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.
"According to the article, the Clinton-signed law (RRFA) was used by Hobby Lobby to assert their right not to supply certain contraceptives to employees (via health plans) due to the company's religious objections. That does not seem a whole lot different from a company refusing to bake a gay wedding cake due to the company's religious objections."
Here's the difference: prior to Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court had endorsed a far narrower conception of religious liberty, especially in the realm of commerce. In United States v. Lee (1982), a case involving an Amish employer who objected to paying Social Security taxes on religious grounds, the Court asserted,
When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity. Granting an exemption from social security taxes to an employer operates to impose the employer's religious faith on the employees.
RFRA was passed in response to a later ruling, Employment Division v. Smith (1990), in which the Court invalided its previous standard -- the 'Sherbert Test' -- and imposed a more onerous burden on religious practices conflicting with 'neutral, generally applicable regulatory law':
Under the Sherbert test, governmental actions that substantially burden a religious practice must be justified by a compelling governmental interest ... We conclude today that the sounder approach, and the approach in accord with the vast majority of our precedents, is to hold the test inapplicable to such challenges. The government’s ability to enforce generally applicable prohibitions of socially harmful conduct, like its ability to carry out other aspects of public policy, “cannot depend on measuring the effects of a governmental action on a religious objector’s spiritual development.”
Ironically, these are the words of one Antonin Scalia. Evidently, his thinking has since evolved -- and not for the better, IMHO (I don't foresee Burwell v. Hobby Lobby outliving the Court's current majority). Regardless, nothing inherent in RFRA -- which simply reinstates the Sherbert Test for federal legislation -- requires one to subscribe to the Supreme Court's newer, more radical interpretation of religious liberty.
Here's the difference: prior to Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court had endorsed a far narrower conception of religious liberty, especially in the realm of commerce. In United States v. Lee (1982), a case involving an Amish employer who objected to paying Social Security taxes on religious grounds, the Court asserted,
When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity. Granting an exemption from social security taxes to an employer operates to impose the employer's religious faith on the employees.
RFRA was passed in response to a later ruling, Employment Division v. Smith (1990), in which the Court invalided its previous standard -- the 'Sherbert Test' -- and imposed a more onerous burden on religious practices conflicting with 'neutral, generally applicable regulatory law':
Under the Sherbert test, governmental actions that substantially burden a religious practice must be justified by a compelling governmental interest ... We conclude today that the sounder approach, and the approach in accord with the vast majority of our precedents, is to hold the test inapplicable to such challenges. The government’s ability to enforce generally applicable prohibitions of socially harmful conduct, like its ability to carry out other aspects of public policy, “cannot depend on measuring the effects of a governmental action on a religious objector’s spiritual development.â€
Ironically, these are the words of one Antonin Scalia. Evidently, his thinking has since evolved -- and not for the better, IMHO (I don't foresee Burwell v. Hobby Lobby outliving the Court's current majority). Regardless, nothing inherent in RFRA -- which simply reinstates the Sherbert Test for federal legislation -- requires one to subscribe to the Supreme Court's newer, more radical interpretation of religious liberty.
The poster I responded to claimed that RFRA was not discriminatory whereas the Indiana law is. Your recounting appears to assert that the court's interpretation of RFRA shifted, but not that one is discriminatory and the other not.
I admit that you seem to know a lot more about RFRA than I do (I have not read either law). The link I posted earlier says that the text of both laws is very similar. So what would you say? Does one allow discrimination, and the other not? Or do neither allow it?
She will consider herself a success if she beats the Republican candidate. Which, she will.
Of course, because Dems are all about winning elections, but not about leadership. We've already had over six years of that and not are interested in another four with the ugly pantsuit monster.
And you, like the other Dem dupes, didn't answer the OP's question. Hillary will lie about anything to get what she wants. That's the policy she will follow: LIES.
I said other. Her campaign will be short on substance, long on denial and obfuscation, and insanely long on the importance of electing a woman, cloaked in muy de mucho of cool social media, and imagery. All the while minimizing her exposure outside of carefully scripted and managed appearances.
Ugh, "What difference does it make, now?"; that fait accompli is accepted as fact. Wonder if she has decided on the color of her prom dress?
I'm still amazed that she is going ahead. Just re-reading Blood Feud by Ed Klein, and back in 2012 Bill Clinton had agreed to help Team Obama (which he did, especially with the convention speech) but even then people were taken aback by Bill's appearance. He was gaunt, had a tremor in his hands, etc. 2016 will be another 4 years, and by Hillary's own words she is going to heavily depend on Bill for help with the campaign. A presidential campaign is as much a test of physical endurance as anything else.
News flash, Teak, pols are all about winning, just as execs are all about profits, and MLB teams are all about wins.
Lose and you accomplish nothing. You get nothing done.
We almost always disagree Bob, but in this you are spot on. Job #1 for any politician, of any persuasion, is to get elected, at least in a democracy. The guy who gets elected and only gets 1% of his platform enacted is ahead of the guy who doesn't get elected.
"The poster I responded to claimed that RFRA was not discriminatory whereas the Indiana law is. Your recounting appears to assert that the court's interpretation of RFRA shifted, but not that one is discriminatory and the other not.
I admit that you seem to know a lot more about RFRA than I do (I have not read either law). The link I posted earlier says that the text of both laws is very similar. So what would you say? Does one allow discrimination, and the other not? Or do neither allow it?"
I think the issue stems from the Indiana law including commercial entities under its definition of a legal 'person' (the federal version lacks such explicit language, and prior to Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court had never interpreted it as implied), as well as its scope exceeding government-mandated religious restrictions (the exclusive domain of the federal statute).
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.
