Posted on 06/30/2014 11:23:41 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
In a strong dissent on the so-called Hobby Lobby case Monday morning, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sharply disagreed with the deciding justices in language so harsh Justice Anthony Kennedy felt the need to respond in his own concurring opinion.
“In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs,” Ginsburg wrote.
“In the Court’s view, RFRA demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation’s religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on third parties who do not share the corporation owners’ religious faith—in these cases, thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga or dependents of persons those corporations employ.”
Ginsburg excoriated the majority justices for ignoring the intent of the the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and extending its protections, for the first time, to for-profit entities, which she saw as existentially distinct to the point of rendering their owners’ potential religious beliefs irrelevant to their practice of business.
“The distinction between a community made up of believers in the same religion and one embracing persons of diverse beliefs, clear as it is, constantly escapes the Court’s attention,” she wrote. “One can only wonder why the Court shuts this key difference from sight.”
Kennedy, whose opinion was largely concerned with limiting the scope of the decision, disagreed with Ginsburg’s assessment of the majority’s ruling. He argued “that the Court’s opinion does not have the breadth and sweep ascribed to it by the respectful and powerful dissent,” and maintained that the Court disagreed over the interpretation of the RFRA, but not its intent.
It was actually a pretty narrow ruling, Darth Vader
This is all predicated on the idea that contraceptives are good for women. Read all the warnings that come with a package of birth control pills, and then try to say, “This is good for you!” with a straight face.
Time to retire Ruthie. Your SEX is showing.
Rush has it right — Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg.
I will never understand liberal Jews
Is “zombie” a sex?
Don't fall for the left's conflating of the two.
They hate Christians, really bad, like all liberals do.
Hope she has a Conniption Fit!
Who’s payin’ for her birth control method of choice? Yewwwww!
They are evil. I will not go back on them. I was put on them at 15 because of regularity and heavy flow issues. Turns out I have PCOS and the pill only masks the symptoms and cures nothing. It was just too easy for my docs to put me on the pill without actually seeing if I had a problem. After I went off of them and adopted a low carb diet, I feel so much better. PCOS? Not with a low carb lifestyle! Imagine that. A free cure.
This case illustrates why individuals, not employers, should be responsible for selecting and purchasing health care insurance that meets their needs. Individual choice assures the coverage each person wants, and insures portability, because where one works has no effect on the coverage as it is paid for by individuals...
I meant what I said. The principle of contraception is that it’s wrong to be a healthy woman.
Justice Ginsburg did not write that opinion. She no longer has the capacity to do such writing. That opinion was written by her carefully selected left wing clerks. She is just a figurehead being painfully propped up by the Left.
I’d really like to hear FReeper’s take on Ruthie’s fear that this will open up refusals by various religiously oriented businesses - Jehovah’s Witness ( Blood transfusion ), Christian Scientist (Vaccinations), etc.
My personal take is this -— Businesses are not in the business of providing for healthcare. If they don’t provide what you want, you are NOT OBLIGATED to work for them.
That is how a free country should work.
What is your take?
Well, that's a supposition, isn't it? Stop inventing arguments that aren't being brought before the court and deal strictly with the ones before you!
P.S. - that vaccines thing would be the Jehovah's witnesses of several decades ago, but apparently they got over whatever whacky 'Biblical justification' they had.
Scary that 4 judges could completely disregard the clear and obvious meaning of “Congress shall make no law... prohibiting the free exercise (of religion)”
But then these are the times we live in.
I’d really like to hear FReeper’s take on Ruthie’s fear that this will open up refusals by various religiously oriented businesses - Jehovah’s Witness ( Blood transfusion ), Christian Scientist (Vaccinations), etc.
My personal take is this -— Businesses are not in the business of providing for healthcare. If they don’t provide what you want, you are NOT OBLIGATED to work for them.
That is how a free country should work.
What is your take?
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.