Saturday, December 29, 2012

Developing...

From SCOTUSblog:

In the most significant federal appeals court ruling so far on the new federal health care law’s contraceptives mandate, the Seventh Circuit Court on Friday night temporarily barred the federal government from enforcing that requirement against an Illinois construction company whose Roman Catholic owners see it as a threat to their religious freedom. In a two-to-one ruling, the panel of the Chicago-based court acted two days after Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor had refused – for different reasons — to block enforcement of the mandate against an Oklahoma family and its businesses. 
The Seventh Circuit decision was of potentially major significance, because it marked the first time that a federal court at that level had accepted — at least temporarily — the argument that a profit-making company owned and run by people of strong religious faith fully shares their right to protection of their religious principles. 

11 comments:

Jesse Steele said...

Lessons for the day in Right wing land.

Federal govt trampling on their religious freedom? That's bad.

But big business trampling on the religious beliefs of others by forcing them to accept the beliefs of the company owners? Perfectly fine!

Just another example of their disrespect for the first amendment, and their "Freedom is free so long as you agree with my popular mainstream definition of freedom." mentality.

Anonymous said...

Just how did the business owners trample on anyone's rights? What exactly did they do that prohibits their employees from buying contraceptives for themselves? Why do you feel the employers are required to pay for it if it is against their religious convictions?

Jesse Steele said...

Oh hello Anon I was wondering when you would show up.

I would answer your question, but you answered it for me. The employers based on THEIR religious beliefs are forcing the employees regardless of their belief to spend the extra money they may or may not have to buy something such as contraception. All because it goes against a religious conflict that said employees may or may not share. Even though those same employers aren't be forced to buy the health care plans. They are just being forced to offer a choice. Something that certainly does seem to drive the right bonkers. I mean we can't even get it on a license plate? Good luck with health care right?

Now kindly tell me how that is not a clear violation of their first amendment right of freedom FROM religion?

Lets see you answer this one too. If a business owned by Muslims decided that because of their religious viewpoint every woman Muslim or not should be required to cover themselves while at work, how fast would and your ilk be howling "SHARIA!" Since it's not your religion, and who cares about that right? And if you tried to stop the practice wouldn't that be you imposing upon their religious beliefs?


Also I would point out the cartoon that JW posted today. Says it all as well in terms of LGBT rights. But the same could easily be applied to so called religious conservatives who have no problem oppressing others under the guise of protecting their freedom.

Amendment one was the same thing, and these hissyfits over contraception are even worse. It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with childish petty spite over the fact Obama won.

Get over it.

Anonymous said...

The Bill of Rights places limits on government. It isn't an employee handbook.

Jesse Steele said...

And the bill of rights also says others can't force their religious beliefs upon me. Unless it's things like amendment one of course, or choose life plates, or abortion bans, or silly bills in statehouses across the country trying to ban sharia law, or govt restrictions on mosques yet no problems with churches.

Yet you still seem to have no problem with ANY of that so long as it's the good guy religion (Christianity) doing so right?

Nice dodge on the employee handbook answer though. Guess I'll just keep hoping one of these days your side will answer a question honestly. Well if you can, which I'm beginning to doubt.

In the words of Sally.

"Boring."

Anonymous said...

The employers did no forcing of their religious belles on others. They simply did not allow others to force their egregious beliefs on them. Any one is free to purchase contraception if they want it. The only thing is they have to pay for it for themselves.

I would suppose the business owned by Muslims could enforce a dress code just as other businesses do. The question would be how many female employees would submit to it instead of obtaining employment elsewhere. I doubt very many.

Next time try to do better with a lame hypothetical example.

Just what persecution of the homosexual life style is it o which you are referring? I don;t know of any. They can have personal contracts as long as they are not called marriages. They do the same thing. If the term offends people then why use it? Your logic would also support the N word that some people like to use.

Jesse Steele said...

Force what Anon? Obama and Co. Are not forcing these so called "religious" people to take the pills, they are not forcing these plans with birth control on anyone, they are simply saying employers must offer the choice of these plans to everyone in a company. again, choice, that thing you all hate.


Any one is free to purchase contraception if they want it. The only thing is they have to pay for it for themselves.

Because it's just popping right down to boone drug and asking for the pill right?

http://tinyurl.com/ab36orz

I'm curious, how many people do you know with an extra $600-$1200 a year just laying around for out of pocket birth control expenses?

Given that also according to that study (which I'm sure your closed mind will just dismiss as Obama propaganda)


More than half of young adult women say they have not used their method as directed because it was cost-prohibitive.


And they are being forced to do so because their "Every sperm is sacred" singing CEO decides that his view on life and the bible is more important then the health of the women who work for him. A religious viewpoint affecting them both socially and economically. Not rocket science, though it is why you guys lost a big chunk of the women's vote, just saying.


I would suppose the business owned by Muslims could enforce a dress code just as other businesses do. The question would be how many female employees would submit to it instead of obtaining employment elsewhere. I doubt very many.

Ok I'll give you the ol softball pitch.

The govt (be it federal or state) then comes out with a law saying that said Muslim company can't do that. Which side are you on?

Side with the company and you're a hypocrite to the constitution, because you're letting them enforce a religious viewpoint on those who don't share it. Clearly goes against the first amendment.

Side with the govt and oh wait! Look now you're realizing that you have to uphold that pesky freedom from religion part of the first amendment too.

Please tell me how "good lil Christians" enforcing their biblical views on those who disagree is any different, feel free to provide your own "lame" hypothetical. Oh wait you did already.


Just what persecution of the homosexual life style is it o which you are referring? I don;t know of any.

Wow, were you under a rock during the amendment debate one or something? Or are you honestly this breathtakingly ignorant?

Do the words Matt Shepard for starters ring any bells? Maybe the various again so called "Christians" in our state alone who said things along the lines of herd the gays up and lock them away, compared them to people wanting to have sex with dogs and kids, my god man the list goes on and on! I could go on, but since I'm arguing with an ideologue there's no real point is there?


I don;t know of any. They can have personal contracts as long as they are not called marriages. They do the same thing.

You just HAHAHA oh my god said that HEE in a state HAAA that banned civil unions even! And you can't oh geez! Even remember that!

Thank you Anon I don't think I've laughed that hard in weeks at someone.

But seriously, regarding the it's the same of marriage. Would that be considered separate but equal? It worked so well for the blacks right? Maybe we can have special gay bathrooms so you don't get any on you?

But either way in terms of being the same as marriage.

IT
http://tinyurl.com/cvkvr5n

IS
http://tinyurl.com/bb9zy89

NOT
http://tinyurl.com/8j7m7jn

THE SAME!
http://tinyurl.com/8p2p92e


If the term offends people then why use it?

Because they are not second class citizens who get marriage with a * beside it. They are just as American as you or me. And when you can't accept that fact. Along with trying to use utter garbage like bringing up the N word to justify your argument?

It just continues to show what an utterly clueless close minded fool you are.

Anonymous said...

You are free to have your mistaken opinion, Jesse, just as I am free to have a correct one.

As an idle thought, just how much sex do you have to spend $1200.00 dollars a year on condoms? Do you have any time left to work or is that not a problem? Do entitlements pay for them?

I notice you have no reply to the point made that by saying it is find to offend some people by the use of one term, then it must be all right for others to use the N word. Maybe you are egotistical enough to think you have the only opinion that matters. That would be typical for the left.

Jesse Steele said...

You are free to have your mistaken opinion, Jesse, just as I am free to have a correct one

Right....

So combine that with your pathetic insults, rather pedantic whines that you think pass for discourse, not even ignorance of facts so much as outright covering ears and going LALALA when they are presented to you (We weren't talking condoms, we were talking health plans, do try to focus) and the raging hypocrisy of accusing me being so egotistical that I have the only opinion that matters? Yet you start by saying yours is the only right one?

Excuse while once again I find myself laughing my head off at what a silly little child you are.

Anon here's a polite suggestion, look up the word projection, then find the nearest mirror if you want to talk egotism.

And the n word line? It's not worth responding too because it's like the rest of the ramblings of a terrified hiding irrelevant bubble dwelling right wing parrot, and one who is so cowardly he can't put a name to his views no less. Little more then nonsense.

But here's your orange, I feel more entitled to the apple.

Anonymous said...

You have nothing but another idiotic hypothetical that has been shown to be irrelevant, Jesse.

No wonder you laugh a lot. It is a common trait of the deranged.

Jackie Britton Lopatin said...

It's sad to see space given to comments made by someone who's such a coward that they won't even post their name. Most reputable newspapers won't print comment letters unless the writer's name accompanies them.