some people would rather live at the mercy of the govt than stand
on their own freedoms

when you lose the RIGHT AND RESPONSIBILITY to protect your self
you become a servant of the govt

a very imortant section

""""That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. """""

that can not be done with a population with no way to protect themselves

history shows an unarmed populous becomes abused

I agree an 'unarmed populace' would be preposterous

just as a 100 percent armed populous would be

that's where 'regulate' becomes more logical than 'ban completely all guns'

but who decides

the govt that will opress

sounds counter productive

fascinating, even with the SCOTUS Dred Scott decision part II, were a state home healthworker is only 3/5 a state employee. How about Hobby Lobby decision- a fetus = person, a corporation = person, a woman = meh. How should we teach science without evolution; should we teach women that when they are raped their body secretes a hormone that will prevent pregnancy? I believe religion should be taught in religion class. Spirituality is another thing all together; didn't your Jesus preach against a stricit legalistic intrepretation of religion and religious laws?

Why is it that people preach misinformation so loudly?

Must be a liberal trait....

Hobby Lobby offers 12 of the 16 contraceptives available without qualm only taking issue with the 4 that end "life" actually killing a "living" fetus.

The liberals however want people to believe they are taking issue against ALL forms of contraception when nothing could be further from the truth!

I am aware of that. Why is it that people preach misinformation so loudly?

Corporations race into Ginsburg’s ‘minefield’ to claim post-Hobby Lobby religious exemptions
By Travis Gettys
Thursday, July 3, 2014 13:40 EDT
Share on facebook
4.2K
Share on twitter
169
Share on google_plusone_share
70
Share on print Share on email


3743






The 5-4 majority in the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Hobby Lobby case claimed the decision was narrowly focused on closely held corporations that objected to the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate on religious grounds.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg warned in a scathing, 35-page dissent that her colleagues had “ventured into a minefield” with their ruling, arguing that the majority had invited “for-profit entities to seek religion-based exemptions from regulations they deem offensive to their faith.”

It took only one day to prove her predictions accurate.


The court on Tuesday, the day after its ruling, ordered three appeals courts to reconsider challenges by corporations that objected to providing insurance that covers any contraceptive services – not just the four contraception methods covered in the Hobby Lobby case.

The plaintiffs in all three of those cases are Catholic business owners, including the Michigan-based organic food company Eden Foods.

“I don’t care if the federal government is telling me to buy my employees Jack Daniel’s or birth control,” said Michael Potter, founder of Eden Foods. “What gives them the right to tell me that I have to do that?”

The appeals court that rejected Potter’s motion argued the business owner’s claims more closely resembled “a laissez-faire, anti-government screed” than a religious objection – although the Supreme Court has asked the lower court to reconsider his arguments.

The Supreme Court also declined to review a government petition to overturn lower court rulings that upheld religiously based challenges to all preventative services under the Obamacare mandate.

Should religious beliefs be subject to challenge?

The ruling takes claims of religious scruples for granted, wrote columnist Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times.

“But how are government agencies or the courts to know when claims of religious piety are just pretexts for some other viewpoint, such as libertarianism or misogyny?” Hiltzik continued.

A federal judge in one of those cases reopened by the Supreme Court wrote in her opinion that the sincerity of the plaintiff’s religious beliefs were “unchallenged,” while the theology behind Catholic teachings on contraception were “unchallengeable.”

Hiltzik argued that those religious claims should, however, be subject to challenge.

“Shouldn’t the courts, at the very least, determine if a family-owned company follows its religious precepts consistently?” Hiltzik asked. “If this were the test, by the way, Hobby Lobby itself might fail: its 401(k) plan for employees has invested via its mutual funds in companies that manufacture and distribute precisely those drugs and devices that it objects to providing via its health insurance plan.”

That investment could violate teachings in a Catholic moral manual cited by Hobby Lobby’s own attorneys and noted by Justice Samuel Alito in his opinion to show the contraception mandate placed a “substantial burden” on their religious expression, and therefore violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Legal argument rebutted by moral theology

Alito cited Father Henry Davis’s 1935 Moral and Pastoral Theology to demonstrate “the circumstances under which it is wrong 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.”

The conservative Catholic justice concluded the court had no authority to determine whether that burden was substantial or not, and should instead defer to the moral judgment of Hobby Lobby’s owners.

“Yet interpreting statutory language like ‘substantial burden’ is precisely what the Court is supposed to do,” wrote Leslie C. Griffin, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

Ginsburg described the Hobby Lobby ruling as “a decision of startling breadth” — and that might be an understatement.

Already, the Becket Fund, a religious law firm that represented Hobby Lobby, lists 49 pending federal cases involving for-profit companies claiming religious objections to the ACA and another 51 that involve nonprofit organizations.

Critics have said the majority based its ruling on faulty science, arguing that IUDs and emergency contraceptives do not cause abortion – as Hobby Lobby’s owners claimed to justify their religious objection.

Alito ruled that courts had no authority to tell the craft store’s owners “their beliefs are flawed,” although he insisted the ruling offered no similar “shield” to other forms of discrimination.

However, a group of religious leaders on Wednesday asked the Obama administration to exempt them from an executive order barring federal contractors from discriminating against LGBT workers.

Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church in California, signed on to a letter sent by Catholic Charities and other faith-based groups seeking a religious exemption to the order.

“Without a robust religious exemption, like the provisions in the Senate-passed [Employment Non-Discrimination Act], this expansion of hiring rights will come at an unreasonable cost to the common good, national unity and religious freedom,” the faith-based group wrote.

seems Ginsburg had a Cannibling-Fit!

Excuse me, but a simple fertilized egg is not a fetus.

Anyway, the SCOTUS case referred to is all about the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services mandating that employers give to employees for free all forms of birth control.

The Affordable Care Act by itself does not give such a mandate.

By the way, The Dept. of HHS doesn't mandate that employers provide vasectomies for free, although a vasectomy is a form of birth control.

if 'the government' were going to oppress with arms, in this age of technology, people are screwed with or without guns,, this isnt the 18th century anymore


same people that decides who will go to jail and who wont,, although they often are in error, its better than no decisions at all,,,,or incarcerating NOONE, or incarcerating EVERYONE

none of this really addresses the question

dred scott isnt about religion
hobby lobby isnt about education
science is taught as well as evolutio
KIDS arent taught about a rape prevention hormone


adults are free to pay for whatever type of lessons they choose on whatever topic they choose, it isnt mandatory for them at all

and what does legalistic interpretation have to do with the question?

let me restate the question



so you honestly believe religion is holding back our education system and that its our 'religious' beliefs that bring about ridicule in other parts of the world?

that's disappointing,, I consider you one of the intelligent ones,,,

that exact reason is why it says shall not be infringed


those in the middle east seem to put up a good fight

whether you agree with them or not

and why it says 'well regulated'

i could agree with that except when you become a well regulated
militia all the sudden you are a terrorist group

can you say waco

How?

Since it is after midnight, here at least, this seems like the perfect thread for ........

Lee Greenwood - God Bless the USA (Live in 1985)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf8hfZuzw_A

the government has weapons , if it really WANTS to oppress and ignore peoples rights, ,, like missiles, remote weapons,,etc,,,

those fighting in middle east must not of got that memo

nor did the Vietcong