Jump to content

Mandate Update


Calm

Recommended Posts

Please be civil, if not nice and keep personalities out of it:

http://www.christian...ve-mandate.html

Hobby Lobby has solidified its victory against the HHS contraceptive mandate, as a lower court agreed with the Tenth Circuit today and temporarily banned the enforcement of the mandate on the evangelical-owned craft chain.

"There is a substantial public interest in ensuring that no individual or corporation has their legs cut out from under them while these difficult issues are resolved," ruled the court (albeit somewhat reluctantly), according to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents Hobby Lobby as well as Wheaton College and other high-profile challengers.

There are currently 63 cases and 200 plaintiffs challenging the mandate. Courts have largely split on granting requests for injunctions, with the scorecard for for-profit challengers standing at 23-7 (when rulings have examined merits vs. technicalities), according to Becket's ongoing tally. Most of the 30 nonprofit cases have been dismissed on technicalities, though Geneva College recently became the first to receive a judgement on the merits and win (see below).

The court costs of all of this could probably provide a significant amount of government supplied birth control.....or lower adoption costs dramatically and raise foster care payments so more good families were able to participate.

Link to comment

This ill considered decision makes hash of civil rights. The Southern Baptist business owners contended that it was a deeply held religious belief that blacks were of such inferior intelligence and lacking in morality that their business could rightly discriminate against the blacks in public accommodations.

You are removed for race baiting.

Link to comment

Please be civil, if not nice and keep personalities out of it:

http://www.christian...ve-mandate.html

The court costs of all of this could probably provide a significant amount of government supplied birth control.....or lower adoption costs dramatically and raise foster care payments so more good families were able to participate.

It will take some time before it is clear what may or may not be mandated, and the courts will likely hew a middle path so as not to offend religious sensibilities on the one hand, and to maintain broad-based choices for others.

We are a very litigious society, often to no good purpose -- unless you are a lawyer collecting his fees.

Link to comment

My question is, for those who claim the "religious freedom exemption from laws" where does the personal exemption end?

I do not support "for profit entities" being given preferential treatment based on the alleged "religious views" of the for profit entity.

Link to comment

I read the article and I'm still none the wiser.

Is this to do with the american law where the employer has to provide insurance to cover contraception?

Pretty much.

Though in Hobby Lobby's case I think the issue is that they don't want to have to pay for insurance that covers the morning after pill (A pill which can stop pregnancy, but not end it, if taken soon enough after sex).

Link to comment

My question is, for those who claim the "religious freedom exemption from laws" where does the personal exemption end?

I do not support "for profit entities" being given preferential treatment based on the alleged "religious views" of the for profit entity.

Religious views is a protected right under the Constitution. In some cases the courts have ruled for the religious exemptions, and in other cases (polygamy) have ruled against it. The burden of proof lies on the government to prove that such views contradict the best interest of good order in society and law.

In this case, the company is privately owned and the government agrees that their views are a valid expression of their religious views. Remember that the mandate is not part of the law itself, but a result of a rule created by a political hack.

Must my religious views be restricted in how I operate my own personal business enterprise?

Where exactly do you draw the line. If I refuse to have pork on the menu in my own restaurant (based on my religious views), can some the government official mandate otherwise?

Before you answer, discriminating against customers that I serve is illegal by long precedence. Thus, refusing to make a cake for a gay couple is not protected.

Link to comment
You are removed for race baiting.

As much as I totally disagree with just about everything tss posts, I think most people would agree that what he posted here was not race baiting.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/race_baiting

race baiting (uncountable)

  1. The act of using racially derisive language, actions, or other forms of communication in order to anger or intimidate or coerce a person or group of people.

Link to comment
The court costs of all of this could probably provide a significant amount of government supplied birth control.....or lower adoption costs dramatically and raise foster care payments so more good families were able to participate.

Perhaps. But the real question is should the government provide those things? A perusal of LDS doctrine shows that it not only rejects the reliance on government for welfare, but it also rejects forcing people to be charitable.

Now on adoption, I would agree that it is way too expensive. But if I knew that most of the money charged by the government (if such is the case) went to taking care of orphans, I might be okay. But under LDS principles, the government shouldn't be taking care of orphans. Churches and similar organizations as well as individuals should be. So if we stepped up to the plate, those who would force the cost on the rest of us would have little cause to work their unrighteousness. Obviously that shouldn't be the motive....

;)

Link to comment
Where exactly do you draw the line. If I refuse to have pork on the menu in my own restaurant (based on my religious views), can some the government official mandate otherwise?

Before you answer, discriminating against customers that I serve is illegal by long precedence. Thus, refusing to make a cake for a gay couple is not protected.

Unless, as per the example, they are demanding pork on that cake.

:pirate:

Link to comment

Now on adoption, I would agree that it is way too expensive. But if I knew that most of the money charged by the government (if such is the case) went to taking care of orphans, I might be okay. But under LDS principles, the government shouldn't be taking care of orphans. Churches and similar organizations as well as individuals should be. So if we stepped up to the plate, those who would force the cost on the rest of us would have little cause to work their unrighteousness. Obviously that shouldn't be the motive....

Well, on the bright side Haiti will be barely ahead of us in standard of living for orphans. They need the help.

Link to comment

I've always thought about adoption as I still have kids at home. But we're not 100% sure want to even if we could afford it. But we have taken in multiple foreign exchange students and exposed them to a (ostensibly) good LDS family life.

Of course there are things that people can do indirectly to reduce the numbers of orphans. Serving in the Church is one of them.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...