Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court rejects Obamacare challenge by Christian college
Reuters UK ^ | Thu Jul 11, 2013 9:35pm BST

Posted on 07/11/2013 2:21:50 PM PDT by Perdogg

A U.S. appeals court on Thursday rejected a Christian university's challenge to President Barack Obama's 2010 healthcare overhaul, which the school said unconstitutionally imposes costly burdens on large employers and infringes religious liberty.

(Excerpt) Read more at uk.reuters.com ...


TOPICS: Government; US: Texas
KEYWORDS: 0bamascare; abortion; christianschools; deathpanels; highereducation; lawsuit; obamacare; proaborts; zerocare
On to the Supremes.
1 posted on 07/11/2013 2:21:50 PM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

But Muslims can opt out no prob, right?


2 posted on 07/11/2013 2:24:01 PM PDT by ClearCase_guy (21st century. I'm not a fan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

I think that the answer for faith-based organizations is to give up health care entirely and pay the penalties. As I understand it, the penalties are $2000 per employee, which is dramatically less than what employers are paying for insurance now. My former employer in 2011 was paying $10,500 and I was paying $2,500, which I thought was ridiculous. (It’s the fact that some people have “insurance” that makes medicine expensive. Not he fact that some people don’t have it.)


3 posted on 07/11/2013 2:27:07 PM PDT by Gen.Blather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

“Supremes”. Sure. Supreme Idiots.


4 posted on 07/11/2013 2:30:12 PM PDT by ZULU ((See: http://gatesofvienna.net/) Obama, do you hear me?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather
I think they should take the case to the Supremes, AID v Alliance for an Open Society.
5 posted on 07/11/2013 2:33:20 PM PDT by Perdogg (Cruz-Paul 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather

That is what everyone is forgetting when they talk about the high costs run up by ObamaCare. You nailed it. The employers and every single citizen can ignore getting insurance and simply pay penalties.

In terms of their health care, it doesn’t matter because they’re still covered by the government health care plan. Their penalty is their payment.

Right now it’s much smaller than the cost of a policy, but only to the individual/employer. The nation will get gob-smacked with a huge, huge expense that is only now being admitted to by the power elite.

Excellent post, GB!


6 posted on 07/11/2013 2:35:06 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True supporters of our troops pray for their victory!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
But Muslims can opt out no prob, right?

Actually, they can't.

7 posted on 07/11/2013 2:39:03 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather

They should not pay the penalty either, otherwise they are essentially paying a tax in order to exercise their religious freedom.

An unjust law is no law at all. Disobey it.


8 posted on 07/11/2013 2:42:33 PM PDT by crusader71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

The Extreme Court will probably uphold it.


9 posted on 07/11/2013 2:45:33 PM PDT by TBP (Obama lies, Granny dies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: crusader71

“An unjust law is no law at all. Disobey it.”

It’s not realistic or practical to simply disobey the law. The IRS can come down like the hammer of God and seize your assets and put you out of business. That is what they really want to do. We must obey the law until we elect conservatives who will change the law.


10 posted on 07/11/2013 2:48:30 PM PDT by Gen.Blather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
It also said Congress had a rational basis for the mandate because it substantially affects how easily workers can move from state to state.

Yes, our Framers included "rational basis," the "heads the government wins, tails you lose" clause in the constitution.

That damnable excuse for despotism emanates directly from the laughable 1942 Wickard v. Filburn Scotus decision.

In turn, Wickard flows from the popular election of senators. The 17th Amendment must go.

11 posted on 07/11/2013 2:50:29 PM PDT by Jacquerie (To restore the 10th Amendment, repeal the 17th.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Source?


12 posted on 07/11/2013 2:52:37 PM PDT by expat2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

I don’t trust SCOTUS to uphold the First Amendment...

We have to change the politicians in charge....starting in 2014, and then in 2016.


13 posted on 07/11/2013 2:52:40 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather

If thousands of Christian institutions and business owners across the country disobeyed it, that puts the regime in a completely untenable position. Arresting owners or putting these institutions out of business en masse is not something they want to be doing. Correction: they want to do it, but they won’t because of the public reaction to it.


14 posted on 07/11/2013 2:54:09 PM PDT by crusader71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather
We must obey the law until we elect conservatives who will change the law.

In generations past, tax collecting was a hazardous occupation. Today, some pink skinned toad in an IRS basement can f*ck you and your family without fear.

As for elections, like Venezuela, we will always conduct them to confirm our oppressors.

15 posted on 07/11/2013 2:58:40 PM PDT by Jacquerie (To restore the 10th Amendment, repeal the 17th.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: crusader71

“If thousands of Christian institutions and business owners across the country disobeyed it, that puts the regime in a completely untenable position. Arresting owners or putting these institutions out of business en masse is not something they want to be doing. Correction: they want to do it, but they won’t because of the public reaction to it.”

I worked for Honeywell. The GAO sent in an auditing team which spent a year and found nothing. The GAO was embarrassed. So, they trumped something up and threatened to send a VP to prison. (I was friends with the VP’s son.) They literally extorted several hundred thousand dollars out of Honeywell. But the negotiations took almost a year. The VP was harassed and very uncomfortable.

The government is the Mafia only legal. They can and they will freeze thousands of bank accounts. They really don’t care what anybody thinks. It would ruin all of those businesses all at once. What you’re suggesting simply won’t work. I understand that you think people won’t stand for it. But other than their occasional vote, “people” don’t have any standing in this issue.


16 posted on 07/11/2013 2:59:53 PM PDT by Gen.Blather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: expat2
Source?

Section 1311(d)(4)(H) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act creates a religious exemption only for people who are covered by Internal Revenue Code section 1402(g)(1). That section, in turn, creates an exemption to paying Social Security taxes for certain narrowly-defined religious communities. The only religious communities that have ever won exemptions from paying Social Security Taxes under section 1402(g)(1) are the Old-Order Amish and the Mennonites; no Molsem has ever won exemption from Social Security taxes under that section.

17 posted on 07/11/2013 3:03:16 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather

I’ve wondered about that, because it is a “tax”, not a penalty, as ruled by the Supreme Court.

So, if the college is tax-exempt, would they have to pay the tax for not having health insurance coverage? I wonder if they wrote the law appropriately to cover that?


18 posted on 07/11/2013 3:26:31 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: crusader71

But this administration would simply NOT enforce the law against most of them, and then pick one high-profile case, and go after THAT one. And when they were done, they’d pick ANOTHER high-profile case.

All the rest would have to fall in line for fear of being singled out eventually.

It is the power of the dictator, to selectively enforce the laws.


19 posted on 07/11/2013 3:28:14 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

“So, if the college is tax-exempt, would they have to pay the tax for not having health insurance coverage? I wonder if they wrote the law appropriately to cover that?”

I suspect that the organization is tax exempt on the income it makes. But they are not exempt from other, non-income taxes.


20 posted on 07/11/2013 3:29:15 PM PDT by Gen.Blather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

“Section 1311(d)(4)(H) of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act creates a religious exemption only for people who are covered by Internal Revenue Code section 1402(g)(1). That section, in turn, creates an exemption to paying Social Security taxes for certain narrowly-defined religious communities. The only religious communities that have ever won exemptions from paying Social Security Taxes under section 1402(g)(1) are the Old-Order Amish and the Mennonites”

does that mean that Old Order Amish and Mennonites cannot collect social security since they have never paid into it?


21 posted on 07/11/2013 3:33:14 PM PDT by IWONDR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: IWONDR
does that mean that Old Order Amish and Mennonites cannot collect social security since they have never paid into it?

Yes, but it's actually the other way around: the whole point of the religious exemption is that the Old Order Amish and the Mennonites never claim Social Security, because their religion requires them to take care of any old people in their community. Because they never claim benefits, Congress allowed them not to pay in. But if any member of one of those faiths tried to collect, they couldn't, because they never paid in.

22 posted on 07/11/2013 3:38:51 PM PDT by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian

Thank you.


23 posted on 07/11/2013 3:48:35 PM PDT by expat2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Ignore the judicial system. There are not enough jails for these petty tyrant lawyers with black robes to throw everyone in jail. Massive civil disobedience works, see Egypt.


24 posted on 07/11/2013 3:59:46 PM PDT by VRWC For Truth (Roberts has perverted the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

It’s either the First or the 14th Amendments here: if religious objection isn’t a defense (as it should be!), then you can turn around and say that the Muslim opt-out is in violation of the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause.


25 posted on 07/11/2013 4:07:39 PM PDT by alancarp (Obama will grab your guns and ship them to Mexican drug mobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather
give up health care entirely and pay the penalties,

Sure, it's the smart thing to do financially.

AND...it's in keeping with the spirit of the law.
Seems the affordable health care act was meant to force people into the hands of the government by design. The idea is to hasten the transition to a single payer system. If the movement toward unbounded socialism comes at the price of religious freedom, all the better in the mind of the committed leftist.

26 posted on 07/11/2013 4:08:21 PM PDT by citizenK (freedom from, freedom to be...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: citizenK

“Seems the affordable health care act was meant to force people into the hands of the government by design. The idea is to hasten the transition to a single payer system. If the movement toward unbounded socialism comes at the price of religious freedom, all the better in the mind of the committed leftist.”

Actually, I suspect it’s much more likely that people thus affected will vote conservative from now on.


27 posted on 07/11/2013 4:10:08 PM PDT by Gen.Blather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Are muslim schools required to buy into obommacare?


28 posted on 07/11/2013 5:41:13 PM PDT by rawhide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson