Obama administration: secular employers 'generally' lack constitutionally-protected religious freedom [CWN]
- Status
J
JimG
Guest
The administratio wishes to severely restrict the meaning of the First Amendment, such as it has not been restricted in the past. You’re only allowed to exercise your religious liberty inside the walls of a church building, apparently.
S
St_Francis
Guest
They argue that the changes to the endometrium resulting in the loss of the unborn child are not an abortifacient effect, according to the FDA who has redefined pregnancy to not occur until after implantation… eeerrrrgggghhhh.
I wonder if paying for NFP classes would cover the requirement?
I wonder if paying for NFP classes would cover the requirement?
B
Bill_Martin
Guest
The implications of this assertion go far beyond religion.
Give up your religion or your business, comrade: cnsnews.com/news/article/doj-colorado-family-give-your-religion-or-your-business
In this article, they quote the DOJ as saying in their filing “Hercules Industries has ‘made no showing of a religious belief which requires that [it] engage in the [HVAC] business…”
Essentially, they are saying that you don’t “need” freedom of religion in order to operate the business. Well, what if they decide you don’t “need” to endorse a political party as a company, or don’t “need” to have any other right they decide they don’t like?
Everyone, religious or not, should be outraged at this administration’s war on liberty of all kinds. The DOJ is wildly out of control.
Give up your religion or your business, comrade: cnsnews.com/news/article/doj-colorado-family-give-your-religion-or-your-business
In this article, they quote the DOJ as saying in their filing “Hercules Industries has ‘made no showing of a religious belief which requires that [it] engage in the [HVAC] business…”
Essentially, they are saying that you don’t “need” freedom of religion in order to operate the business. Well, what if they decide you don’t “need” to endorse a political party as a company, or don’t “need” to have any other right they decide they don’t like?
Everyone, religious or not, should be outraged at this administration’s war on liberty of all kinds. The DOJ is wildly out of control.
J
JimG
Guest
Yes. It’s absolutely amazing. They’re telling the company, “You don’t need freedom of religion, so the first amendment doesn’t apply to you!”
It’s just outrageous.
Q
qui_est_ce
Guest
Good one!
S
sedonaman
Guest
But it is people who run organizations; they do not run themselves.
D
Dawnia
Guest
The judge’s opinion was kind of fun to read. 
In the usual long winded way, he called the DOJ idiots.
In the usual long winded way, he called the DOJ idiots.
B
Bill_Martin
Guest
Exactly and if they can get away with this, the precedent is one of the most dangerous in this country’s history.
“You don’t need to speak against the Party in order to renovate homes.”
“You don’t need to endorse that candidate in order to do landscaping.”
“You don’t need to speak your opinion on gay marriage in order to sell chicken.”
C
Crescentinus
Guest
It reminds me of “You didn’t build that!”
S
St_Francis
Guest
It does seem that the SC ruling on its being ok for corporations to give money to political candidates would also allow corporations to make other types of decisions…
S
sedonaman
Guest
“You won’t need the sign of the Beast in order to buy or sell.”
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Court win for the secular company proved the weakness of the admin’s arguments . Obama admin has no respect for religious liberty
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Court win for the company proved the weakness of the admin’s arguments. Obama admin has no respect for religious liberty
S
scipio337
Guest
The ACLU disagrees:
aclu.org/blog/reproductive-freedom-religion-belief/courts-ruling-allow-employer-discriminate-out-step
These guys just don’t get it…
J
JimG
Guest
The ACLU seems to have a blind spot when it comes to freedom of religion.
D
Dawnia
Guest
If the Feds were so worried about women’s health, then maybe they shouldn’t have given all those waivers to their buddies. Because that is what bit them in the behind the most on this decision.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
The Obama argument: only churches—not individuals—can claim religious freedom
Our view is that church-affiliated charitable and educational institutions should offer such coverage, even if they are self-insured…That said, religious colleges and hospitals are at least part of a church’s religious mission, so the discussion makes sense. The same cannot be said for a company that sells heating, ventilation and air conditioning services.
By what logic is Hercules Industries excluded from the religious mission of the Church? Certainly not by the logic of Vatican II, which emphatically taught that lay people, even when engaged in secular activities, are full partners in the work of the Catholic Church. Our formal worship does not exhaust our commitment to Catholicism; we are also enjoined to transform the secular order through the power of Christian witness. That’s an essential part of the mission entrusted to the Catholic laity. It is the “exercise of religion” that is expected of us. So if that is not protected by the First Amendment, we as citizens are not protected.
The Obama administration seems to be arguing that freedom of religion is a corporate right, which applies only to institutional churches. That argument is incompatible with the original intent of the Bill of Rights, which was clearly designed to secure the freedoms of individual citizens. It is equally incompatible with the teachings of Catholicism, which require all of the faithful—lay, clerical, or religious; in church or on the job—to share responsibility for the Church’s mission.
catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=930
, defending the administration’s position, argued thus:
Our view is that church-affiliated charitable and educational institutions should offer such coverage, even if they are self-insured…That said, religious colleges and hospitals are at least part of a church’s religious mission, so the discussion makes sense. The same cannot be said for a company that sells heating, ventilation and air conditioning services.
By what logic is Hercules Industries excluded from the religious mission of the Church? Certainly not by the logic of Vatican II, which emphatically taught that lay people, even when engaged in secular activities, are full partners in the work of the Catholic Church. Our formal worship does not exhaust our commitment to Catholicism; we are also enjoined to transform the secular order through the power of Christian witness. That’s an essential part of the mission entrusted to the Catholic laity. It is the “exercise of religion” that is expected of us. So if that is not protected by the First Amendment, we as citizens are not protected.
The Obama administration seems to be arguing that freedom of religion is a corporate right, which applies only to institutional churches. That argument is incompatible with the original intent of the Bill of Rights, which was clearly designed to secure the freedoms of individual citizens. It is equally incompatible with the teachings of Catholicism, which require all of the faithful—lay, clerical, or religious; in church or on the job—to share responsibility for the Church’s mission.
catholicculture.org/commentary/otn.cfm?id=930
B
Bill_Martin
Guest
That article nailed it out of the park. Thanks for posting it.
How long before only newspapers, filmmakers and authors–not individuals-- have freedom of speech? Or only police and military have the right to keep and bear arms? Or only hotels are protected from the quartering of troops against their will? The possibilities are endless if the administration thinks that the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply to people they don’t think have a “need” for those rights.
- Status