Skip to comments.The Post's View: Congress should narrow the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
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 Acts 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 Obamas 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 thats not the courts main concern....
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
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
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.
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!
“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.
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.
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?
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!
So say the atheists at the Post.
It’s okay that Obamacare was shoved down our throats, but this minuscule pushback is completely freaking out the scumbags on the Left.
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."
Why is the WaPo saying that corporations are ‘in the public sphere’?
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?
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?
They’re saying Christians should not be allowed to own businesses. If you want to own a business, you must stop being a Christian.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 ?