- Joined
- Jun 24, 2014
- Messages
- 8,810
- Reaction score
- 3,532
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge
Alito states in his opinion that the ruling only applies to contraception. Its no broader than that.
Also, you can certainly have strongly held beliefs about anything but that doesn't mean it trumps the constitutional rights of others.
Precedent says the government may restrict religious freedom in some cases (like in the case of the Amish paying social security taxes) but it must do so in the least restrictive way possible.
In no way does this ruling say religious rights trump all other laws. In fact, there was a famous/infamous case where someone was denied the right to take peyote since that individuals religious right did not trump the law. There's plenty of subtletys here involving the religious freedom restoration act and others.
P.S Please tell your liberal friends on FB and twitter to calm the hell down and breath into a paper bag. Its no wonder you people have the reputation of being histrionic knee jerkers.
Alito states in his opinion that the ruling only applies to contraception. Its no broader than that.
Also, you can certainly have strongly held beliefs about anything but that doesn't mean it trumps the constitutional rights of others.
Precedent says the government may restrict religious freedom in some cases (like in the case of the Amish paying social security taxes) but it must do so in the least restrictive way possible.
In no way does this ruling say religious rights trump all other laws. In fact, there was a famous/infamous case where someone was denied the right to take peyote since that individuals religious right did not trump the law. There's plenty of subtletys here involving the religious freedom restoration act and others.
P.S Please tell your liberal friends on FB and twitter to calm the hell down and breath into a paper bag. Its no wonder you people have the reputation of being histrionic knee jerkers.
The Court ruled on religious claims conflicting with a law applied to the general population. It has nothing to do with birth control, except that was the topic of the religious claim. But Muslim owned businesses can certainly assert laws that violate Sharia Law should be invalidated.
And who are you to say a person can't hold sincerely held religious views that require them to not serve interracial couples because they disapprove of them marrying? It conflicts with the Civil Rights Acts and perhaps other laws, but the Congress and now SC say your religious views trump those laws in some cases.