Skip to comments.Sen. Chuck Schumerís religious test
Posted on 07/12/2014 5:26:18 AM PDT by cotton1706
Chuck Schumer has an odd view of the First Amendment.
If on the basis of religious conviction you refuse to pay for something Schumer wants you to pay for, he believes you forfeit your right to have a business.
Never mind that the Supreme Court just ruled the opposite in the Hobby Lobby case. At a press conference announcing a new bill designed to change the law that was the basis of that ruling, he put it this way:
We wouldnt tell the owners of Hobby Lobby to convert to a different religion or disobey their religion, said Schumer. But we dont say that they have to open a company and go sell toys or hobby kits. Businesses have no religious freedom, he said, because their purpose is to profit from the open market.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand was blunter still: Congress must make it clear that businesses arent people and do not have the same rights people have.
By that twisted logic, a family-owned kosher or halal butcher shop would have no religious grounds to challenge a law similar to ones already enacted in Europe that bars kosher slaughter.
Nor could those same butchers forbid an employee or customer from bringing non-kosher or non-halal food into their stores, because that would constitute imposing their beliefs.
The Constitution forbids a religious test for public office. Surely the men who drafted these protections would be aghast to see a United States senator suggesting the federal government impose one for running a business.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Chuck Schumer is the best argument for term limits.
It is a puzzlement why his eyes were never seared from his skull had he EVER looked on the pages of a Bible.
Their god is DEATH.
A red diaper doper baby who went straight from Harvard Law into politics and has never made an honest dollar of his own, living off our taxes and telling us how we should live our lives.
And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
Chuck Schumer’s the best argument for post birth abortion!
This bill will NOT pass. I believe they are attempting to reassure their evil/misguided base and promote the “war on women” foolishness. You can be sure the “war on women” will be the heavy theme pushed in the election of 2016.
“Businesses have no religious freedom, he said, because their purpose is to profit from the open market.
Note he said “open market” instead of “free market”. The word “free” isnt in his vocabulary.
This asshat is a Jew who worships at the altar of the Demmycrats who, by their very beliefs and actions, hate Jews.
No, he doesn't...
His view supersedes the Constitution, after all he's Chuck Schumer senior Senator from New York State...
"AT THIS TIME!"
He didn't say this but you got to know that he is thinking this!
Obama hates Jews. Jews, as evidenced by their vote[s] love Obama. In fact, I would go as far as to say they worship him.
So you cannot have faith in God nor can you follow God’s law anymore in the US. Schumer wants religion outlawed in the US. Maybe believers should take all their wealth, and businesses and move to Mexico. Take billions out of this economy and give it to another country
So Chuckie... You toothless faggot.!! You now have the right to decree WHO and WHAT has the right to religious freedom do you....
Hey Chuck... Do you realize how many people in this country despise you.? Doesn't that frighten you just a little bit..? I hope and pray the someday justice catches up with you, and I'm there to see it..!
Isn’t owning a business the same thing as owning any other type of property?
Isn’t Congress infringing on the owners’ property rights?
Looks like they have openly and boldly come out declaring this as their objective.
What is startling is that we have a population that does not give back a resounding NO for an answer. The defense of freedom is very tepid and lukewarm. Hence the democrats march on.
What if the name of the business was Jihaddi Lobbi?
the ultimate contradiction.
Opening July 18, 2014. This is on the must watch list.
You left out the latest one: Homosexuality
To be followed soon by paedophilia, incest, bestiality . . .
OK then if she is correct on that front, then how should those who own a business file their taxes? Oh that's right, small business owners file taxes as individuals!
Wait, aren't individuals PERSONS??
Can't have it both ways.
If I watch the little white square, will it open up into a picture on July 18?
When I go into the “open market” to sell my labor to the highest bidder, I’m doing essentially what every business is doing, according to Schumer. Do I thus forfeit my rights?
The courts have held, again and again, that a corporation functions under the law as a person. Schumer is wrong as a matter of established law.
The goal of this bit of kubuki theater is not to pass legislation. It is to insure the anticapitalist base of the DP that they are still loved.
Don’t be surprised if Schumer - and American courts - answer ‘yes’ in the very near future. Who’s going to stop them?
So by this logic a Kosher restaurant can be forced to serve pork chops because,after all,it was set up to make a profit in the open market.
Chucky conveniently leaves out the fact that Hobby Lobby has been in business for years and only since Obamacare did government try to specify every detail of what sort of health insurance employers had to provide.
Ten bucks says that he's an atheist Jew,a Jew who sees the word as being an ethnic,rather than a religious,identifier.Check it out....many,many,*many* of the people in this country who identify themselves as a "Jew" or "Jewish" will freely tell you that they're atheist if you ask them.
Schmuckie is a fascist. Get a rope.
How does UpChuckie feel about “No shirt, no shoes, no sale.”
No. No. No. You don’t understand. The Democrats don’t mind if you have religion. You just can’t practice it in any meaningful way outside of your church or your private residence. If you open a business, for example, that’s the public sphere, and the constitution clearly states Congress can make laws regulating and/or prohibiting religion in public. It’s right there in the US Constitution. Look it up!
ESA (EXTREME Sarcasm Alert!)
What part of “Congress shall make no law” do you not understand, Chuckie?
Ironic thin is Schumer is Jewish (I think)
The concept of "open market", by its nature, involves a "willing buyer" and a "willing seller". There are multitudes of reasons a normally "willing seller" chooses to become "unwilling". A bunch of commies have no standing to define the term "open market". That is one of the fundamental reasons our economy is, and has been, in the crapper for so long . . . their economic theory is destructive garbage.
“Isnt Congress infringing on the owners property rights?”
Don’t try appealing to reason. With Democrats, up is down and down is up. I seriously mean it. They seem to speak the same language as real Americans, but the words have entirely different meanings. For example, freedom means government gets to control everything you do if you dare open a business.
Schmuckie is well-known as a member of New York City’s largest Reform Synagogue, and regularly attends.
I have never heard of him claiming to be atheist or even agnostic.
He certainly seems to represent the views of his voters. There’s no deception there.
Except when it means free stuff.
How old is Chuckie now?Nature will take it’s course with him soon,he should try legislating against THAT.
The US Constitution cannot be amended by law. It’s really as simple as that. In other words, corporate law can’t be used by Congress to circumvent constitutionally protected rights, like the freedom of religion. It doesn’t even matter if a particular business owner is willing to give up their religious liberty in order to do business.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
What do the words, “no law” mean if not NO law? It’s not like laws governing incorporation aren’t, in fact, laws.
This reads like satire.
“To be followed soon by pedophilia, incest, bestiality . . “
That’s exactly how it’s going to be played put!
Oddly enough, there is an underlying constitutional problem that needs to be addressed. Since the time of Lincoln, “corporate civil rights” have come to dominate business law.
However, human civil rights are unalienable, and endowed by the creator, so are neither given, nor can be legitimately taken away by government. Corporate civil rights are *entirely* issued by government, and can be modified, or even eliminated at their whim.
The major problem exists in confusing human civil rights with corporate civil rights. It is a dangerous enough problem that there needs to be a constitutional amendment to address it, because as things now stand, it permits corporations to do things they should absolutely not do; and it suggests to government that human civil rights are theirs to whimsically tamper with as well.
Importantly, corporations *do* need rights, issued by the federal government, to protect them against abuses by the states, foreign governments, non-governmental organizations, and each other. But these are *not* human civil rights.
Which brings us up to the current situation with Hobby Lobby. Were it to be a “public company”, issuing shares to stockholders, and controlled by the majority shareholder, it is a “public” corporation. So its corporate civil rights can be and should be wholly in the realm of government.
This has legitimacy, and as a sword it cuts both ways. For example, such a corporation could be forced to offer abortions as part of a health plan; but at the same time, the corporation could be forbidden from direct involvement in politics, or even funding of charities, NGOs and foundations, the vast majority of which are liberal-leftist.
However, Hobby Lobby and many others exist as “privately held corporations”. This means that because they do not have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders, they have far greater rights to assert the human civil rights of its owners. Conversely, government should have far less ability to require performances from it, as it would if the private corporation was an individual.
In practical terms, this should also mean that Hobby Lobby should have almost *all* the same corporate rights as there are human civil rights.
Just recall the democrat convention, when they booed the living God.
In the past, they were kind of subtle and indirect, not too open about their intentions. But lately, they are not too cautious, as they feel that they don’t need to be.
Stated simply and to the point.
But still over Kristen Gillibrand's head.