Tenth Circuit Allows For Companies To...

Tenth Circuit Allows For Companies To Cite Religious Exemption To Laws

There are 37 comments on the lezgetreal.com story from Jun 28, 2013, titled Tenth Circuit Allows For Companies To Cite Religious Exemption To Laws. In it, lezgetreal.com reports that:

The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that companies can cite religious belief to deny birth control to employees, and possible to allowing discrimination

Join the discussion below, or Read more at lezgetreal.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#1 Jun 28, 2013
I support this court ruling.
Sparkle

Seattle, WA

#2 Jun 28, 2013
Me too cause christians violate my religous beliefs
Sparkle

Seattle, WA

#3 Jun 28, 2013
I should never have to provide any services to those disgusting cretons

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#5 Jun 28, 2013
The right to one's religious belief is not absolute and not all burdens on it are unconstitutional. They are subject to strict scrutiny, but there are governmental interests which override the right to believe. Religious exemptions to civil laws are the perfect example of a "special right" that is antithetical to our system and should be limited to individual acts of conscience, not a business decision. What Hobby Lobby is asking for is no more right than these small business owners wanting to discriminate against the gay folk because God says so. Unless Hobby Lobby wants to become a Church, they are going to have to offer their employees the same insurance features that everyone else is required to get, whether they say God approves or not.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#6 Jun 28, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
The right to one's religious belief is not absolute and not all burdens on it are unconstitutional. They are subject to strict scrutiny, but there are governmental interests which override the right to believe. Religious exemptions to civil laws are the perfect example of a "special right" that is antithetical to our system and should be limited to individual acts of conscience, not a business decision. What Hobby Lobby is asking for is no more right than these small business owners wanting to discriminate against the gay folk because God says so. Unless Hobby Lobby wants to become a Church, they are going to have to offer their employees the same insurance features that everyone else is required to get, whether they say God approves or not.
You know, in New York City, where I was born, Mayor Bloomberg has run amok forcing people to "eat healthier" by placing all sorts of legal restrictions on what people can eat and drink, and cannot eat and drink. Remember he is doing this, HE CLAIMS, for the people's HEALTH.

Now suppose Bloomberg passed a law saying that everyone had to eat one ounce of ham a week "for your health".(The example is ridiculous, but bear with me here). No certain people, such as Jews, Muslims, and vegetarians such as myself, would object to that on religious grounds. Does the government therefore have a right to disregard our religious beliefs to promote a healthier diet ? I'm CERTAIN that the Founding Fathers, who wrote the U.S. Constitution would answer that question with a resounding "NO !"

So what's the difference between that example, of the government enforcing a law which violates one's religious beliefs, to promote better health, and OBAMACARE (also known as "Stalin's Last Laugh")?

“RAINBOW POWER!”

Since: Oct 08

I Am What I Am.

#9 Jun 28, 2013
Hobby Lobby has just been added to my boycott list.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#10 Jun 28, 2013
OBAMACARE is just "Stalinism-lite".

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#11 Jun 28, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
You know, in New York City, where I was born, Mayor Bloomberg has run amok forcing people to "eat healthier" by placing all sorts of legal restrictions on what people can eat and drink, and cannot eat and drink. Remember he is doing this, HE CLAIMS, for the people's HEALTH.
Now suppose Bloomberg passed a law saying that everyone had to eat one ounce of ham a week "for your health".(The example is ridiculous, but bear with me here). No certain people, such as Jews, Muslims, and vegetarians such as myself, would object to that on religious grounds. Does the government therefore have a right to disregard our religious beliefs to promote a healthier diet ? I'm CERTAIN that the Founding Fathers, who wrote the U.S. Constitution would answer that question with a resounding "NO !"
So what's the difference between that example, of the government enforcing a law which violates one's religious beliefs, to promote better health, and OBAMACARE (also known as "Stalin's Last Laugh")?
I left early Giuliani, was there for the end of Koch and all of the Dinkins. While for all intent and purpose NYC is a single party state which vests a great deal of power in a mayor that they hope like hell is going to be of their party, it doesn't operate as a dictatorship. It's a seriously bloated republic filled with the kind of quality you can expect in a single party state. I've gotten back from time to time since Bloomie took over, he's hard not to like, even though he just declared Swedish to be the official language. La Guardia smashed pinball machines and kegs of liquor. New York is the kind of place where these things eventually tend to work themselves out. I'm sure he's finally term limited out, the next one will let go of the silliest and keep the rest. The Big Gulp will be back, but if I'm going to visit, I'll still have to bring my cigarettes with me. That tax ain't going nowhere.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#12 Jun 28, 2013
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>I left early Giuliani, was there for the end of Koch and all of the Dinkins. While for all intent and purpose NYC is a single party state which vests a great deal of power in a mayor that they hope like hell is going to be of their party, it doesn't operate as a dictatorship. It's a seriously bloated republic filled with the kind of quality you can expect in a single party state. I've gotten back from time to time since Bloomie took over, he's hard not to like, even though he just declared Swedish to be the official language. La Guardia smashed pinball machines and kegs of liquor. New York is the kind of place where these things eventually tend to work themselves out. I'm sure he's finally term limited out, the next one will let go of the silliest and keep the rest. The Big Gulp will be back, but if I'm going to visit, I'll still have to bring my cigarettes with me. That tax ain't going nowhere.
You didn't answer my question. Care to do so ?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#13 Jun 28, 2013
The right to free exercise of our "religious beliefs" exists individually and should only extend collectively to the people within the hierarchy of the faith itself. It shouldn't be extended collectively to corporations. We are talking a conscientious objection here. There has to be a higher standard than the will of your shareholders and management.

“Together for 24, legal for 5”

Since: Sep 07

Littleton, NH

#14 Jun 29, 2013
In other words, Rick, corporations are NOT people. They have no religion (nor morality). Ascribing religious fredom to a corporation is an exercise in absurdity..

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#15 Jun 29, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
OBAMACARE is just "Stalinism-lite".
Because Stalin didn't want any Russian Citizen to die from lack of affordable healthcare?

And like Social Security and Medicare?

If you feel that way, are you going to accept any of them? Or just the ones that most benefit YOU?
Truth

Minneapolis, MN

#16 Jun 29, 2013
Stop special rights for religious organizations!

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#17 Jun 29, 2013
The right to relgious freedom is an individual, not an institutional right. This ruling is wrong headed. The actions of the employer, in this case, negate the free exercise of the employee.
keith60610

Medford, MA

#18 Jun 29, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
You know, in New York City, where I was born, Mayor Bloomberg has run amok forcing people to "eat healthier" by placing all sorts of legal restrictions on what people can eat and drink, and cannot eat and drink. Remember he is doing this, HE CLAIMS, for the people's HEALTH.
Now suppose Bloomberg passed a law saying that everyone had to eat one ounce of ham a week "for your health".(The example is ridiculous, but bear with me here). No certain people, such as Jews, Muslims, and vegetarians such as myself, would object to that on religious grounds. Does the government therefore have a right to disregard our religious beliefs to promote a healthier diet ? I'm CERTAIN that the Founding Fathers, who wrote the U.S. Constitution would answer that question with a resounding "NO !"
So what's the difference between that example, of the government enforcing a law which violates one's religious beliefs, to promote better health, and OBAMACARE (also known as "Stalin's Last Laugh")?
Why!!!! Because the government makes the laws in this country not religious institutions. If you want to live in a Theocracy then, move some place else. This is not only a way for religion to try and dictate laws but, a way for corporations to try and control our government..
And what about the people that work for companies like Hobby Lobby that, don't believe in God or practice any type of religion. Religious view are a personal choice so, for Hobby Lobby or other "supposed Christian" companies to dictate what type of insurance benefits their employees should have access is a violation of their religious freedoms. Did you ever think of that..

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#19 Jun 29, 2013
Quest wrote:
<quoted text>
Because Stalin didn't want any Russian Citizen to die from lack of affordable healthcare?
And like Social Security and Medicare?
If you feel that way, are you going to accept any of them? Or just the ones that most benefit YOU?
Don't expect an answer. I asked him the same question over a year ago about accepting Soc. Sec. and Medicare, when he was still FaFoxy (After Daniel), and all I was able to hear was crickets chirping. He's all mouth, and no convictions.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#20 Jun 29, 2013
nhjeff wrote:
In other words, Rick, corporations are NOT people. They have no religion (nor morality). Ascribing religious fredom to a corporation is an exercise in absurdity..
UNTRUE.

Any religious organization, or religious individual, can incorporate under the laws of their state. Therefore any corporation can be, and some are a "religious organization", be it a single person or more.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#21 Jun 29, 2013
Truth wrote:
Stop special rights for religious organizations!
"Special rights for religious organizations" is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Don't like that ? Then repeal the First Amendment.

“Building Better Worlds”

Since: May 13

Europa

#22 Jun 29, 2013
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't expect an answer. I asked him the same question over a year ago about accepting Soc. Sec. and Medicare, when he was still FaFoxy (After Daniel), and all I was able to hear was crickets chirping. He's all mouth, and no convictions.
That's right ! 27 arrests !(or 30, I forget). NO convictions !

:)

lides

“No Headline available”

Since: Jan 08

Defiance, Ohio

#23 Jun 29, 2013
Europa Report wrote:
<quoted text>
UNTRUE.
Any religious organization, or religious individual, can incorporate under the laws of their state. Therefore any corporation can be, and some are a "religious organization", be it a single person or more.
Of course, at question is whether the owner of said corporation may project their religious beliefs onto their employees. I think that is a violation of the employees individual right to free exercise, as well as a violation of their free speech. Arguably it is also creating a situation where the employee gives up their free will and is basically nothing more than a slave to the employer.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Trump bans transgender people from military 21 min unicornlover 375
News Catholic Church threatens to fire gay teachers ... 42 min Wondering 29
News Dear Abby: Teen weighs impact of joining school... 44 min Wondering 8
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 1 hr Frindly 8,570
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 1 hr Respect71 53,869
News Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... 5 hr Frindly 1,176
News 2 Texas men plead guilty to hate-crime assaults... 5 hr NOM s Waffle House 3
News Alleged Discrimination Against Gay Couple by D.... 7 hr NOM s Waffle House 17
News 12-year-old girl comes out to her Mormon congre... 14 hr Tre H 588
More from around the web