Posted on 03/25/2014 8:27:38 AM PDT by GIdget2004
Lawyer Paul Clement, representing the challengers, received little time to offer opening remarks on his position before the court jumped in with questions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor got things started with this: If corporations can object on religious grounds to providing contraception coverage, could they also object to vaccinations or blood transfusions?
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
According to Obama it is a "Punishment"
I think the problem with her question is that those other objections are not really the same kind of conscience objections. A Jehovah’s witness has a personal conscience objection to taking a blood transfusion, but they have no moral objection to helping a non-Jehovah’s witness get a transfusion. A muslim might object to taking a certain kind of vaccine but they don’t object to helping a non-muslim get that vaccine. So neither one of the other objections should matter for an employer providing insurance.
Why bother with arguments, the Supremes are Obama’s lap dogs.
“He asked: Under the challengers’ arguments, do employer rights trump those of workers?”
What a maroon. What “rights” of the workers is he talking about? The “right” to free birth control?!?
That would not apply to queer beans. You HAVE to supply queer beans...whether you believe in queer beans or not.
There are religions that oppose vaccination (Christian Scientists) and blood transfusions (Jehovah's Witnesses). Her question is a valid one: if the owners of a corporation can refuse to provide insurance for things that their religion opposes, where should the Court draw the line?
Soto and Kag have never considered the law, not in one decision. They are all about politics - what they wish the decision to be, which is what they will always pretend the Constitution says.
We are 1 deceased conservative justice away from the end.
We are 1 deceased conservative justice away from the end of any chance for peacefully retaining our freedom. There is a difference, and I hope we don't have to see how different those two paths are.
or --- where should the government draw the line.
I draw it at the government has no business meddling in private affairs, regulating what private industry does. And for that matter, government and business should stay out of our healthcare entirely.
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.