Posted on 06/23/2014 5:11:27 AM PDT by xzins
What business does ANY gubmint (including the religion of Islam) have to mandate ANYONE when to use contraceptives of any kind?
The theory was since the only religious freedom cases before the court this term was "Hobby Lobby" and the already decided case that expanded the right to prayer at public meetings, that Scalia would not not have said "case(S) that expand religious freedom" if Hobby Lobby hadn't already been decided on those grounds....
I tend to agree...Courts have already declared its more important to force you bake a cake than to have religious objections to doing so.
My prediction is that until the $1 TRILLION HHS is nuked, we’re constantly in jeopardy. It’s not about just winning this skirmish. It’s about winning the war by dismantling these huge, bloated, threatening, unconstitutional bureaucracies.
Of late the Supreme Court decision is based on the highest bidder it’s how we received ObamaCare.
Unhappily, I agree that Roberts will cave. He views his job as finding a compromise rather than looking at the issue and seeing it as the Constitution says (or not).
At best, I think it will be 5-4 that the regulation goes too far, but it will be on some basis that allows the government to continue to apply the regulation to other businesses. Every business will be forced to spend millions in legal fees to fight its individual status...
I’m afraid this will be the first step in dismantling the First Amendment. They MUST do that to force the homosexual agenda. If any business has a right to take actions based on the religious beliefs of the owners - even if it is a one person business - then forcing everyone to bow down to homosexuals won’t stand.
My guess is that the homosexual lobby will get the results it wants from the usual suspects - the ones who keep finding a Constitutional right to homosexuality.
Because corporations are legal entities, the fascist/socialist/statists will ultimately determine that all corporations are owned by the state and thus subject to it’s every edict.
Good information. Thanks, apillar.
The court can rule against the contraception mandate since it’s only a regulation, and since so many exceptions have been granted. That would be in Hobby Lobby’s favor, but it would also enable them to continue preventing bakers from denying cakes to homosexual weddings. It would be based on an invalid burden without an overriding reason not to also grant an exception in this case to health care.
From a different ruling, made today:
“In what was a relatively narrow case concerning a challenge by industry groups and Republican-leaning states the court, divided in several different ways, held that a small proportion of industrial facilities are exempted from the single regulation in question. Most major facilities, including power plants and refineries, will still be covered.”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3171207/posts
My guess is they do the same to Hobby Lobby.
I thought this was about birth control? Somehow I don't see that as part of the homosexual agenda.
But a corporation is recognized as a legal entity. Arguing that the 1st Amendment only applies to people is silly. The 1st Amendment like most contained within the Bill of Rights, doesn’t actually give any rights; it is a restriction on the government. The genius of the Founding Fathers at work.
If the SC rules in favor of Hobby Lobby, and I’m not too optimistic that will happen. It opens up the argument for the baker who doesn’t want his business to make gay wedding cakes and other possibilities. Again, not optimistic that this will occur. But even a broken clock is occasionally right.
The birth control argument is rooted in religious freedom, as is the argument that a baker should not be required to bake cakes celebrating something he believes is evil. If they support religious freedom here, it will be harder to deny religious freedom to those who object to homosexuality.
Either we are or are not free to act in public based on our religious beliefs, and so are the businesses that we form and own. You cannot logically be free to have a religious objection to abortion, but not a religious objection to homosexuality.
Against Hobby Lobby. Roberts will fold again.
I agree, Mr Rogers. Thanks.
Kennedy has gone off his rocker, and he is now “caucusing” with the radical Left. I think he will formally invalidate the 1st Amendment with this case.
That's why it will be narrowly decided on the basis of exemptions to regulation granted others under ObamaCare. That way it won't apply to the baker/cake issue.
Kennedy was pro-religious tolerance in the prayer case, so I hold out hope for him.
The USSC will dodge the issue by finding some way to deny them standing.
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.