Secular Businesses Claiming Religious Rights

A new federal court ruling represents an ominous legal trend: Religious freedom is morphing into religious power.

"Can a corporation exercise religion?" federal district court judge John L. Kane recently asked. He answered his own question with a provisional yes. In Newland v Sebelius, the court granted a commercial enterprise a temporary injunction exempting it, for now, from providing female employees with coverage for contraception and sterilization required by the Affordable Care Act.

Hercules Industries, a private corporation, manufactures and distributes ventilation systems, but this secular business is owned and operated by a Catholic family, which "seek(s) to run Hercules in a manner that reflects their sincerely held religious beliefs." Its recently amended rules of incorporation state that the company is to be guided by appropriate religious, ethical, or moral standards and that the board of directors may "prioritize" those standards over profitability. Following the teachings of the Catholic Church, Hercules does not offer the ACA's required coverage for reproductive health care.

https://www.theatlantic.com/nationa...-businesses-claiming-religious-rights/260463/


I cant wait to see the fallout from this!

Its not ominous however since every person with mental faculty has a religion which is outwardly expressed (in their actions) based on their personal set of sincerely held beliefs consisting of some flavor of moral basis.

Discuss!

 

Nope

 

Every business owner has the right to operate their business in a manner consistent with their religion. Anything other than that is a violation of their right to practice their religion.
YES for religious people how they run their business is part of their religious practice as is everything else they do in life, religion cannot be compartmentalized to only parts of your life.

 

Boycott them.

 

How is that fair?
Secular atheists get to impose their religion!
Whats wrong with a little competition?

 

This could get ugly, what about using the bible to keep men in power while claiming a religious exception to keep women from having positions of power?

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence." Timothy 2:11-15

 

so doctors can refuse inter-racial couples, other businesses can as well, is there limits to this religious exception?

 

Unfortunately the US gov thinks their religion that worships the god Hermes (holder of the purse...money) should trump and over rule the religion of the individual person.

Upon introductions, Aaron Klein asked for the names of the "bride and groom," at which point the customer said there were actually two brides. On hearing this, Klein informed them that the bakery does not make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of their religious beliefs. When the woman's mother tried to object, Klein responded by quoting Leviticus 18:22, which refers to male homosexual sex as an "abomination."[4]

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents the government from making laws which respect an establishment of religion, prohibit the free exercise of religion, or abridge the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, or the right to petition the ... [seems our lovely freedom for all gov lied, again]

The customer subsequently filed a complaint with Oregon's Bureau of Labor and Industries, alleging the bakery had discriminated against her and her fiancée because of their sexual orientation.[5]

In April 2015, an administrative court made a preliminary decision to fine the business $135,000.[8]

[for performing an 'allegedly' constitutionally 'reserved' right!]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klein_v._Oregon_Bureau_of_Labor_and_Industries

The supreme court (The 'just-us' club) refused to hear the case, WTF?

 

What if it's a small business run by the owner? Where the owner is the one doing almost everything themselves.
What if both the employee and the business owner are in agreement about not wanting to do something?

For example, maybe it's a trans woman coming in to a beauty spa wanting to get her pubic area waxed. Would you tell both the business and the ladies doing the waxing that they're not allowed to discriminate?

 

see my post number 8

 

I dont understand the difference between the situation revolving Hobby Lobby and this business. Wasn't this resolved already with Hobby Lobby?

 

What's really the difference between the government taking your money and doing something with it, versus forcing you to spend it on something?

 

False claim. Atheism is not a religion. To put it another way, "no religion" is not a religion. This seems rather obvious.

 

The court argued that the purpose of extending rights to corporations is to protect the rights of shareholders, officers, and employees.[41] It said that "allowing Hobby Lobby, Conestoga, and Mardel to assert RFRA claims protects the religious liberty of the Greens and the Hahns."[42] The court found that for-profit corporations could be considered persons under the RFRA. It noted that the HHS treats nonprofit corporations as persons within the meaning of RFRA. The court stated, "no conceivable definition of the term includes natural persons and nonprofit corporations, but not for-profit corporations."[43] Responding to lower court judges' suggestion that the purpose of for-profit corporations "is simply to make money", the court said, "For-profit corporations, with ownership approval, support a wide variety of charitable causes, and it is not at all uncommon for such corporations to further humanitarian and other altruistic objectives."[44] The court rejected the contention that "the Nation lacks a tradition of exempting for-profit corporations from generally applicable laws," pointing to a federal statute from 1993 that exempted any covered health care entity from engaging in "certain activities related to abortion".[45]

The court held that the HHS contraception mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion, rejecting an argument that the $2,000-per-employee penalty for dropping insurance coverage is less than the average cost of health insurance. Responding to HHS's argument that the provision of coverage does not itself result in destruction of embryos, the Court asserted that the argument dodges the substantial burden question that the Court is supposed to address. The Court added, citing Jesuit moral manuals, that the argument is also the religious question of the morality of enabling the immoral acts of others, to which HHS had provided "a binding national answer". The Court argued that federal courts should not answer religious questions because they would in effect be deciding whether certain beliefs are flawed.[46][47] The court argued that "companies would face a competitive disadvantage in retaining and attracting skilled workers," that increased wages for employees to buy individual coverage would be more costly than group health insurance, that any raise in wages would have to take income taxes into account, and that employers cannot deduct the penalty.[48] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwell_v._Hobby_Lobby_Stores,_Inc.

 

Says who?
Post your citations and proof.

 

Why do you people alway demand proof of a negative in these discussions? You claim atheism is a religion, therefore the burden of providing the proof falls on you.

And how do you decide that no religion is a religion?

 

There are lots of doctors. Besides couples don't go to doctors individuals do.

 

I should have guessed, dive right in and post the most top shelf ridiculous nonsense, and people wonder why atheism especially neoatheism is a dead horse.

Suppose I tell you that “Screeds exist.”

Then you ask some questions and it turns out that what I mean by “screed” is something that is bleen, croom, and weeq.

Then you ask some more questions about the terms bleen, croom, and weeq. It turns out that those terms mean, “reptile,” “married,” and “bachelor,” respectively. So here’s the disproof:

1. Suppose that X is a screed. Then it would follow that:

2. X is bachelor, and

3. X is a reptile.

4. Bachelors are unmarried, adult human males. So,

5. X is human (by 4) and X is not human (by 3)

Furthermore,

6. X is unmarried (by 4) and X is not married (by 3—reptiles can’t be married.)

7. Contradictions are impossible. Nothing can both have a property and not have it.

8. Nothing contradictory can exist.

9. Therefore, screeds cannot exist.

We just proved a negative.
What’s the problem, exactly?
Why is it that the urban myth that “you can’t prove a negative” persists, and persists, and persists?

For centuries, nonbelievers have been giving deductive proofs for the impossibility of God that demonstrate that there is no God using a strategy like this. But rather than actually consider any of those attempted disproofs, the widespread practice is to simply declare “Everyone knows that you can’t prove a negative.” That’s complete nonsense. We can and do prove negatives of all sorts—ask any mathematician. How do you think they conclude that some piece of mathematical reasoning is flawed. http://www.provingthenegative.com/2008/04/one-of-several-ways-to-prove-negative.html

Based on your post its highly unlikely you understand what religion is.
Care to tell us?

 

Now that we disposed of the cant prove a negative nonsense:
please post a citation who said atheism is not a religion or provide sufficient evidence if its you.

 

TERFS have had it with the abusive folks within this otherwise fine movement.

The rise of the “TERFs”



TERF wars, begun they have.

 

How about a jewish sign maker, where a customer comes in and demands they make swastika signs?

 

Do you have a definition for 'secular atheist'?

 

The separation of church and state would be violated. This is what that section was actually about.

 

I believe this verse was about teaching new Christians, but it was taken too far.

 

2 words describing a similar venue.

The separation of church and state has always been violated, murder is one of the Christian 10 commandments which is one of the bulwarks of the Christian religion, its also statutory law of the commercial state.

thats one of many things that section is about, point being, at least my point the courts have no legitimate authority to judge what is and is not religious, religion is a right we 'reserved' to ourselves, it does not fall under the purview of our commercially based gov. Few people understand what that means.
The state is also a corporate person.