Skip to comments.Did Ruth Bader Ginsburg Incite Hatred for Islam?
Posted on 06/30/2014 1:00:42 PM PDT by Kaslin
RUSH: I want to go back, ladies and gentlemen, to the Jeffrey Toobin sound bite, not 'cause it's Toobin, but because he read Ruth "Buzzi" Ginsburg dissenting opinion which, by the way, is 35 pages long. That's pretty sweeping dissent for a narrow ruling. Thirty-five pages. And she whines a lot in her dissent.
For example, "Until today, religious exemptions had never been extended to any entity operating in 'the commercial, profit-making world.'" I knew I was right about that. I knew that in that sense, I don't think we can call landmark, but it certainly is unprecedented. We've never had this kind of a ruling which allowed a for-profit -- and boy, the commercial profit-making world, oh, those are fighting words, profit-making world, that their religious beliefs can trump opponents. It's never been affirmed as such until today.
So I want to go back and listen to the Toobin sound bites. He analyzes some of the things that Ruth "Buzzi" Ginsburg said in her sweeping dissent.
TOOBIN: Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissenting opinion is devoted to the proposition that it's not narrow, that the idea that a privately held company can exercise religious beliefs in deciding which benefits and which customers to deal with is potentially a very broad idea. In fact, you know, she points out that there are religious owners of companies who believe in the separation of the races. Should their religious beliefs be honored? There are people of conviction and faith who believe that homosexuality is evil and immoral and don't want to engage in business with gay people. They could take advantage of these rulings.
RUSH: You mean like a bakery in Colorado that refused to bake a cake for a gay couple getting married, and they were pursued and sued and lost and decided to get out of the business? Ruth "Buzzi" Ginsburg also said the Supreme Court's ventured into a minefield with this ruling. She writes, "In a decision of startling breadth" -- meaning it isn't narrow, for those of you in Rio Linda -- "the court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations" -- that's showing Dracula the cross, to say that word, corporation. They hate 'em, cause corporations are not people, you understand. Corporations are evil organizations that kill customers and screw customers and cheat customers and injure customers and destroy the planet and do all this horrible stuff. They bring filthy oil out of the water and the land, it's just ew, yuk. They're not people.
So it's not incidental that she includes this word here numerous times in the dissent, even though it was a corporation that was up for grabs, narrowly held, "closely held" corporation. "The Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships." Again, we were right on the money here in assuming this could include small business. Sole proprietorship. She's worried. "Sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs."
Here's another passage from her dissent. "The court's determination that RFRA extends to for-profit corporations is bound to have untoward effects. Although the court attempts to cabin its language to closely held corporations, its logic extends to corporations of any size, public or private."
She's right about that. You know, that's why these leftists are saying it's narrow, Hobby Lobby, big company. But she's just said, sole proprietorships, partnerships. The logic extends to corporations of any size. She even links, in her dissenting opinion, to a list of large private companies, including Koch Industries, the notorious Koch brothers, Dell computer, which also may be eligible to opt out of the mandate under the court's ruling. Religious freedom First Amendment is what RFRA means. It's the acronym. But note the inclusion of the Koch brothers in her opinion.
Now, the Regime, the Obama administration has colluded -- and I'm bouncing off Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The Obama administration has colluded with the 57 Muslim governments in the Organization of Islamic Cooperation on UN Human Rights Commission Resolution 1618 which calls on member countries to make speech that could incite hostility to religion illegal.
Now, follow me on this. The Regime, the Obama administration, has colluded with 57 Muslim governments in something called the Organization of Islamic Cooperation on UN Human Rights Commission, which had a resolution. The resolution calls -- and the Obama administration colluded in this resolution -- calls on member countries to make speech that could incite hostility to religion illegal.
Now, Islam prohibits homosexuality. I give you as example A the sultan of Brunei, who just announced the institution of Sharia law in Brunei, which has led to a massive boycott here in Los Angeles of the Beverly Hills Hotel, which is owned by the sultan of Brunei. Now, I just wonder here if Justice Ginsburg just incited hostility to Islam by complaining about religions that ban homosexuality.
Let me read to you Toobin's transcript again. "In fact, you know, she points out that there are religious owners of companies who believe in the separation of the races." By the way, does anybody know which company that is? I don't. I mean, not denying. I'm just... What company believes in separation of it races, today? "Should their religious beliefs be honored? There are people of conviction and faith who believe that homosexuality is evil and immoral and don't want to engage in business with gay people."
Well, the Regime has colluded with 57 Muslim governments in stating that speech that could incite hostility to religion is illegal, and did she just do that? I ask. It's an ironic question. Did she just incite hostility to Islam because Islam prohibits homosexuality? So has Justice Ginsburg just incited hostility to Islam by complaining about religions that ban homosexuality? I'm just asking. I don't expect to get an answer. I'm just asking.
"There are people of conviction and faith who believe that homosexuality is evil and immoral and don't want to engage in business with gay people." Are they going to have the right to be able to do this now? So she's quite properly concerned that this is somewhat broad and not narrow.
isn’t Islam exempt from Obamacare?
so business owners don’t have freedom of association? businesses have rules and regs for accessing their services. you don’t agree you can’t use their service/business. no shoes, no shirt, sometimes no kids, no pets, you have to be this age, height, weight, men only, women only, couples only, singles only, etc etc.
Gosh, I certainly hope so!
Is BET a corperation ?
Funny, I was thinking of Islam while reading parts of her rant.
The only reference I have ever seen that Muslims are exempt is from a Freeper. No evidence has ever been produced.
Buzzy hates Christians and Christ.
There’s no other explanation needed.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
How in the heck did she stay awake long enough to read a 35 page dissent?
All these socialists are nothing but hypocrites and they live in a world of Orwellian doublethink. Rush is right. When our constitutional rights are massively violated, such as Obama care, there is massive collateral damage to other rights. Ginsburg wants to remedy this situation by destroying more pesky constitutional rights.
Not that I could find. That’s a common FR myth.
To be exempt from O’care you need to be in a religion that is not under the Social Security system.
Amish and Mennonite are the two predominant faiths that meet the criteria.
That's a common internet myth, but no. (There is a religious exception to Obamacare, but it is defined as only those religions which are exempt from Social Security. I believe the only religions that have ever qualified are the Mennonites and the Old Order Amish-- religions which provide comprehensive care for all their members and refuse all government aid.)
It was a while back. The way it was usually stated was that since Muslim charities only cater to Muslims, they would be exempted. Since Christians charities cater to anyone, they would not be.
Like I said, it’s a myth. I actually looked up the religious exemption in the ACA, and it is only a cross-reference to the religious exemption section of the Social Security Act.
I believe you I was just trying to tell you how I remembered it being explained.
No argument here. Just wanted to explain things for others on the thread.