Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Mississippi House Bill 1523, The measure allows churches, religious charities and privately held businesses to decline services to people whose lifestyles violate their religious beliefs. Individual government employees may also opt out, although the measure says governments must still provide services
Private, Private Private... Get it, its Private business.
Like Private clubs, they are private... And they can say no to you...
It's worth noting how Mississippi House Bill 1523 defines a "Person," please see lines 252 - 266
Not true at all. Did SCOTUS rule that Hobby Lobby could refuse to provide insurance coverage for all forms of contraceptives or only specific abortifacients?
Do you even know about which you speak? You're trying to draw parallels that don't apply.
And you are trying to draw parallels between two different cases that involved completely different laws. ACA law is not the same as public accommodation laws.
Mississippi House Bill 1523, The measure allows churches, religious charities and privately held businesses to decline services to people whose lifestyles violate their religious beliefs. Individual government employees may also opt out, although the measure says governments must still provide services
Private, Private Private... Get it, its Private business.
Like Private clubs, they are private... And they can say no to you...
Those same PRIVATE businesses are considered public accommodations under state and federal laws. Like the bakery that is open to the public is not a truly private business. A hotel is not a truly private business since it is open to the public. Private clubs are membership only, they are not open to the general public.
And you are trying to draw parallels between two different cases that involved completely different laws. ACA law is not the same as public accommodation laws.
They both legislate mandates. How do you not get that?
Those same PRIVATE businesses are considered public accommodations under state and federal laws. Like the bakery that is open to the public is not a truly private business. A hotel is not a truly private business since it is open to the public. Private clubs are membership only, they are not open to the general public.
I wonder why Justice Ginsburg cited Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., in her dissenting opinion RE: BURWELL v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC.?
Cite as: 573 U. S. ____ (2014) 33
GINSBURG, J., dissenting:
Why should decisions of this order be made by Congress or the regulatory authority, and not this Court? Hobby Lobby and Conestoga surely do not stand alone as commercial enterprises seeking exemptions from generally applicable laws on the basis of their religious beliefs. See, e.g., Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 256 F. Supp.941, 945 (SC 1966) (owner of restaurant chain refused to serve black patrons based on his religious beliefs opposing racial integration), aff ’d in relevant part and rev’d in part on other grounds, 377 F.2d 433 (CA4 1967), aff’d and modified on other grounds, 390 U. S. 400 (1968); In re Minnesota ex rel. McClure, 370 N. W. 2d 844, 847 (Minn. 1985) (born-again Christians who owned closely held, for- profit health clubs believed that the Bible proscribed hiring or retaining an “individua[l] living with but not married to a person of the opposite sex,” “a young, single woman working without her father’s consent or a married woman working without her husband’s consent,” and any person “antagonistic to the Bible,” including “fornicators and homosexuals” (internal quotation marks omitted)), appeal dismissed, 478 U. S. 1015 (1986); Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock, 2013–NMSC–040, ___ N. M. ___, 309 P. 3d 53 (for-profit photography business owned by a husband and wife refused to photograph a lesbian couple’s commitment ceremony based on the religious beliefs of the company’s owners), cert. denied, 572 U. S. ___ (2014). Would RFRA require exemptions in cases of this ilk? And if not, how does the Court divine which religious beliefs are worthy of accommodation, and which are not? Isn’t the Court disarmed from making such a judgment given its recognition that “courts must not presume to determine . . . the plausibility of a religious claim”? Ante, at 37.
And you are trying to draw parallels between two different cases that involved completely different laws. ACA law is not the same as public accommodation laws.
Apparently some folks (obviously not you! ) may not see the parallels in cases where folks are seeking exemptions from generally applicable laws on the basis of their religious beliefs. I'm done attempting to have a rational rather than emotion laden discussion with.
& hey, I'd like to see improvements to ACA law too. Although the approach used here isn't an improvement, most likely it will result in clogging up the lower Courts.
I wonder why Justice Ginsburg cited Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., in her dissenting opinion RE: BURWELL v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC.?
Good question. It doesn't apply. Hobby Lobby was not blanket-prohibiting coverage for all forms of contraception, only certain abortifacients. Piggy Park was blanket-excluding all Blacks from its dining room. Two very different applications of religious objection.
Perhaps Ginsburg was trying to force an irrelevant point? She was outvoted, btw.
Wake up- your bias against Christianity makes it impossible for you to see.
No.
Many of us who are TOTALLY against this law have no bias against Christianity in general, but have a bias against your cruel brands of Christianity. And I include in those brands, any which hurt other people. There are ways to practice all of Jesus' teachings without ever hurting anyone else.
They both legislate mandates. How do you not get that?
There is a mandate regarding murder too, but one can not claim a religious belief in human sacrifice to avoid prosecution for violating the law regarding murder. One can claim a religious belief to violate racial discrimination laws either as the court has already shown.
Different laws.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) may not see the parallels in cases where folks are seeking exemptions from generally applicable laws on the basis of their religious beliefs. I'm done attempting to have a rational rather than emotion laden discussion with. 
