FIND THE ANSWERS

Why cant people see the Hobby Lobby ruling was a victory for Freedom of Religion over militant atheism and psychopathic feminism?

Answer this question

  • Why cant people see the Hobby Lobby ruling was a victory for Freedom of Religion over militant atheism and psychopathic feminism?


Answers

Answer #1 | 23/07 2014 17:18
Because it was none of those things? Because this supposed "War on Religion" is a fabrication that exists only in the minds of stupid Christians? (Oops! Redundancy Alert!!!)
Answer #2 | 23/07 2014 17:17
The simple fact that Hobby Lobby sells models of war machines tells you that they're not owned by Christians
Answer #3 | 23/07 2014 17:23
And for family values
Answer #4 | 23/07 2014 17:17
Not really sure, ignorance maybe
Answer #5 | 23/07 2014 17:29
The HL ruling essentially created a brand new branch of law; corporate religion. At no other time in history has a for-profit corporation, of ANY kind, enjoyed the same "religious freedoms" as an individual. Now, based on "corporate religion"; privately-owned corporations can require their employees to follow certain precepts of that religion (whatever it is), even when the employee is NOT at work; they can screen out applicants for religious reasons; AND they can "opt out" of certain laws because of that "religion". This is actually a huge set-back for individual religious freedoms. Cons just can't see that yet.
Answer #6 | 23/07 2014 17:43
You only want it cause you think it goes against Obama. Nothing to do with God or relegion. You just use that as the wedge.
Answer #7 | 23/07 2014 17:17
It wasn't. It was a violation of the freedom of religion, because it allowed your boss to make decision on your behalf based on his religious beliefs, without consideration of your own, despite the fact you pay for your own policy. It was a terrible decision that pierced the corporate veil, and has now created a new class of businesses who have an unfair market advantage over large or publicly traded businesses because unlike big business they can not comply with federal law on the basis of "religious objections." Conservatives have just cut off their noses to spite their face, and they don't even realize it yet.
Answer #8 | 23/07 2014 17:25
Probably because those two things are only the hysterical imaginations of deluded Christians who must believe they are getting persecuted.
Answer #9 | 23/07 2014 17:21
Because that would not be true.
Answer #10 | 23/07 2014 17:48
I think it is funny the Left thinks slavery is OK when they THEY are the slave master.
Answer #11 | 23/07 2014 18:27
I am not sufficiently acquainted with law to fully appreciate the possible consequences of this precise decision. Furthermore, as so many others, I did not read the court's transcript to see exactly what were the arguments supported by the majority which means that I can hardly criticize the judgement itself. However, I do understand the problem. The employer could genuinely feel alienated by a specific provision of the law on the grounds that it defies his deepest moral convictions. Although some people might consider that you missed this point, a similar thing can be said about employees. Indeed, why should they be denied coverage on the grounds that their employers do not share their personal beliefs? For them, it's as if their employer could impose his beliefs to them by denying certain types of health care coverage. Upfront, you are faced with a situation where you are being asked to choose whose freedom will be preserved and who will endure the greatest share of infringement. If I read properly online, it seems that the court found some sort middle ground, arguing that since less restrictive methods existed to supply coverage for such products, it would be best to enact such methods instead. I do not see much of a problem with this specific decision and this specific argument: if both parties can be spared in some way, it's not necessarily a bad call. On a different note, this ruling might not be such a good news for Americans in general. I know that the majority of justices insist on this ruling being a peculiar case not to be used as a precedent, but hardly see how they will manage to enforce the respect of such an intent. If they insist on not providing further concessions on similar grounds, they're bound to involve such distinctions between beliefs and ideas. Fundamentally, I seriously do not see why would the objection against contraception based upon a simple sense of participation (the moral argument being that they would rather not help someone enact decisions they deem immoral, even if only very indirectly) be reckoned so different from objections regarding transfusions, transplantation or even against the minimum wage. Furthermore, why stop at religious belief in the strictest of sense? Why not also include similar, though admittedly non-religious beliefs such as the moral convictions of an atheist? These people can be offended, even horrified, at certain things just like religious people and it's hard to come up with an argument about how we proceed to count these beliefs out of the problem without this argument to also suggest some form of infringement upon individual freedoms. And, as suggested above, the same problem arises if you try to count out other faiths and even other beliefs within the same faith. As I said, I did not study law and, so, I might be wrong because of simple mistakes. However, it seems to me that this decision will inspire future lawsuits and that these lawsuits will call for a precision of what sort of belief qualifies for exemptions. In my view, the sole fact that the court will have to pronounce itself on whose convictions are worthy of concern is a great loss for individual freedoms. If you start to discriminate between different beliefs and grant these distinctions force of law, you're meddling with the verges of moral legitimacy.
Answer #12 | 24/07 2014 00:48
I think it is funny the Left thinks slavery is OK when they THEY are the slave master.
Answer #13 | 24/07 2014 00:17
Not really sure, ignorance maybe
Answer #14 | 24/07 2014 00:43
You only want it cause you think it goes against Obama. Nothing to do with God or relegion. You just use that as the wedge.
Answer #15 | 24/07 2014 00:29
The HL ruling essentially created a brand new branch of law; corporate religion. At no other time in history has a for-profit corporation, of ANY kind, enjoyed the same "religious freedoms" as an individual. Now, based on "corporate religion"; privately-owned corporations can require their employees to follow certain precepts of that religion (whatever it is), even when the employee is NOT at work; they can screen out applicants for religious reasons; AND they can "opt out" of certain laws because of that "religion". This is actually a huge set-back for individual religious freedoms. Cons just can't see that yet.
Answer #16 | 24/07 2014 00:17
The simple fact that Hobby Lobby sells models of war machines tells you that they're not owned by Christians
Answer #17 | 24/07 2014 00:23
And for family values
Answer #18 | 24/07 2014 00:21
Because that would not be true.
Answer #19 | 24/07 2014 00:18
Because it was none of those things? Because this supposed "War on Religion" is a fabrication that exists only in the minds of stupid Christians? (Oops! Redundancy Alert!!!)
Answer #20 | 24/07 2014 00:17
It wasn't. It was a violation of the freedom of religion, because it allowed your boss to make decision on your behalf based on his religious beliefs, without consideration of your own, despite the fact you pay for your own policy. It was a terrible decision that pierced the corporate veil, and has now created a new class of businesses who have an unfair market advantage over large or publicly traded businesses because unlike big business they can not comply with federal law on the basis of "religious objections." Conservatives have just cut off their noses to spite their face, and they don't even realize it yet.
Answer #21 | 24/07 2014 01:27
I am not sufficiently acquainted with law to fully appreciate the possible consequences of this precise decision. Furthermore, as so many others, I did not read the court's transcript to see exactly what were the arguments supported by the majority which means that I can hardly criticize the judgement itself. However, I do understand the problem. The employer could genuinely feel alienated by a specific provision of the law on the grounds that it defies his deepest moral convictions. Although some people might consider that you missed this point, a similar thing can be said about employees. Indeed, why should they be denied coverage on the grounds that their employers do not share their personal beliefs? For them, it's as if their employer could impose his beliefs to them by denying certain types of health care coverage. Upfront, you are faced with a situation where you are being asked to choose whose freedom will be preserved and who will endure the greatest share of infringement. If I read properly online, it seems that the court found some sort middle ground, arguing that since less restrictive methods existed to supply coverage for such products, it would be best to enact such methods instead. I do not see much of a problem with this specific decision and this specific argument: if both parties can be spared in some way, it's not necessarily a bad call. On a different note, this ruling might not be such a good news for Americans in general. I know that the majority of justices insist on this ruling being a peculiar case not to be used as a precedent, but hardly see how they will manage to enforce the respect of such an intent. If they insist on not providing further concessions on similar grounds, they're bound to involve such distinctions between beliefs and ideas. Fundamentally, I seriously do not see why would the objection against contraception based upon a simple sense of participation (the moral argument being that they would rather not help someone enact decisions they deem immoral, even if only very indirectly) be reckoned so different from objections regarding transfusions, transplantation or even against the minimum wage. Furthermore, why stop at religious belief in the strictest of sense? Why not also include similar, though admittedly non-religious beliefs such as the moral convictions of an atheist? These people can be offended, even horrified, at certain things just like religious people and it's hard to come up with an argument about how we proceed to count these beliefs out of the problem without this argument to also suggest some form of infringement upon individual freedoms. And, as suggested above, the same problem arises if you try to count out other faiths and even other beliefs within the same faith. As I said, I did not study law and, so, I might be wrong because of simple mistakes. However, it seems to me that this decision will inspire future lawsuits and that these lawsuits will call for a precision of what sort of belief qualifies for exemptions. In my view, the sole fact that the court will have to pronounce itself on whose convictions are worthy of concern is a great loss for individual freedoms. If you start to discriminate between different beliefs and grant these distinctions force of law, you're meddling with the verges of moral legitimacy.
Answer #22 | 24/07 2014 00:25
Probably because those two things are only the hysterical imaginations of deluded Christians who must believe they are getting persecuted.
Positive: 0 %

Possible answer