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.
And then ruled in exactly the opposite way. Hmmm...
That was from the ruling opinion. He said that the case was ruled on very narrowly. That means it only applies to BC coverage for employees in closely held corp. It does not apply to any other laws including state anti-discrimination laws. That comes directly from the judge who wrote the court opinion.
We don't. And that seems to be the point. Some clearly don't want a free society. They want totalitarianism.
We definitely have plenty of people in the world like that. They have their views for how everyone should live their lives, and they will use the government to force their views and lifestyle down everyone else's throats. Furthermore, these tyrants will use government to ban those views and lifestyles they don't like, and punish anyone who dares to disagree with them.
That was from the ruling opinion. He said that the case was ruled on very narrowly.
Exactly. These are the narrow conditions:
Quote:
"In a 5-4 decision with a splintered dissent, the Supreme Court held that the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) cannot mandate a closely held corporation to violate the religious beliefs of its owner by providing four abortion-inducing drugs. Specifically, the court held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 requires the government to accommodate such corporations just as it does not-for-profit corporations because the contraceptive mandate substantially burdens the owners’ religious beliefs and there are less-restrictive means of providing contraception (the government can pay for it directly)."
A law 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.
How are the bakeries, florists, photographers, caterers, and officiants involved in the dispute not closely held corporations? And how are wedding cakes, flowers, photography services, caterers, and officiants not readily available elsewhere via less-restrictive means?
This peculiar need for the homosexual militants to hatefully bully, punish, ruin, and silence those who disagree with them is obvious.
I detest the bullying going on. But, if a couple lived in a small town, I could see a scenario where there is only one bakery shop, or one bridal shop, and no others for miles around, and both shops refuse to do business with the gay couple. However, I have not seen any legitimate court cases brought with this type of scenario yet, all I have seen so far are contrived situations.
Exactly. These are the narrow conditions:A law 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.
How are the bakeries, florists, photographers, caterers, and officiants involved in the dispute not closely held corporations? And how are wedding cakes, flowers, photography services, caterers, and officiants not readily available elsewhere via less-restrictive means?
I still do not see how providing a gay couple food or flowers to a wedding reception hall is the business owner taking part in the wedding, which had already occurred earlier in the day.
I still do not see how providing a gay couple food or flowers to a wedding reception hall is the business owner taking part in the wedding, which had already occurred earlier in the day.
Flowers typically go to the ceremony location, and maybe sometimes additional flowers go to the reception venue. And providing food to celebrate a same sex wedding is indeed participating in the event. Just like Hobby Lobby providing insurance coverage for contraceptives/abortifacients was determined by SCOTUS to be participating in an activity that violated HL's owners' religion.
Exactly. These are the narrow conditions:A law 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.
How are the bakeries, florists, photographers, caterers, and officiants involved in the dispute not closely held corporations? And how are wedding cakes, flowers, photography services, caterers, and officiants not readily available elsewhere via less-restrictive means?
Poor thing, you can't even understand the words written by the judges themselves.
Let me help you.
Quote:
As this description of our reasoning shows, our holding
is very specific. We do not hold, as the principal dissent
alleges, that for-profit corporations and other commercial
enterprises can “opt out of any law (saving only tax laws)
they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious
beliefs.”
The contraceptive mandate, as applied to closely held
corporations, violates RFRA.
I don't see anything about cakes, flowers, or anti-discrimination laws covered in the ruling. In fact Alito went out of his way to specify that the ruling did not cover ANYTHING but the contraceptive mandate of the ACA.
Least restrictive means does not mean that the other person involved has to go out of their way, it means that the GOVERNMENT has a way that is less restrictive to accomplish their goals for the law.
IF non discrimination in public accommodations is the goal, then allowing discrimination in some cases is not accomplishing that goal.
Poor thing, you can't even understand the words written by the judges themselves.
Indeed, I can:
Quote:
"In a 5-4 decision with a splintered dissent, the Supreme Court held that the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) cannot mandate a closely held corporation to violate the religious beliefs of its owner by providing four abortion-inducing drugs. Specifically, the court held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 requires the government to accommodate such corporations just as it does not-for-profit corporations because the contraceptive mandate substantially burdens the owners’ religious beliefs and there are less-restrictive means of providing contraception (the government can pay for it directly)."
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose
Least restrictive means does not mean that the other person involved has to go out of their way, it means that the GOVERNMENT has a way that is less restrictive to accomplish their goals for the law.
Which is exactly the case with publicly traded corporation-owned bakeries. The government has a way that is less restrictive to accomplish their goals for the law via that means.
Buy a wedding cake from any of them. They're beautiful:
Why bully someone into violating their First Amendment rights when perfectly beautiful wedding cakes are easily available elsewhere?
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.
