I don't fault Hobby Lobby for what it did. However ...

Whenever a high court rules that entity X's religious beliefs take precedence over law Z, then a group that "worships" 180 degrees different from entity X also by law is entitled to similar relief. Correct? So what's good for the children of God also applies ... legally speaking ... to the followers of Elvira Queen of Darkness.

 

Which is why separation of church and state is important.

 

So you have no problem with the government mandating people go against their religious beliefs. I will say some of the anti religious crowd in this thread don't seem to understand the constitution. Sure religion is separate from government but at the same time government isn't suppose to get between a man and his God .Freedom of religion means I have a right to practice my religion as long as it doesn't intrude on others rights . Not forcing someone to pay for a product for someone else based on a relgious belief falls in the category of freedom of religion.

Because contraception, abortion are legal.

 

But why should I or anyone else be forced to pay for either. Hobby Lobby case didn't make them illegal, as you said they are legal. All the ruling said was you can't force someone to buy a product for someone else if against religious beliefs. The lawsuit by satinst is arguing something completely different. Anti religious crowd is grasping at straws.

I believe that forcing people (and corporations, especially individual or family owned are truly part of them) to directly fund something they do not believe in under threat of law or additonal 'taxation' is very wrong - regardless of the source of that 'belief'. The 'establishment' clause was to ensure the government did not impose beliefs on people by ensuring there would not be the equivalent of the 'Church of England' where the government (King) created and forced people to join and 'believe' as it does.

 

Yet, the argument that 'if its legal' you must fund it as ACA forces is just that - a government forced belief system. If a government forces personal and direct funding of actions the are counter to your beliefs then it has has done EXACTLY what the establishment was meant to prevent. Legality and ones personal beliefs often differ. It used to be 'legal' to own slaves. It used to be 'legal' to kill slaves at whim. It was because of individuals and peoples beliefs that this was changed. 'Legal' does not equivilate into just.

 

If we are coerced or forced into personal and direct actions that go against our own personal belief system - regardless of the source or reason for that belief system - then we have become slaves to a government power.

 

Drop the mic

Specifically, the Satanic Temple wants women to be exempt from having to view legally mandated "informational" materials — which it calls "biased" and "medically invalid" — prior to having an abortion. Dozens of states require women to attend counseling before receiving an abortion, while 10 mandate that they receive written materials before undergoing the procedure, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

 

 

What are the materials that are mandated to be viewed by the women who choose legal abortion in those states?

 

If it is moral, Christian-based information, then I don't think by law they should be subject to it. (even though I am personally against abortion)

 

If it is educational, i.e. medical knowledge information about the fetus/procedure, then I may feel differently.

 

 

The Abortion Ministry of Dr. Willie Parker - Esquire

 

Above article will explain a lot.

But why should I or anyone else be forced to pay for either. Hobby Lobby case didn't make them illegal, as you said they are legal. All the ruling said was you can't force someone to buy a product for someone else if against religious beliefs. The lawsuit by satinst is arguing something completely different. Anti religious crowd is grasping at straws.

 

Let me be clear on what you are saying. I hope you don't mean that everyone who opposes or has concern about the HL decision is anti-religious. There are plenty who are concerned with the ruling whom are religious. The point G is making, I believe, is we need to separate religion from law in these decisions. And there many religious people, me included, that believe rightly or wrongly that religion was an impetus for this decision. Decisions like these is going to open a can of worms for future generations that will eventually back fire on the religious right.

[/b]

 

Let me be clear on what you are saying. I hope you don't mean that everyone who opposes or has concern about the HL decision is anti-religious. There are plenty who are concerned with the ruling whom are religious. The point G is making, I believe, is we need to separate religion from law in these decisions. And there many religious people, me included, that believe rightly or wrongly that religion was an impetus for this decision. Decisions like these is going to open a can of worms for future generations that will eventually back fire on the religious right.

 

My point is those acting like chicken little and the sky is falling either don't understand the Hobby Lobby decision or are willfully ignoring the actual ruling to fit a narrative. The lawsuit proposed by the satanic group in no way aligns with what the Hobby Lobby ruling stated. HL dealt with forcing someone to purchase a product for another person that is against the first persons religious belief . When we talk about rights you can't call birth control a right if by its very purchase you are violating another persons right to accomplish it . Freedom of Religion is written in our constitution the right to have someone purchase a product for you is not.

 

So now that we have established that the Hobby Lobby ruling dealt with forcing a small business to give up religious freedom by purchasing a product for another party , we now look at the satanic lawsuit. Where in their lawsuit are they claiming they are being forced to buy a product that goes against their belief ? What right is being violated ? The answer is none . They fall in the pro-abortion crowd who want little to no restriction or laws surrounding abortion. Even if what they say is violating there right is standard operating procedure for similar procedures.

 

Not only is comparing the two grasping at straws , when you actually break it down it is down right laughable and doesn't pass any test of an intellectual comparison.

[/b]

 

Let me be clear on what you are saying. I hope you don't mean that everyone who opposes or has concern about the HL decision is anti-religious. There are plenty who are concerned with the ruling whom are religious. The point G is making, I believe, is we need to separate religion from law in these decisions. And there many religious people, me included, that believe rightly or wrongly that religion was an impetus for this decision. Decisions like these is going to open a can of worms for future generations that will eventually back fire on the religious right.

 

Also to add the point you and Guru are trying to make, yes religion should be separate from law. But law should also not restrict religious freedom. That is the key point Guru does not discuss. Separation of church and state is a two way street. Government can not be allowed to pass any law they want without regard to religious freedom . The Hobby Lobby ruling kept the government in check on a long standing principle this country was founded on.

Ultimately, the literature doesn't do anything to restrict the abortion decision if a patient is so inclined.

Also to add the point you and Guru are trying to make, yes religion should be separate from law. But law should also not restrict religious freedom. That is the key point Guru does not discuss. Separation of church and state is a two way street. Government can not be allowed to pass any law they want without regard to religious freedom . The Hobby Lobby ruling kept the government in check on a long standing principle this country was founded on.

 

And if you really believe it wasn't religiously motivated by HL then I understand your thinking. However, I don't buy it.

I'm not understanding the question about if HL was religiously motivated. Of course they were, that's the basis of the lawsuit, that their religious rights were being violated.

And if you really believe it wasn't religiously motivated by HL then I understand your thinking. However, I don't buy it.

 

Of course it was relgiously motivated by Hobby Lobby . Motivated to protect their religious freedom. I don't believe the government has any right tell a person what product to buy. But for some reason democrats love this idea. But I surely don't believe the government has a right to tell an individual to buy a product that will violate their religious beliefs and violate their right under the constitution to freedom of religion.

 

Like I said seperation of church and state is a two way street. You can't say church should be out of the government and then ignore the fact government is making laws on violating religious beliefs.

I think he's trying to say it was more motivated by financial concerns than religious freedoms and the religious freedoms was a convenient argument to make if you wanted to save a few bucks.

I think he's trying to say it was more motivated by financial concerns than religious freedoms and the religious freedoms was a convenient argument to make if you wanted to save a few bucks.

 

How so? Hobby Lobby has agreed (and did so prior to their law suit) to fully fund 16 oral contraceptives, this ruling just applies to 4 specific medications.

 

The more I think about it the only possible parallel I could see was if a Satanist business owner wanted to pay for abortions for hes/her employees and the government tried to stop them. Bottom line is no one is stopping any Satanists from doing anything.

How so? Hobby Lobby has agreed (and did so prior to their law suit) to fully fund 16 oral contraceptives, this ruling just applies to 4 specific medications.

 

The more I think about it the only possible parallel I could see was if a Satanist business owner wanted to pay for abortions for hes/her employees and the government tried to stop them. Bottom line is no one is stopping any Satanists from doing anything.

 

And if it were a decision where the shoe was on the other foot and they had to pay more to protect their religious belief, they might not be doing so. Bengal Maniac isn't the first to question whether the belief is sincere or it's just a bit of a money grab.

I think he's trying to say it was more motivated by financial concerns than religious freedoms and the religious freedoms was a convenient argument to make if you wanted to save a few bucks.

 

Based on everything we know about HL he would be wrong.