without the RFRA, SCOTUS would not have been able to rule the way they did.

We all know that the freedom to act any way you want in accordance with your religious beliefs is NOT absolute. It doesn't say that in the constitution, but SCOTUS has ruled in the past that there ARE exceptions to the first amendment. Unfortunately, using the RFRA as a defense just made it easier for the conservative (Catholic) justices to rule according to their own beliefs. Sad.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

never mind, they're interchangable.

No not "never mind." You said this: (thank you Xuenchen for quoting it so everyone could see it.)

LOL The "Free Exercise Clause" isn't part of the 1st Amendment. It's part of the RFRA.. HAHA

Here you are arguing and arguing and condescending to those who disagree with you about the Constitution and saying that we did not know what we were talking about and you did not even have the basic fundamental knowledge of the Constitution to realize that there was a "free exercise" clause in the first amendment and you had the temerity to make a snide comment when I quoted the exact verbiage of the amendment from the national archives website. This is the ignorance and intellectual dishonesty I've pointed out and after this, any comment you make is pretty suspect and laughable.

We have Constitutional ignoramuses lecturing us on the Constitution. That'd be funny if it were not so sad and a prime example of the failings of our educational system and one of the many reasons why were are the state we are in today.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: xuenchen

Pfft. Yeah, I edited. But the "Free Exercise Clause" is the KEY part of the RFRA.

FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION PROTECTED.

(a) IN GENERAL. -- Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection
prop1.org...

(b) EXCEPTION. -- Government may burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person --

(1) furthers a compelling governmental interest; and

(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

This (unconstitutional) law outlines how and when the government can burden a person's free exercise. (Forget the part about Hobby Lobby NOT being a person).

Hobby Lobby presented their case based on RFRA, not the Establishment/Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution. They won their case based the RFRA, not the Constitution.

The SCOTUS ruling actually violates the Establishment Clause, in that it give preference to a certain sect of Chrisitanity, allowing those Christians to burden 2nd and 3rd parties, and denies tens of thousands of women their 14th Amendment rights of Equal Protection under the Law.

Actually RFRA enhances the "Free Exercise Clause".

And of course, the SCOTUS ruling does not establish any religious preferences at all.

And the 14th is irrelevant because the ACA itself "discriminates" against everybody by not requiring employers to pay for insurance if they have less than 50 full time employees. That makes the 14th irrelevant and non-applying.

ACA in itself does not provide "equal protection under the law" does it.

A challenge using the 14th might actually yield a strike-down of the employer mandate in its entirety.

Then what?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

Look, the establishment clause doesn't protect Hobby Lobby's objection

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

What does protect Hobby Lobby? The Religous Freedom and Restoration Act.

FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION PROTECTED.

(a) IN GENERAL. -- Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection
prop1.org...

(b) EXCEPTION. -- Government may burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person --

(1) furthers a compelling governmental interest; and

(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

Hobby Lobby argued that the government didn't use " the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest". SCOTUS agreed and they won.

Therefore, PROOF, the SCOTUS ruling was based on the RFRA, not the Constitution.

I'm sorry, since you don't even have a basic knowledge of the document in question, your opinion is very uneducated. The establishment clause is not part of their objection, the free exercise clause--the clause you did not know was part of the first amendment--was.

No # the First Amendment and the "Free exercise" clause are key parts of the RFRA--that's the entire point of the act in the first place--to confirm and solidify protections under the First Amendment. That was the entire point of the law and that is what the entire act is based upon--the first amendment. You cannot seperate one from the other.

a reply to: kaylaluv

Yep

Every war the government has ever conscripted has had Conscientious objectors. Congress was never required to tip toe around special people's beliefs. Neither should we have to.

How to Fix the Religious Freedom Restoration Act

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: windword

Yes, it's very clear to me that without the RFRA, SCOTUS would not have been able to rule the way they did.

We all know that the freedom to act any way you want in accordance with your religious beliefs is NOT absolute. It doesn't say that in the constitution, but SCOTUS has ruled in the past that there ARE exceptions to the first amendment. Unfortunately, using the RFRA as a defense just made it easier for the conservative (Catholic) justices to rule according to their own beliefs. Sad.

Some original Hobby Lobby cases had the "Free Exercise Clause" cited as likely to succeed in higher courts.

It was an option.

search "Free Exercise Clause".....
case from June 27,2013

all Hobby Lobby cases

a reply to: xuenchen

Actually RFRA enhances the "Free Exercise Clause".

That's what I said to you a few posts back, except, I used the word "expands".

And of course, the SCOTUS ruling does not establish any religious preferences at all.

Of course it does. Only a small sect of Christians belief the stuff that Hobby Lobby's pushing. The ruling even explicitly bars Jehovah Witnesses from denying vaccinations or blood transfusions. Do you think this ruling suddenly give me the right to ingest psychedelic drugs for religious purposes?

And the 14th is irrelevant because the ACA itself "discriminates" against everybody by not requiring employers to pay for insurance if they have less than 50 full time employees. That makes the 14th irrelevant and non-applying.

Sigh.

Again, Hobby Lobby nor your employer is required to provide equal protection. That's the Government's job.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: xuenchen

Actually RFRA enhances the "Free Exercise Clause".

That's what I said to you a few posts back, except, I used the word "expands".

And of course, the SCOTUS ruling does not establish any religious preferences at all.

Of course it does. Only a small sect of Christians belief the stuff that Hobby Lobby's pushing. The ruling even explicitly bars Jehovah Witnesses from denying vaccinations or blood transfusions. Do you think this ruling suddenly give me the right to ingest psychedelic drugs for religious purposes?

And the 14th is irrelevant because the ACA itself "discriminates" against everybody by not requiring employers to pay for insurance if they have less than 50 full time employees. That makes the 14th irrelevant and non-applying.

Sigh.

Again, Hobby Lobby nor your employer is required to provide equal protection. That's the Government's job.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Sigh. (That's funny--you typing "sigh" as if the other person does not understand.)

Why don't you spend some time reading what the Constitution actually says and then get back to us. You obviously need to do the basic homework before jumping into the big kids' side of the pond.

As an aside, the RFRA should not exist and if politicians actual read and understood and followed the first amendment, both parties would not have felt the need to vote it in back in the 1990's. We shouldn't have it and it should not be a law and if people followed the constitution, it wouldn't exist at all.