Citing the Supreme Court's recent decision in the Hobby Lobby case, the Satanic Temple is seeking exemption from state-mandated informed consent requirements on women seeking abortions.
Now this story could get interesting.. Not that i condone Satanism (or any other religion for that matter).. But if they let the Christians do it, wouldn't they have no real choice but to let the Satanist do it as well? I mean religion is religion, you can't pick and choose what religions get certain rights and which ones don't.. Could make for an interesting story if they deny the Satanists the same religious business freedoms they awarded the Christian run Hobby Lobby.
I get a strange feeling this is just the start.. Many businesses will probably start trying to exempt themselves from "whatever" due to religious beliefs.. And since a business has the same rights as an individual person, individual people will be able to do this as well right?
Then you can get really into it.. What about people who do not have any religion of any kind.. And i don't mean Atheists, as they are basically just a anti-religion, religion, lol.. Would someone with no religious beliefs at all not be able to do what hobby lobby did? If not, wouldn't that be discrimination?
This could get pretty crazy in time.
[This message has been edited by Jonesy (edited 07-28-2014).]
Then you can get really into it.. What about people who do not have any religion of any kind.. And i don't mean Atheists, as they are basically just a anti-religion, religion, lol.. Would someone with no religious beliefs at all not be able to do what hobby lobby did? If not, wouldn't that be discrimination?
"seeking exemption from state-mandated informed consent requirements "
-
Why would you seek exemption from that? So their stance is what, that they are offended that people be informed?
-
"According to the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, there are 35 states that require some kind of counseling before a woman can receive an abortion - 27 states detail specific information the woman must receive, and 26 states also have a waiting period (usually 24 hours) from the time the woman receives the information to the time she can abort. "Nearly all states that require counseling require information about the abortion procedure and fetal development."
But, according to the Satanists, this information violates their religious beliefs"
Pathetic.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 07-29-2014).]
Then you can get really into it.. What about people who do not have any religion of any kind.. And i don't mean Atheists, as they are basically just a anti-religion, religion, lol.. Would someone with no religious beliefs at all not be able to do what hobby lobby did? If not, wouldn't that be discrimination?
This could get pretty crazy in time.
No one should be forced to pay for any bit of someone elses abortion. Not crazy to me.
Heck, I see more corporations becoming Christan Scientists.... that way they can get out of paying for health care insurance. Just another loop-hole ...
I think the problem is what the SC allowed to be the rationalization. There isn't any. They accept goose-bumps as a reason to opt out of something. I don't have a problem with people or "corporations as people" not wanting to fund or promote something but it should have ended with "because we don't want to" rather than allowing people to add 'for religious reasons.'
That's the can of worms right there. Now the SC is the sole final word on whether you are religious enough to be able to opt-out or deny some benefit.
Heck, I see more corporations becoming Christan Scientists.... that way they can get out of paying for health care insurance. Just another loop-hole ...
Probably whatever gets us an a "single payer" (government) system, I think thats the overall plan anyway right? Sadly.
Heck, I see more corporations becoming Christan Scientists.... that way they can get out of paying for health care insurance. Just another loop-hole ...
And it is just the beginning. The flaws in the legislation are even more abundant than the lies they told the public about it. This is just another way to flush the turd.
If they claim religious "reasons " they have to provide proof that their religion actually has a stance on the matter. Then provide a compelling argument that the law is harmful.
Heck, I see more corporations becoming Christan Scientists.... that way they can get out of paying for health care insurance. Just another loop-hole ...
Not likely. Corporate lawyers would have read and understood the Hobby Lobby decision enough to know if it would or wouldn't apply.
If they claim religious "reasons " they have to provide proof that their religion actually has a stance on the matter. Then provide a compelling argument that the law is harmful.
Rick, how do you provide "proof"? One person's proof is another person's opinion. Much of biblical theology is opinion and interpretation with little if any literal words backing it up. I don't see how the courts can decide one over the other. It's just as easy for the courts to say someone is wrong in their interpretation. After that they decide if one set of text is more valid than another?
I think SC really screwed up big time here.
[This message has been edited by TK (edited 07-29-2014).]
Rick, how do you provide "proof"? One person's proof is another person's opinion. Much of biblical theology is opinion and interpretation with little if any literal words backing it up. I don't see how the courts can decide one over the other. It's just as easy for the courts to say someone is wrong in their interpretation. After that they decide if one set of text is more valid than another?
I think SC really screwed up big time here.
Yes the SC did a major screw up by ruling the obama care law constitutional. Now things will be more complicated. As far as interpretation of religious dogma goes, it was not difficult for HL to argue that abortion is wrong and some birth controls abort babies. So therefore it would be unconstitutional to force them to pay for killing babies. In this case, the satanic "church" will have to provide an equally compelling argument as HL did.
No one should be forced to pay for any bit of someone elses abortion. Not crazy to me.
I should have clarified i wasn't just talking about abortion.. I mean abortion could just be the start, i'm sure companies can find lots of other things they would like to get exempt from due to "religious beliefs", and find ways to make it work.. Lawyers are good at that.
Which is what i meant by it could get crazy in time.
[This message has been edited by Jonesy (edited 07-29-2014).]
Yes the SC did a major screw up by ruling the obama care law constitutional. Now things will be more complicated. As far as interpretation of religious dogma goes, it was not difficult for HL to argue that abortion is wrong and some birth controls abort babies. So therefore it would be unconstitutional to force them to pay for killing babies. In this case, the satanic "church" will have to provide an equally compelling argument as HL did.
And who do they provide proof to? Now the Supreme Court will decide what is compelling and what isn't at a theological level. Do we want them to have that power? I don't.
And who do they provide proof to? Now the Supreme Court will decide what is compelling and what isn't at a theological level. Do we want them to have that power? I don't.
OK, we agree on this but who is higher than the SC? I don't know of any other avenue to resolve this or other issues like this? I am open to idea's if you have any? They did listen to HL, and side in their favor. We dont have a perfect system, so we have to get by with what we have. And fight for what we believe.
From a legal standpoint, I would think the religion would first have to be recognized as a religion by the U.S. government, which would probably mean it needs to qualify for 501(c)(3) tax exempt status. If they don't have that, they court would likely rule they don't have legal standing to file the grievance.
OK, we agree on this but who is higher than the SC? I don't know of any other avenue to resolve this or other issues like this? I am open to idea's if you have any? They did listen to HL, and side in their favor. We dont have a perfect system, so we have to get by with what we have. And fight for what we believe.
They are pretty much it. So now when someone or some corporation attempts to opt out of something and it goes to court it can get to the SC and they will decide what are often theological questions. IMHO this is bad.
quote
Originally posted by Formula88: From a legal standpoint, I would think the religion would first have to be recognized as a religion by the U.S. government, which would probably mean it needs to qualify for 501(c)(3) tax exempt status. If they don't have that, they court would likely rule they don't have legal standing to file the grievance.
It's an option but it totally violates the open-ended 1st amendment. Tax exemption isn't theology. The whole point is that no one gets to tell you what your faith is or how to approach it. Now the SC can and will.
[This message has been edited by TK (edited 07-30-2014).]
It's an option but it totally violates the open-ended 1st amendment. Tax exemption isn't theology. The whole point is that no one gets to tell you what your faith is or how to approach it. Now the SC can and will.
From the complaint:
quote
The communication of Political Information to me imposes an unwanted and substantial burden on my religious beliefs.
They'll have to show how the mandated informational material is a burden on their religious beliefs.
It's an option but it totally violates the open-ended 1st amendment. Tax exemption isn't theology. The whole point is that no one gets to tell you what your faith is or how to approach it. Now the SC can and will.
We are doomed to be governed by lawyers. That does not soud like life will get any easier. As far as the Gov. dictating religion, I think the HL case is totally tax related and nothing to do with doctrine. The obama care law is interweaved in tax codes and imposes tax penalties on those that dont comply. IRS agents have been added to the payroll to investigate claims and insubordination. I guess you can say that HL fought for a tax exemption, and won.
From a legal standpoint, I would think the religion would first have to be recognized as a religion by the U.S. government, which would probably mean it needs to qualify for 501(c)(3) tax exempt status. If they don't have that, they court would likely rule they don't have legal standing to file the grievance.
Originally posted by Rickady88GT: it was not difficult for HL to argue that abortion is wrong and some birth controls abort babies. So therefore it would be unconstitutional to force them to pay for killing babies.
Which birth control causes abortions? It's my understanding even 'morning after' pills prevent pregnancy in the first place.
If your statement is medically valid, why reject all birth control if it's only "some"?
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 07-30-2014).]
Which birth control causes abortions? It's my understanding even 'morning after' pills prevent pregnancy in the first place.
If your statement is medically valid, why reject all birth control if it's only "some"?
What is your understanding of the HL case? The reason I ask is because HL did not object to "all" birth control. They still provide most forms of it. They objected the forms that abort babies. If you want to know what they are, I am sure you could do a little research to find out. The Catholic Church is the one known for protesting all forms of birth control, but for different reasons.
Which birth control causes abortions? It's my understanding even 'morning after' pills prevent pregnancy in the first place.
If your statement is medically valid, why reject all birth control if it's only "some"?
Birth control that acts on the embryo after fertilization by causing it to not implant in the uterus terminates the pregnancy after conception. They only objected to the forms that work after conception. They had no problem with ones that prevent conception from happening.
I will never get Satanists..... in order to believe in Satan, you have to believe in God, and all the rest. Satan is a part of the God of Abraham mythology.
so, yes, being Satanism is a subset of Christianity, I cannot see any reason why they would not be subject to the same benifits, subsidies, and handouts that the Christians get.
Originally posted by Pyrthian: I will never get Satanists..... in order to believe in Satan, you have to believe in God, and all the rest. Satan is a part of the God of Abraham mythology.
so, yes, being Satanism is a subset of Christianity, I cannot see any reason why they would not be subject to the same benifits, subsidies, and handouts that the Christians get.
Hypothesis : The Satanic Temple is comprised mostly of atheists with a secular agenda who want to band together for group activities and communications and bond together, instead of just hanging out as atheistic and agnostic individuals. They are basically an organized group of secular humanists. The "Satanic" aspect is more tongue-in-cheek than real. For most of them, just a humorous affectation that boosts their mainstream and local media profile.
I don't want to try to support my hypothesis with Google searches right now. Not sure if or when I could get around to that.
Heck, I see more corporations becoming Christan Scientists.... that way they can get out of paying for health care insurance. Just another loop-hole ...
For clarification, Hobby Lobby never attempted to get out of paying for health care insurance. They were willingly complying with that part of the abomination of a law that is the Affordable Care Act.
They had a specific objection to being forced to provide payment for 2 specific items.
It wasn't enough for the socialist president and democrat party that voted this abomination onto the country, that Hobby Lobby was willing to go along with almost every single part of it except for what their conscience just could not tolerate. It had to be ALL. Which is a hilariously hypocritical standard, considering the president himself doesn't even want to comply with major or entire portions of currently existing laws, but many seem to be ok with that somehow.
Hypothesis : The Satanic Temple is comprised mostly of atheists with a secular agenda who want to band together for group activities and communications and bond together, instead of just hanging out as atheistic and agnostic individuals. They are basically an organized group of secular humanists. The "Satanic" aspect is more tongue-in-cheek than real. For most of them, just a humorous affectation that boosts their mainstream and local media profile.
I don't want to try to support my hypothesis with Google searches right now. Not sure if or when I could get around to that.
..and poke fun at and redicule what they dont believe.
Originally posted by Rickady88GT: What is your understanding of the HL case?
Close to zero. Trying to gain an understanding though.
quote
Originally posted by Rickady88GT: The reason I ask is because HL did not object to "all" birth control. They still provide most forms of it.
Ah gotcha.
quote
Originally posted by Formula88: Birth control that acts on the embryo after fertilization
Did a bit of research. I think this is a bit misleading. It's like two factor. First, birth control must fail and fertilization occur. Supposedly there's a 99.9% chance that wont happen. If it does happen, then there's further interference to prevent implantation of the fertilized egg. So are they just opposed to the chance it happens? It doesn't appear to me it's designed to allow fertilization then abort the embryo, which seems to be common conception. Thoughts?
Did a bit of research. I think this is a bit misleading. It's like two factor. First, birth control must fail and fertilization occur. Supposedly there's a 99.9% chance that wont happen. If it does happen, then there's further interference to prevent implantation of the fertilized egg. So are they just opposed to the chance it happens? It doesn't appear to me it's designed to allow fertilization then abort the embryo, which seems to be common conception. Thoughts?
"that" "it" are a bit vague. What are you referring to?
These methods act on a fertilized egg after the point of conception. It's pretty clear cut based on the SCOTUS decision and how the affected birth controls work. Anything that prevents a sperm from fertilizing an egg was never in question.
Did a bit of research. I think this is a bit misleading. It's like two factor. First, birth control must fail and fertilization occur. Supposedly there's a 99.9% chance that wont happen. If it does happen, then there's further interference to prevent implantation of the fertilized egg. So are they just opposed to the chance it happens? It doesn't appear to me it's designed to allow fertilization then abort the embryo, which seems to be common conception. Thoughts?
To be honest with you, neither yours or my opinions or definitions on this topic matter at this point. The SC has made an irreversible decision in favor of HL's arguments. In effect they have decided that some birth control acts as an abortion. And that the Gov can not force them to pay for abortions.
Originally posted by Formula88: "that" "it" are a bit vague. What are you referring to?
Sorry, fertilization.
quote
Originally posted by Rickady88GT: To be honest with you, neither yours or my opinions or definitions on this topic matter at this point. The SC has made an irreversible decision in favor of HL's arguments.
I realize I’m late to this game but I still think my opinion matters.
Is Obamacare irreversible?
quote
Originally posted by Rickady88GT: BTW your avatar is cool
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: I realize I’m late to this game but I still think my opinion matters.
Is Obamacare irreversible?
Yes, everyone's opinion on this will matter, that is what will give our self serving politicians the intestinal fortitude to reverse this Obama'nation.
Despite what the left would like you to believe, yes it is totally reversible. Obama mama care can and will be flushed for the excrement that it is.
