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 has ruled that you can decline to participate in an act/event prohibited by your religion. It's the same reason why Muslim women can decline to comply with laws that require the removal of headwear.
You are comparing people to businesses.
Businesses are not people, they are businesses. They are not afforded the same rights. This ruling was an injustice and will surely open a can of worms that will allows religious discrimination among so many businesses and other loop holes!
PS: exactly where in the bible does it say that "You shall not provide health insurance that provides birth control"? It doesn't! The owners made that interpretation and got a ruling based on their personal feelings about an interpretation.
This is a slippery slope and should never have been ruled this way!
SCOTUS has ruled that "persons" in the federal RFRA includes closely held corporations and sole proprietorships. The Hobby Lobby ruling does not apply to corporations which have many shareholders such as Kroger, etc.
SCOTUS has ruled that "persons" in the federal RFRA includes closely held corporations and sole proprietorships. The Hobby Lobby ruling does not apply to corporations which have many shareholders such as Kroger, etc.
I know what SCOTUS has ruled, I disagree with it. Businesses of ANY type should not be afforded the ability to discriminate PERIOD!
No. I'm only stating the obvious: First Amendment Religious Freedom rights cannot be abrogated by law.
SCOTUS agrees.
You've been overstating the impact of Hobby Lobby as much as the other side exaggerates the impact of RFRAs.
You'll be closer to accurate if courts start ruling that general laws prohibiting discrimination Don't further a compelling government interest And there are less restrictive means to further the interest And the law is a Substantial burden on the exercise of religion.
In the year since Hobby Lobby, I don't think a single case has been decided the way you say the SC ruling 'agrees' it should.
If you want to talk about your religion, that is fine and protected by the First Amendment. I can always decline to listen. When you try to impose your religious conviction on me by making it a part of the law of the land, that becomes a violation of the First Amendment.
You also cannot use religion to trump laws against discrimination in the business world against people who do not share your beliefs. That is not in the best interest of the society that permits you to do business with it.
All laws made are based upon civility. Civility and moral behavior in society, came about because of mans belief in religion and gods. If not, there would still be mass pillaging, rape and murder.
I discriminate daily, just as you. I discriminated against the orange juice this morning, and picked coffee.
Discrimination is choice. Choice, is the definition of freedom. Take my individual choices away and you take my freedom.
If I cannot choose to associate with, but forced to associate with everyone, even those I do no not like(based upon what ever), there is going to be a conflict real quick, when I don't perform to their expectations. The master gets called to whip me.
You force me and I am going to rebel on you. You chastise me and the entire community joins you, I may get the hint. Unlike force, that just causes resentment.
The bottom line is that SCOTUS has upheld opening government meetings with prayer fundamentally on the basis that "that's the way we have always done it." The Greece decision was close, with four Justices dissenting.
To me, that is illogical. Schools cannot do it. Congress and local board meetings should not either.
The High School, Junior High, and the elementary schools here, all have church services on Sundays.
It's not in itself controversial. It's only so when people feel that they can utilize it in places it's not intended to be.
Now, you are just making things up, based upon your wishes.
It is not like yelling fire in a theater.
Where does the constitution, designate the location the 1st amendment be used?
This the the Paulian argument but fails to pass muster even in light of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. If the the business is not religious in nature and is open for business the the public, the owners, Amendment rights simply don't trump the rights of other citizens to be free from discrimination due to is
race religion or national origin rights that should be extended to women and sexual orientation.
It is rather simple.
I either own my business, or the government owns the business, I manage for them.
The civil rights act, gave ownership of all business, to the federal government.
The 1st does not allow for discrimination, it does not allow one to use their religion against others, the 1st is also a protection against religious persecution, it protects ones right to a religion, but also protects others from tyranny of anothers religion. The 1st has two sides, freedom of and freedom from. If we did not have freedom from religion, then religion could take hold and monopolize. That is tryanny of a religious majority, the 1st protects us from that. That is the freedom of and from religion. The 1st does not allow one to use their religion to trump laws that all must follow.
For your idea to work in the "from" form, It would take violence and force.
The "of" form, gives everyone a choice.
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.