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

Skip to comments.

The Post's View: Congress should narrow the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
The Washington Post ^ | June 30, 2014 | The Editorial Board

Posted on 07/03/2014 12:59:36 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

WHEN BUSINESS owners enter the public marketplace, they should expect to follow laws with which they might disagree, on religious or other grounds. This is particularly true when they form corporations, to which the government offers unique benefits unavailable to individuals.

The Supreme Court weakened that principle Monday. Congress should revitalize it.

The justices ruled on the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate, which requires employer-based health insurance policies to provide contraception to covered employees. Several corporations challenged the law, insisting that the mandate unlawfully infringes on their owners’ religious rights. In a 5 to 4 ruling, the court agreed with the corporations, which included Hobby Lobby, a large arts and crafts chain, and Conestoga Wood Specialties, a cabinetmaker.

By historical accident, the country has based its health-care system on employers arranging for their employees’ coverage. Transforming that system would have been disruptive, so President Obama’s Affordable Care Act largely sustained it, with Congress mandating that large and medium businesses offer essential benefits in their health plans.

But the court demanded Monday that the government accommodate corporation owners who bring their religious convictions into the public sphere. Some accommodations might be expensive, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. admitted in the majority opinion, but that’s not the court’s main concern....

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: congress; contraception; hobbylobby; obama
Isn't the Washington Post Company a corporation? What mandates from a future government (leftist or conservative) would they be likely to protest and go to court to nullify?
1 posted on 07/03/2014 12:59:36 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

News outlets openly calling for the constitution to be overturned now, and the left’s disgusting beliefs IMPOSED on everyone or else.

This is why we have guns, because the Founders knew that a few hundred years after the ink dried, you would have people like the writer of this article. Just sayin


2 posted on 07/03/2014 1:10:46 AM PDT by Viennacon (Rebuke the Repuke!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech…

The Constitution does not say that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech of individuals; it does not say the Congress may make a law restricting the freedom of speech of corporations.


3 posted on 07/03/2014 1:23:03 AM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Since such Congressional liberal luminaries as Chuck U. Schumer were at the center of RFRA at its inception, there can be no doubt they were hoist upon their own petard with this decision. SCOTUS gives and SCOTUS takes away - always be careful what you ask for since you just might get it!


4 posted on 07/03/2014 1:25:28 AM PDT by T-Bird45 (It feels like the seventies, and it shouldn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

“WHEN BUSINESS owners enter the public marketplace, they should expect to follow laws with which they might disagree, on religious or other grounds.”

Laws cannot override constitutional protections regardless. Freedom of religion is constitutionally protected. “Free” birth control is not. Note that I put “free” in quotes for a reason, mainly that it’s not free simply because other people are forced to pay for it.


5 posted on 07/03/2014 1:25:52 AM PDT by CitizenUSA (Proverbs 14:34 Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

AH, but the left’s argument is that corporate law carves out special tax benefits for corporations, so government has the right to set whatever standards it wants for corporations. If they want the benefits of incorporation, they must comply. Regardless, I don’t see how anyone can reasonably argue that corporate law permits the government to violate constitutional provisions. The constitution is supreme law, and when it says things like, “Congress shall make no law...”, it means exactly that. How some people can claim Congress can pass laws that violate religious freedoms when the constitution expressly prohibits exactly that, I don’t know.


6 posted on 07/03/2014 1:30:59 AM PDT by CitizenUSA (Proverbs 14:34 Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Viennacon

So does the owner of Washington Post (also the owner of Amazon) really want the Constitutional protections overturned? How long until the little part about property rights because outdated? How about that Jeff? Maybe your stuff should belong to your employees, right?


7 posted on 07/03/2014 1:34:39 AM PDT by McGavin999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999

Jeff (the sh&T) thinks he’s some kind of commerce god. No, you idiot, you’re just a douchebag who made a more reliable version of eBay. Then he buys this rag.

This guy is a less twerpy Zuckerberg. He won’t see his own hypocrisy because libtards never do. Protections for me... not for thee!


8 posted on 07/03/2014 1:44:35 AM PDT by Viennacon (Rebuke the Repuke!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

So say the atheists at the Post.


9 posted on 07/03/2014 1:50:28 AM PDT by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

It’s okay that Obamacare was shoved down our throats, but this minuscule pushback is completely freaking out the scumbags on the Left.


10 posted on 07/03/2014 1:54:53 AM PDT by Gene Eric (Don't be a statist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
By historical accident, the country has based its health-care system on employers arranging for their employees’ coverage. Transforming that system would have been disruptive, so President Obama’s Affordable Care Act largely sustained it, with Congress mandating that large and medium businesses offer essential benefits in their health plans.

ObamaCare was not an "accident". To suggest otherwise is duplicitous treachery.

To further suggest that the protections of the Bill of Rights be subsumed to a concoction of thousands of pages of liberal wet dreams and capricious whims (as the HHS Secretary discerns) that was rammed through by a petty two-bit dictator is abjectly absurd.

Washington Post and its trolls gave up the "journalist" label long ago in lieu of the more appropriate "Democratic Operative."

11 posted on 07/03/2014 1:56:08 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Why is the WaPo saying that corporations are ‘in the public sphere’?


12 posted on 07/03/2014 1:57:10 AM PDT by servantoftheservant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

Yet the recent Supreme Court ruled that corporations in effect ARE individuals and afforded the protection when it comes to campaign finances, didn’t it?


13 posted on 07/03/2014 1:57:12 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
WHEN BUSINESS owners enter the public marketplace, they should expect to follow laws with which they might disagree, on religious or other grounds.

So freedom of religion and free enterprise are mutually exclusive according to the Post. Then why shouldn't the Post have freedom of speech limited according to the same rules?

14 posted on 07/03/2014 2:01:39 AM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

They’re saying Christians should not be allowed to own businesses. If you want to own a business, you must stop being a Christian.


15 posted on 07/03/2014 2:38:05 AM PDT by BykrBayb (World Lung Cancer Day {WLCD} Aug 1 https://facebook.com/events/309580722464921 ~ Þ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Shocker. The WaPo actually acknowledges the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as the basis of the SCOTUS ruling, and not Amendment I. Now if they will only acknowledge Democrat Bill Clinton’s signature at the bottom of it.


16 posted on 07/03/2014 3:11:20 AM PDT by Hoodat (Proverbs 29:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
WHEN BUSINESS owners enter the public marketplace, they should expect to follow laws with which they might disagree...

Somehow, I get the feeling that the WaPo doesn't extend this belief to the 2A, and probably actively encourages other businesses to disallow entry to those carrying.

17 posted on 07/03/2014 3:37:00 AM PDT by jeffc (The U.S. media are our enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jeffc
But the court demanded Monday that the government accommodate corporation owners...

That's an interesting statement. Consider how it's written, as if to assume that we are all subservient to the government and that it is to allow ("accommodate") us to do the things we want.

Is the WaPo full of government loving Communist Fascists? Is government their god?

18 posted on 07/03/2014 3:41:05 AM PDT by jeffc (The U.S. media are our enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

I’ll agree to “narrowing” religious freedom if, and only if, the cult of hate that worships a black rock and a goat-humping pedophile is banned. And all their adherents are deported immediately.

Until then, the First Amendment stays the same.


19 posted on 07/03/2014 3:43:30 AM PDT by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners. And to the NSA trolls, FU)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

The left seems to be saying that the RFR act was the reason that the court made its decision. Wasn’t it the constitution rather than RFR ?


20 posted on 07/03/2014 3:47:29 AM PDT by djpg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: McGavin999

I bet they don’t want the interstate commerce clause done in either.


21 posted on 07/03/2014 3:48:12 AM PDT by Mouton (The insurrection laws perpetuate what we have for a government now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

“WHEN BUSINESS owners enter the public marketplace, they should expect to follow laws with which they might disagree, on religious or other grounds. This is particularly true when they form corporations, to which the government offers unique benefits unavailable to individuals.”
Even more important: When people become politicians and are elected to office they should be expected to follow laws with which they might disagree, on religious or other grounds. After all, they take an oath swearing to do so!
Doesn’t the government offer these guys some “unique benefits” unavailable to other individuals? It doesn’t seem to bother the WAPO that their guy is the prime example of not following that with which he disagrees.


22 posted on 07/03/2014 4:46:08 AM PDT by Nuocmam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CitizenUSA
"The constitution is supreme law, and when it says things like, “Congress shall make no law...”, it means exactly that."

I think the Founders made a huge mistake when writing the Bill of Rights.

The Bill should've said: "Congress shall make no law." and stopped right there. We would have all been much better off.

23 posted on 07/03/2014 4:55:28 AM PDT by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NTHockey

Gore-bull Warming IS the latest mainstream religion.

- there is the notion of sin (polluting)
- there are indulgences (carbon offset credits)
- there are oracles/prophets (GW researchers) and high-priests (Al Gore, celebrities) who cannot be questioned
- they rely on indoctrination at a young age
- it is considered blasphemy to go against their “wisdom”
- all evidence is to be interpreted only in light of their unquestionable “truths” (treated as sacred axioms)
- they are moral busybodies, wanting to push their views on everyone else
- people who do not strictly follow their guidelines are considered immoral
- people who publicly support opposing views are said to be possessed by evil entities (corporations)
- violence is advocated by many adherents (ELF, ALF, Earth First, etc) to promulgate their “truths”
- they say we are DOOMED FOR ETERNITY unless we listen to them
- if we go against the will of their god (Gaea), their god will punish us (hurricanes, floods, disease, searing heat)

“Global Warming” has become the modern god of weather whose existence results from magical powers granted to carbon dioxide. Algore is their PROFIT.


24 posted on 07/03/2014 5:27:11 AM PDT by TurboZamboni (Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.-JFK)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | 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