are blind to what the fundamentalists in their own religious sect are hoping to accomplish as a result of the horrible Hobby Lobby SCOTUS decision:
Via Right Wing Watch:
"Anti-gay activists are rejoicing at the Supreme Court's decision in Hobby Lobby today, in part because they are hopeful that the decision will pave the way for one of their own policy goals: to use the religious liberty argument to push for broad exemptions for corporations from nondiscrimination laws.
Liberty Counsel's Matt Barber is hopeful that the decision bodes well for those trying to use religious freedom as a cloak to justify discrimination against LGBT people":
There it is, people, sickeningly evident for all to see. The party that is anti-gay, but denies it and pretends it doesn't hate the sinners, only the sin, can't wait to bring suit in courts to allow businesses to discriminate against gay people. The party that never lets a day go by without warning America of the impending caliphate that Islam will bring to the USA, is fine with the SCOTUS imposing a narrow ruling that favors one religion's objections to family planning and that party now hopes the same win can be applied to treating the LGBT community as second-class citizens.
Right Wing Watch:
"There may be reason for them to be optimistic. As SCOTUSblog pointed out, the majority's opinion pointedly leaves open "the question of whether the Government has a similarly compelling interest in preventing discrimination on the basis of sex or sexual orientation."
With respect to implications for other kinds of religious-based discrimination, the Court writes that racial discrimination in hiring will not be permitted under RFRA because "The Government has a compelling interest in providing equal opportunity to participate in the workforce without regard to race, and prohibitions on racial discrimination are precisely tailored to acheive [sic] that critical goal." Note that this leave open the question of whether the Government has a similarly compelling interest in preventing discrimination on the basis of sex or sexual orientation.
This charlatan:
He is positively giddy with anticipation on how the conservative SCOTUS may allow them to treat our fellow citizens with contempt and spite. After all, isn't that exactly what their Jesus/God would do?
Ruth Bader Ginsburg was correct:
"The Court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield."
**************************
On another note, great news about this creep:
21 comments:
At my age, my goal is to outlive
Scalia.
Right, or wrong; can someone explain the legal basis that corporations have the same rights as individuals?
Money is speech for corporations? Corporations can decide religious/moral decisions for their employees?
This is nuts.
More proof of the INSANITY OF THE RIGHT!
BB-Idaho, Antonin "Fat Tony" Scalia isn't exactly a picture of health. Carrying that sort of weight around is not good.
And let's not forget what a classless jerk he can be.
Whatever happened to all those nice Episcopalians and Presbyterians who never stuck their noses in other people's private parts, I mean lives? Why did the crazy fundamentalists decide tell other people who do not share their beliefs* what is moral and immoral?
*Birth control for many millions of people is not immoral, and neither is an IUD, and neither is the morning after pill. Who the f**k gave them the right to impose their beliefs, based on imaginary sky-people, on the rest of us?
today is canada day. the day the people of my mother traditionally give thanks that samuel alito is not on their supreme court and ted cruz is no longer a citizen.
My goal BB Idaho is to out live the next republican president. If I do I'm sure to live to a ripe old age.
http://www.guns.com/2014/06/30/july-1-big-day-for-gun-owners-gun-rights-expanding-in-several-states-video/
http://www.guns.com/2014/06/30/july-1-big-day-for-gun-owners-gun-rights-expanding-in-several-states-video/
You do know HL provides coverage for birth control, don't yo.
Their objection is to the morning after pill, or abortion.
It would be terrible for people to stand by their beliefs. What shall we do if everyone has beliefs they will stand for. That would take the wind out of the true Obama believers.
Anonymous @10:50, HL believes that an IUD, which is a birth control device, is also an abortifacient. The American Board of Gynocologists and Obstetrics disagrees with that "belief."
Religious Groups "...contend that methods of contraception including morning-after pills and IUDs can be considered “abortifacients” because, these advocates say, they can act to prevent pregnancy after a man’s sperm has fertilized a woman’s egg.
everal scientists and doctors said in interviews that this view did not reflect the way the birth control methods actually work. “There’s so much evidence for how these things work prior to fertilization,” said Diana L. Blithe, director of contraceptive development for the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. “And there’s no evidence that they work beyond fertilization.”
She and other experts said these methods are so effective in preventing fertilization that the chance of an egg and sperm uniting is slim. If fertilization does occur, the embryo runs a high risk of not implanting for natural reasons. While several medical Web sites, including some from government agencies, raise the possibility that the morning-after pill could affect implantation, Dr. Blithe and others said it had not been scientifically verified that the drugs work that way.
One morning-after pill, Plan B, contains a synthetic progesterone that blocks ovulation, said Dr. Anita Nelson, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles. Recent studies have indicated that women who take Plan B after ovulation have a normal chance of becoming pregnant, and that Plan B does not prevent their fertilized eggs from implanting, Dr. Nelson said. Ella, the other morning-after pill, delays ovulation by blocking the body’s progesterone, she said."
SOURCE
So Hobby Lobby's "belief" is not based on evidence.
Why should a religous idea decide on whether or not a woman can receive insurance coverage for a birth control device or medication when that belief is only a conjecture?
This sort of reasoning belongs in the Dark Ages.
Do the deeply held belief Anons who come to your blog Shaw think the anti-gay Christians who own businesses have the right to refuse to do business with gays? Because that's whats coming next as a result of this latest blunder by the SCROTUS.
BTW, Anon @10:50 PM, another thought:
This isn't about corporations (they're NOT people) standing by their beliefs. This is about certain owners of those corporations imposing their ignorance about birth control devices and medications on women who do not share those erroneous beliefs.
KEEP YOUR FILTHY SELF OUT OF MY BEDROOM!!!
Oh, but buy me birth control and leave it on the dresser before departing
Your correct and the optimum word is Owners. Some believe that if you own a business you have the right to decide how it's run as long as you don't discriminate. As an employee you have the right to find another job and as a consumer you have the right to not shop there.
Waltzing, bull
Anon @8:12, Are you talking about HL's indifference to insurance coverage for Viagra and other boner pills for men?
Birth control medications, FYI, are not just for birth control. Many women use them for other medical reasons, but Viagra is used for only one purpose.
It is telling, though, to see how your mind works, and it works in an angry, anti-woman way.
The right wingers have howled against abortion for decades, and now they see birth control as nothing more than license for women to have lots and lots of sex and not a means to acting responsible in one's private sexual life--married or not married? And you actually believe women also want other people to pay for their sexual orgies?
Are you sure you're not from the Middle East?
Anon @8:45,
Hmmm. HL covers Viagra and other penis enhancing medications so that men can enjoy lots and lots of sex, but birth control for women who may want to practice family planning and responsible sex? NO!
That's discrimination, ammirite?
Hobby Lobby is not directly involved, the insurance company is, and yes, the money needed for birth control pills and other family planning devices can be burdensome for women who are earning minimum wage or have dire economic circumstances.
Or are you one of those covert Middle Eastern type patriarchs who believe women need to be controlled by making them "pay" for their sexual freedom?
Charlie Pierce:
The Humanae Vitae Court of the United States would like to make a clarification.
Tuesday's orders apply to companies owned by Catholics who oppose all contraception. Cases involving Colorado-based Hercules Industries Inc., Illinois-based Korte & Luitjohan Contractors Inc. and Indiana-based Grote Industries Inc. were awaiting action pending resolution of the Hobby Lobby case. They are among roughly 50 lawsuits from profit-seeking corporations that object to the contraceptive coverage requirement in their health plans for employees. Contraception is among a range of preventive services that must be included in the health plans, at no extra cost to worker.
In other words, our five be-robed Peckinsniffs are enshrining in the secular law that governs the relationship between employees and their employers a moral standard that 82 percent of American Catholics do not accept when it comes from the fcking Vicar Of Christ On Earth.
We now have the infallible magisterium of Samuel Alito. Why don't they just hand them all a thurible and some incense and let them all go wild?
More thoughts on the SCOTUS ruling: It shocks and offends me to the core. Shocking in that it doesn’t take a law degree to fathom the gross miscarriage of constitutional law on so many levels. Contrary to the word and intent of disestablishment clause, it raises fundamentalist beliefs to the level of First Estate.
In recognizing the personhood status of private corporations, it reduces women as a group in rank, precedence, and rights. In particular, it discriminates against women of childbearing age by forcing them to pay out of pocket to secure reproductive freedoms they previously had.
And about that can of worms: It will drag every Inquisitor, cockroach and pest out of the woodwork and into court. In fact, it already has: Religious groups demand exemption from LGBT hiring order.
"It will drag every Inquisitor, cockroach and pest out of the woodwork and into court."
Religious doctrines make bad law. Especially religious doctrines that subjugate women and people with different sexual orientations.
As bad as this is, I think it is the last gasp of a dying ethos.
(Read tomorrow's blog post to see why I believe this is true.)
Look at history and remember how many horrible set-backs, even from the SCOTUS, this country endured before slavery was finally abolished.
"The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice."
A corporation is NOT a person. A woman is a person. The Roberts Court will pay dearly in history for this stupid blunder.
Nobody should be able to impose their religious beliefs on another. The health care insurance is the employee's and the employee should be able to do with it as they please. This was a ridiculous ruling that may very well allow employers to further discriminate on "religious" grounds.
Good news about the murder Zimmerman's lawsuit being rejected. There was no need to edit a tape to make the racist look racist in any case.
Post a Comment