Judge Denies Hobby Lobby's First Amendment Rights

Started by Yawn, November 19, 2012, 05:20:49 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Yawn

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof


OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — A federal judge Monday rejected Hobby Lobby Stores Inc.'s request to block part of the federal health care overhaul that requires the arts and craft supply company to provide insurance coverage for the morning-after and week-after birth control pills.

In a 28-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton denied a request by Hobby Lobby to prevent the government from enforcing portions of the health care law mandating insurance coverage for contraceptives the company's Christian owners consider objectionable.   http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jMgz0jKQy6X01PY8MQAU3o6xiEnw?docId=0f89001dfe504df7b0be8f565e9537fe

kramarat

You must be referring to the old fashioned, outdated constitution. The new constitution says that the government will have the final determination in all matters............including the free exercise of religion.

Anything pertaining to Sharia law is okay. Ancient Christian principles are no longer deemed acceptable.

valjean

Complete BS. I am so sick of this government; calling them unscrupulous rogues would seem to be both an understatement and a compliment. This is simply evil; America was supposed to be the last refuge for those who want to be free, now America is a walking contradiction. We can no longer claim to be free without qualification or equivocation, we retain freedom only insofar as we are free to obey the state no matter how criminal and corrupt their decrees are.

It certainly says all you need to know when the government of Iran does not force it's religious minorities to pay for things they find immoral through taxation and mandated insurance purchase for their employees, and yet the US government usurps the authority to enforce such an immoral law.

We are becoming less and less free by the day. The concepts of freedom, peace, justice, have been totally turned upside down in this new America and it is a total disgrace. No longer does freedom mean that you have a right to self determination, a right to follow your faith and conscience without government oppression. In this new America freedom means you are free to serve the state without being "hindered" by your religion, your conscience, the use of reason, and so on. We are being governed by despots who have no regard for personal liberty or the law, they have no legitimacy when they make judgements such as this.

Yawn

When government tramples on basic matters of conscience, they my find these businesses closing down rather than contributing to child murder.

Algore was actually right, "Everything that's up is down and everything that's down is up."

These illegitimate judges have ZERO respect for the Constitution they swore to uphold.

valjean

Quote from: Yawn on November 19, 2012, 05:56:05 PM
When government tramples on basic matters of conscience, they my find these businesses closing down rather than contributing to child murder.

Algore was actually right, "Everything that's up is down and everything that's down is up."

These illegitimate judges have ZERO respect for the Constitution they swore to uphold.

And yet how are we supposed to find a redress for these grievances? We cannot get justice from the president, we cannot get justice from the congress, we cannot get justice from the courts, we cannot even get justice from the principle of majority rule because the majority is either in favor of or ignorant to this sort of thing, which leaves the oppressed minority trampled underfoot by every level of government and the people itself. This is not what our founders had in mind, we are being run by tyrants.

Yawn

To initiate impeachment proceedings, there exist three options, each of which rests with us--We, the People.

    Option One: Impeachment proceedings of a federal official can be
   commenced by a member of the federal House of
   Representatives.

    Option Two: Impeachment proceedings can also be triggered by
   a member of the State House of Representatives.

    Option Three: Impeachment proceedings can be recommended by
      any U.S. citizen. In other words, by you or me,  or
      any other American citizen.

How to impeach a judge

Just_the_facts_mamm

Quote from: kramarat on November 19, 2012, 05:48:02 PM
Anything pertaining to Sharia law is okay.
Oh KRAM, you have gone way out into space this time.

Are you insinuating that Obama care is somehow Sharia law or that birth control is somehow compatible with sharia Law?

Like I have said, you're in need of a reality check.

QuoteAncient Christian principles are no longer deemed acceptable.
The US constitution is not based in Ancient Christian Principles, hate to break it to you.

Just_the_facts_mamm

Quote from: valjean on November 19, 2012, 05:55:31 PM
and yet the US government usurps the authority to enforce such an immoral law.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The above passage should be a little familiar to some of you.
NOTE this part.
Quotepromote the general Welfare

You see, that could be interpreted as giving the government the job to "promote the general Welfare"

Healthcare fits that description.

valjean

#8
Quote from: Just_the_facts_mamm on November 19, 2012, 07:57:18 PM
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The above passage should be a little familiar to some of you.
NOTE this part.
You see, that could be interpreted as giving the government the job to "promote the general Welfare"

Healthcare fits that description.



Ah, the general welfare clause, "promote the general welfare."  If a picture is worth a thousand words, the general welfare clause in the hands of the left is worth an infinite amount of words. According to you Healthcare fits that description, please expand on your thought process and tell us why? Better yet, perhaps you could provide for us something that does not conceivably apply to such a loose interpretation of the general welfare clause.

We are living in a digital age, the internet is needed for all sorts of necessary interaction both in social and economic spheres, with this in mind,  to promote the general welfare of the American people, the government should at tax payer expense provide high speed internet in every home in America.

In addition to providing free high speed internet, the government should also provide one car for every family so they can go to work, as well as a winter jacket to all citizens living in states with colder climates, after all it promotes the general welfare of the people does it not?

You think I am being outrageous? Then explain to my why the government is giving out cell phones at tax payer expense? You can be sure the general welfare clause was used as justification.


My post was aimed specifically at the contraceptive issue, if an employer due to his religious faith does not believe that using or providing abortifacient contraception to his employees is moral and against his religion he is within his rights under the 1st Amendment of the constitution to not do so. The 1st Amendment trumps the bastardization of the general welfare clause. The general welfare clause, a total of four ambiguous words cannot deprive you of rights specifically and explicitly protected in the bill of rights.


Just_the_facts_mamm

Quote from: Yawn on November 19, 2012, 05:56:05 PM
When government tramples on basic matters of conscience, they my find these businesses closing down rather than contributing to child murder.
Here you go again.
Equating contraception with child murder, is the whole attitude that lost you the election.
Time to join the 21st century.

The ISSUE is not birth control, it is "preventative medicine".
Birth control is used to control women's menstrual cycle among other health issues.

Preventative medicine, IS the best way to control health care cost.

Quote
These illegitimate judges have ZERO respect for the Constitution they swore to uphold.
Can't wait for Obama to appoint some more judges.
Get rid of some of these wakadoodles judges.

Yawn

Your PERSONAL opinion on any subject, or your lectures to us about what century it uis,, as if morality is dictated by the century is meaningless.

The Constitution is clear except to you Socialists.

Congress cannot compel a person, or an organization to violate their matters of conscience.

This "wackadoodle judge" needs to be removed.

And those who don't understand the Constitution need to have their voting rights revoked.  You people are just too stupid to be entrusted with the vote.

Just_the_facts_mamm

Quote from: Yawn on November 19, 2012, 09:28:41 PM
or your lectures to us about what century it uis,,as if morality is dictated by the century is meaningless.
Actually morality IS dictated by the century, YAWN.

A hundred years ago, men and women barely held hands on the first date.
Today,
where they have sex is the question and who has protection.

Different time different morals.

Like I have been telling you guys.
Reality Check Time

kramarat

Quote from: Just_the_facts_mamm on November 19, 2012, 07:44:59 PM
Oh KRAM, you have gone way out into space this time.

Are you insinuating that Obama care is somehow Sharia law or that birth control is somehow compatible with sharia Law?

Like I have said, you're in need of a reality check.
The US constitution is not based in Ancient Christian Principles, hate to break it to you.

http://concess.blogspot.com/2010/08/american-judge-applies-sharia-law.html

http://www.thomasmore.org/news/sharia-law-gains-foothold-us-federal-judge-upholds-government-funding-islam

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/inside-the-fl-appeals-ruling-upholding-islamic-law-in-mosque-case/

http://freethoughtnation.com/contributing-writers/63-acharya-s/655-pennsylvania-judge-imposes-islamic-law-on-assaulted-parade-goer.html

This isn't about abortion. It's about government appointed judges denying religious freedom.

Here you go again. I didn't say that the constitution was based on ancient Christian principles, dim bulb. I said that ancient Christian principles are no longer deemed acceptable. This judge just intentionally told a group of people that they are not free to adhere to the tenets of their religion. Instead they must follow the state mandate.

valjean

Quote from: Just_the_facts_mamm on November 19, 2012, 11:07:54 PM
Actually morality IS dictated by the century, YAWN.

A hundred years ago, men and women barely held hands on the first date.
Today,
where they have sex is the question and who has protection.

Different time different morals.

Like I have been telling you guys.
Reality Check Time

What you have essentially said here is that you believe in nothing except that which is prevalent in the time and society in which you live. How can you effectively argue for or against anything with this in mind?

The points you are making are largely incoherent or just poor argument. We go from talking about the first amendment and people being protected from the government forcing them to go against their morals, and now you are trying to sell this point that morality definitively amorphous without providing any reason for thinking this is the case.

Moreover it seems that the essential reason you brought this up is to suggest that the government should enforce these changing morals, become the morality police disallowing those who want to follow their conscience, and forcing them to align with the morals of the state.

Yawn

What he (or this judge) doesn't want to accept is that HIS personal feelings about another's beliefs is IRRELEVANT to the Constitution.  If that person's beliefs don't violate the rights of another, the Godvernment has NO RIGHT to compel a citizen to violate their conscience.  This is BASIC to our AMERICAN heritage and his responses reveal WHY we are in the mess we are today.