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.
SCOTUS ruled that HL doesn't have to follow anti-discrimination laws. SCOTUS ruled that HL can decline to povide contraceptive/abortifacient insurance coverge to women. Gender-based discrimination is illegal. SCOTUS ruled HL's First Amendment rights trump that.
SCOTUS ruled that HL doesn't have to follow anti-discrimination laws. SCOTUS ruled that HL can decline to povide contraceptive/abortifacient insurance coverge to women. Gender-based discrimination is illegal. SCOTUS ruled HL's First Amendment rights trump that.
Perhaps you could cite that part of the SCOTUS ruling where SCOTUS said explicitly that Hobby Lobby can discriminate based on gender???
Because I can't find that anywhere. And the case was not about gender-based discrimination. In fact, I don't believe it was an issue at all, since the insurance policies were the same regardless of gender. Men and women both had birth control coverage, and the particular forms of birth control that Hobby Lobby objected to were removed from all policies.
You can think whatever you want. That's your right. But SCOTUS has ruled. The government cannot mandate a closely held corporation to violate the religious beliefs of its owner. Doing so substantially burdens the owners’ religious beliefs when there are less-restrictive means of providing similar goods/services.
Buy a wedding cake somewhere else, like any of these sources. They're beautiful:
Why bully someone into violating their First Amendment rights when perfectly beautiful wedding cakes are easily available elsewhere?
It's not a first ammendment right if you're disingenuously and untruthfully using your right to free exercise of your religion as a front because you lost. Unless you belong to the Church Of Sour Grapes.
Yes, specifically because of what the First Amendment says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
If you're unhappy about that, perhaps you should focus your energy on having the First Amendment repealed.
So the First Amendment clearly allows the baker to refuse to make a wedding cake for any black and white couple, if his religion says that God did not intend for the races to mix?
Washington (CNN)Indiana Gov. Mike Pence is set to sign into law a measure that allows businesses to turn away gay and lesbian customers in the name of "religious freedom."
The move comes as Pence considers a bid for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination -- and just a year after Pence and socially conservative lawmakers lost their first policy battle against gay Hoosiers. In 2014 they had sought to amend Indiana's constitution to ban same-sex marriages -- but were beaten back by a highly-organized coalition of Democrats, traditionally right-leaning business organizations and fiscally focused supporters of Pence's predecessor, former GOP Gov. Mitch Daniels.
Not at all. Any manner of contracts/loans, etc., can be entered into between unmarried parties: friends, siblings, parent/child, etc., all can incur joint liability on a jointly entered-into contract.
Because the HL ruling is irrelevant to this thread.
No, it isn't. The very basis of the HL ruling is what specifically applies to closely held businesses. SCOTUS ruled that such business owners retain their First Amendment rights above any other law, as long as the goods/services in dispute can be obtained in a less-restrictive manner. And that certainly is the case for wedding goods/services.
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.