Why Hobby Lobby could open a Pandora’s box of legal discrimination

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 04, 2014 7:45 PM GMT
    We realize how awful this decision is? This is just soooo tiring, we are definitely at war (control) with these people icon_rolleyes.gif

    http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/7/3/hobby-lobby-future.html

    “I don’t think his assurances say this case won’t be applied to anything else,” said Kevin Russell, a partner at Goldstein & Russell, a law firm that represents cases before the Supreme Court. “It is going to arise again when someone sues over gender or sexual orientation discrimination.”


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 04, 2014 7:50 PM GMT
    For those who are unaware of the implications of this, in legal terminology it's called "setting a precedent" which means new cases involving religious-based discrimination will bring up this case to prove that it is legal.

    This is a VERY bad thing. And yes, it is war.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 04, 2014 8:03 PM GMT
    paulflexes saidFor those who are unaware of the implications of this, in legal terminology it's called "setting a precedent" which means new cases involving religious-based discrimination will bring up this case to prove that it is legal.

    This is a VERY bad thing. And yes, it is war.





    Here lies the problem, 380 years, its older than the US itself, infiltrate, just as they did back then, so to today


    Freedom of religion in the United States
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_the_United_States

    Freedom of religion was first applied as a principle in the founding of the colony of Maryland, also founded by the Catholic Lord Baltimore, in 1634.[2] Fifteen years later (1649), the first enactment of religious liberty, the Maryland Toleration Act, drafted by Lord Baltimore


    As an English Roman Catholic, he continued the legacy of his father by promoting religious tolerance in the colony.

    Calvertcecil.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 04, 2014 8:13 PM GMT
    scruffLA said
    paulflexes saidFor those who are unaware of the implications of this, in legal terminology it's called "setting a precedent" which means new cases involving religious-based discrimination will bring up this case to prove that it is legal.

    This is a VERY bad thing. And yes, it is war.





    Here lies the problem, 380 years, its older than the US itself, infiltrate, just as they did back then, so to today


    Freedom of religion in the United States
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_the_United_States

    Freedom of religion was first applied as a principle in the founding of the colony of Maryland, also founded by the Catholic Lord Baltimore, in 1634.[2] Fifteen years later (1649), the first enactment of religious liberty, the Maryland Toleration Act, drafted by Lord Baltimore


    As an English Roman Catholic, he continued the legacy of his father by promoting religious tolerance in the colony.

    Calvertcecil.jpg
    The problem is not also allowing for freedom FROM religion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 04, 2014 8:28 PM GMT
    paulflexes said
    scruffLA said
    paulflexes saidFor those who are unaware of the implications of this, in legal terminology it's called "setting a precedent" which means new cases involving religious-based discrimination will bring up this case to prove that it is legal.

    This is a VERY bad thing. And yes, it is war.





    Here lies the problem, 380 years, its older than the US itself, infiltrate, just as they did back then, so to today


    Freedom of religion in the United States
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_the_United_States

    Freedom of religion was first applied as a principle in the founding of the colony of Maryland, also founded by the Catholic Lord Baltimore, in 1634.[2] Fifteen years later (1649), the first enactment of religious liberty, the Maryland Toleration Act, drafted by Lord Baltimore


    As an English Roman Catholic, he continued the legacy of his father by promoting religious tolerance in the colony.

    Calvertcecil.jpg
    The problem is not also allowing for freedom FROM religion.




    This was obviously how religion was put into the US amendment, when the United States was formed, from the colonies (odd, we are talking about this on Americas b-day..lol). Everything back then was ruled by England, Kings and Queens, I have also read, much of this religion and its Catholic origin actually started in Ireland, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wallace, during the Wars of Scottish Independence, not sure how it got from Ireland to Rome or Rome to Ireland

    We are the new, War of Independence, demanding freedom from this tyranny called religion, The Age Of Aquarius icon_idea.gif
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jul 05, 2014 3:22 AM GMT
    paulflexes saidFor those who are unaware of the implications of this, in legal terminology it's called "setting a precedent" which means new cases involving religious-based discrimination will bring up this case to prove that it is legal.

    This is a VERY bad thing. And yes, it is war.


    To be fair, a precedent in itself is not necessarily a bad thing. What makes the Hobby Lobby decision so bad (amongst other things) is that the majority opinion was written in such a way as to rig a future decision. This is the biggest reach of judicial activism since Dred Scott.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 05, 2014 4:01 AM GMT
    coolarmydude said
    This is the biggest reach of judicial activism since Dred Scott.

    Wait a minute! I thought only Liberal judges were activists! And legislate from the bench!

    Are you suggesting Conservative judges do the same thing?

    Oh, right, I forgot - when Right Wing judges do that, it's called "restoring the Constitution". When the decision goes against Right Wingers, it's called judicial activism.

    We have to get our terms right here. icon_razz.gif
  • AMoonHawk

    Posts: 11406

    Jul 05, 2014 4:20 AM GMT
    IDK, I'm not sure what it will set presedent for. Businesses can refuse to pay for certain insurance options based on some sense of moral belief. I guess that means that businesses that have a Seventh Day Adventist belief, don't have to pay for any insurance that provides any sort of life saving medical care icon_biggrin.gif .... Yup, a can of worms
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jul 05, 2014 11:57 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    coolarmydude said
    This is the biggest reach of judicial activism since Dred Scott.

    Wait a minute! I thought only Liberal judges were activists! And legislate from the bench!

    Are you suggesting Conservative judges do the same thing?

    Oh, right, I forgot - when Right Wing judges do that, it's called "restoring the Constitution". When the decision goes against Right Wingers, it's called judicial activism.

    We have to get our terms right here. icon_razz.gif


    Exactly! The very people who think this ruling was religious liberty don't realize the very religious liberty they just gave up. I had someone on Facebook actually say that she supports business because they sign the checks and that if you don't like it, find another job.

    I was like icon_eek.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 06, 2014 8:35 AM GMT
    AMoonHawk saidIDK, I'm not sure what it will set presedent for. Businesses can refuse to pay for certain insurance options based on some sense of moral belief. I guess that means that businesses that have a Seventh Day Adventist belief, don't have to pay for any insurance that provides any sort of life saving medical care icon_biggrin.gif .... Yup, a can of worms


    No one in the US is forced to be an employee of any religious employer. The only place people are forced to be employees is COMMUNIST countries.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 06, 2014 8:37 AM GMT
    coolarmydude said
    Art_Deco said
    coolarmydude said
    This is the biggest reach of judicial activism since Dred Scott.

    Wait a minute! I thought only Liberal judges were activists! And legislate from the bench!

    Are you suggesting Conservative judges do the same thing?

    Oh, right, I forgot - when Right Wing judges do that, it's called "restoring the Constitution". When the decision goes against Right Wingers, it's called judicial activism.

    We have to get our terms right here. icon_razz.gif


    Exactly! The very people who think this ruling was religious liberty don't realize the very religious liberty they just gave up. I had someone on Facebook actually say that she supports business because they sign the checks and that if you don't like it, find another job.

    I was like icon_eek.gif


    Your friend is correct. We are at liberty to find another employer with better benefits if we so choose. People have been doing this for decades.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 06, 2014 9:50 AM GMT
    Blakes7 said
    coolarmydude said
    Art_Deco said
    coolarmydude said
    This is the biggest reach of judicial activism since Dred Scott.

    Wait a minute! I thought only Liberal judges were activists! And legislate from the bench!

    Are you suggesting Conservative judges do the same thing?

    Oh, right, I forgot - when Right Wing judges do that, it's called "restoring the Constitution". When the decision goes against Right Wingers, it's called judicial activism.

    We have to get our terms right here. icon_razz.gif


    Exactly! The very people who think this ruling was religious liberty don't realize the very religious liberty they just gave up. I had someone on Facebook actually say that she supports business because they sign the checks and that if you don't like it, find another job.

    I was like icon_eek.gif


    Your friend is correct. We are at liberty to find another employer with better benefits if we so choose. People have been doing this for decades.
    And as more employers learn of this and jump on the religious bandwagon to save money, then what?
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jul 06, 2014 3:53 PM GMT
    paulflexes said
    Blakes7 said

    Your friend is correct. We are at liberty to find another employer with better benefits if we so choose. People have been doing this for decades.
    And as more employers learn of this and jump on the religious bandwagon to save money, then what?


    Ignore the troll. There is no reasoning with Blakes7. I gladly have him on my "Ignore His Posts" list.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 06, 2014 4:03 PM GMT
    paulflexes said
    Blakes7 said
    coolarmydude said
    Art_Deco said
    coolarmydude said
    This is the biggest reach of judicial activism since Dred Scott.

    Wait a minute! I thought only Liberal judges were activists! And legislate from the bench!

    Are you suggesting Conservative judges do the same thing?

    Oh, right, I forgot - when Right Wing judges do that, it's called "restoring the Constitution". When the decision goes against Right Wingers, it's called judicial activism.

    We have to get our terms right here. icon_razz.gif


    Exactly! The very people who think this ruling was religious liberty don't realize the very religious liberty they just gave up. I had someone on Facebook actually say that she supports business because they sign the checks and that if you don't like it, find another job.

    I was like icon_eek.gif


    Your friend is correct. We are at liberty to find another employer with better benefits if we so choose. People have been doing this for decades.
    And as more employers learn of this and jump on the religious bandwagon to save money, then what?


    The employees and any unions will try and negotiate otherwise. Or, leave and work somewhere else where the benefits are better. Government mandates are part of the huge expense of health insurance in the first place, although I agree that without some mandates there would be no coverage for anything. Ya just gotta find a balance, and this is why I am for unions.