Moderators Jeannieb43 Posted August 24, 2016 Moderators Share Posted August 24, 2016 Speaking of the Hobby Lobby case, Justice Ginsberg herself (who authored the dissent in the Supreme Court decision) has now gone on record (in the L.A.Times, at least) as saying this case has now opened the door for litigants to claim privileges which are not available to anyone else. In other words, this case is bad law. And she predicted it from the beginning. phkrause and Tom Wetmore 2 Quote Jeannie<br /><br /><br />...Change is inevitable; growth is optional.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossw Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 9 hours ago, Jeannieb43 said: Speaking of the Hobby Lobby case, Justice Ginsberg herself (who authored the dissent in the Supreme Court decision) has now gone on record (in the L.A.Times, at least) as saying this case has now opened the door for litigants to claim privileges which are not available to anyone else. In other words, this case is bad law. And she predicted it from the beginning. Is the real issue SCOTUS's decision in favor of Hobby Lobby or an over reaching healthcare law that infringes on many rights? The government should not be in the business of writing such over reaching laws for the health care industry. It looks as though the overall problem is the government's writing of bad laws and not necessarily the rulings by the majority in SCOTUS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoAspen Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 So now the .govs desire to see that all peoples of the country it is supposed to protecting have some type of basic healthcare is 'over reaching'! Tell that to those who did not have adequate healthcare before!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossw Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 10 minutes ago, CoAspen said: So now the .govs desire to see that all peoples of the country it is supposed to protecting have some type of basic healthcare is 'over reaching'! Tell that to those who did not have adequate healthcare before!! Is it written in the Constitution for the government to provide and require health care to everybody? By requiring healthcare for all they have no choice but to break the first amendment. The healthcare law is essentially throwing out the first amendment. And as this site is mostly Adventist I'm shocked there are some here who support the government's over reach into the religious part of our lives. Adventism has had a foundation of the belief in the separation of church and state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 I am having trouble the Constitution in the Bible. My citizenship is in Heaven. Not a bad place to have it, it changes attitudes a lot. Rossw 1 Quote If you receive benefit to being here please help out with expenses. https://www.paypal.me/clubadventist Administrator of a few websites like https://adventistdating.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outta Here Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 1 hour ago, Rossw said: Is it written in the Constitution for the government to provide and require health care to everybody? By requiring healthcare for all they have no choice but to break the first amendment. The healthcare law is essentially throwing out the first amendment. And as this site is mostly Adventist I'm shocked there are some here who support the government's over reach into the religious part of our lives. Adventism has had a foundation of the belief in the separation of church and state. I'll bite. Explain further. Address the in's and out's of the government infringing on the first amendment rights by over reaching into the religious part of our lives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossw Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 4 hours ago, Stan said: I am having trouble the Constitution in the Bible. My citizenship is in Heaven. Not a bad place to have it, it changes attitudes a lot. I agree on a purely spiritual level but we still live physically on earth. If I can help it, I'd prefer to keep my freedoms as long as possible while still on this earth. Although that is not to say I have any attachments to this earth outside of my relationships. But saying that, are we to altogether give up on our freedoms now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossw Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 4 hours ago, Aubrey said: I'll bite. Explain further. Address the in's and out's of the government infringing on the first amendment rights by over reaching into the religious part of our lives. See the cases of the funeral director who's had to seek legal exemption but was still sued, hobby lobby, Ca SB 1146, etc. If there were no question these cases violate the first amendment they'd never make it to court, or in the case of SB 1146 it wouldn't have had to be amended. SB still has the ability to scrutinize religious institution even under the many revisions. SB 1146 isn't technically federal law yet but ca state laws tend to become federal law... you're welcome We must understand many people have many different beliefs and because of the first amendment whether we agree with those beliefs or not they still deserve to be recognized. The difficulties for us surface when beliefs contradict Biblical truth. This is the paradox for our time. Really, the only way for this country to get fixed is to turn back to Christianity but that in of itself takes freedom away from some and who's version of Christianity would prevail as law? Again, we are at a dangerously paradoxical time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outta Here Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 Not even so much as a link? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 the question to ask.... NOT What will happen to me if I help them it is What will happen to them if I don't? phkrause, Gail, CoAspen and 1 other 4 Quote If you receive benefit to being here please help out with expenses. https://www.paypal.me/clubadventist Administrator of a few websites like https://adventistdating.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoAspen Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 The .gov provides many services not outlined by the constitution. I reckon some would like for us to have a more decided country, the have and the have-nots, how is that working out in the rest of the world? Again, what does providing health care for all have to do with religion? Question not answered! Some insinuations about being SDA having something to do with subject, lost me there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossw Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 1 hour ago, CoAspen said: The .gov provides many services not outlined by the constitution. I reckon some would like for us to have a more decided country, the have and the have-nots, how is that working out in the rest of the world? Again, what does providing health care for all have to do with religion? Question not answered! Some insinuations about being SDA having something to do with subject, lost me there? You haven't heard of Hobby Lobby? Whether you agree with them or not they have a valid concern over the providing of contraceptives even under a for-profit enterprise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossw Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 1 hour ago, Stan said: the question to ask.... NOT What will happen to me if I help them it is What will happen to them if I don't? Not sure what this relates to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossw Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 1 hour ago, Aubrey said: Not even so much as a link? To what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 The "It's all about me" thinking... phkrause 1 Quote If you receive benefit to being here please help out with expenses. https://www.paypal.me/clubadventist Administrator of a few websites like https://adventistdating.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outta Here Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 33 minutes ago, Rossw said: To what? I was hoping that you'd give me an in-depth analysis as to exactly how religious freedoms were compromised; instead, it was a mere reiteration of examples that somehow did. Perhaps a link to an article would have helped. I don't really understand how the religious freedoms of a funeral director were/are compromised by an employee wearing clothes to work. (And in the Hobby Lobby case, I didn't see a problem either as the company was not the one administering birth control or ingesting it.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossw Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 48 minutes ago, Stan said: The "It's all about me" thinking... Who is thinking "it's all about me"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossw Posted August 24, 2016 Share Posted August 24, 2016 24 minutes ago, Aubrey said: (And in the Hobby Lobby case, I didn't see a problem either as the company was not the one administering birth control or ingesting it.) You may not see a problem with paying for women's promiscuity but obviously Hobby Lobby does. 25 minutes ago, Aubrey said: I was hoping that you'd give me an in-depth analysis as to exactly how religious freedoms were compromised; instead, it was a mere reiteration of examples that somehow did. Perhaps a link to an article would have helped. I don't need to spoon feed you the case evidence. Your as capable as I of research on the internet. You'll have to accept some who dont believe exactly the same as you feel as though their freedoms are being taken away. 28 minutes ago, Aubrey said: I don't really understand how the religious freedoms of a funeral director were/are compromised by an employee wearing clothes to work. Is it just a change of clothes or a supposed change in sex? There is a difference, correct? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossw Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 21 hours ago, Jeannieb43 said: Speaking of the Hobby Lobby case, Justice Ginsberg herself (who authored the dissent in the Supreme Court decision) has now gone on record (in the L.A.Times, at least) as saying this case has now opened the door for litigants to claim privileges which are not available to anyone else. In other words, this case is bad law. And she predicted it from the beginning. Can you link this? Is her opinion of more importance than the other 8? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rudywoofs (Pam) Posted August 25, 2016 Members Share Posted August 25, 2016 2 hours ago, Rossw said: Can you link this? Is her opinion of more importance than the other 8? this is an interesting article that addresses Judge Ginsburg's opinion: http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/hobby-lobbys-troubling-aftermath Quote Pam Meddle Not In the Affairs of Dragons; for You Are Crunchy and Taste Good with Ketchup. If we all sang the same note in the choir, there'd never be any harmony. Funny, isn't it, how we accept Grace for ourselves and demand justice for others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossw Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 46 minutes ago, rudywoofs (Pam) said: this is an interesting article that addresses Judge Ginsburg's opinion: http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/hobby-lobbys-troubling-aftermath Read that article this morning. Ginsburg is only one opinion amongst 9. I don't take her opinion as superior to the others. The article brought to my mind the problems with the law and not of Hobby Lobby's position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aubrey Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 5 hours ago, Rossw said: You may not see a problem with paying for women's promiscuity but obviously Hobby Lobby does. I don't need to spoon feed you the case evidence. Your as capable as I of research on the internet. You'll have to accept some who dont believe exactly the same as you feel as though their freedoms are being taken away. Is it just a change of clothes or a supposed change in sex? There is a difference, correct? In paying a salary to anyone, Hobby Lobby may or may not be paying for someone's (men and/or women) indiscretions. (Here's a dollar. I can't tell you what to spend it on.) No, you don't need to spoon feed me case evidence. I wanted to hear from YOU directly why YOU felt any of these cases infringed on religious rights. My comment, "what, not even a link?" was sort of tongue in cheek. As far as a change in sex...who cares? What difference can that possibly make to someone who is working in a funeral home? It's not a brothel. No one's having sex in that funeral home (or, at least I hope they're not). I still fail to see how either of these cases infringe on religious freedom. I was hoping that you'd enlighten me. phkrause and CoAspen 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossw Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 8 hours ago, Guest Aubrey said: In paying a salary to anyone, Hobby Lobby may or may not be paying for someone's (men and/or women) indiscretions. (Here's a dollar. I can't tell you what to spend it on.) Here's the difference whether you agree or not. Sure an employee may spend THEIR money on bad habits but it is THEIR money. Hobby Lobby did their duty by paying the employee for services provided. HL is not paying for the bad habits. They are paying for the services of the employee. Where as under the affordable care act they are paying directly for contraceptives. 9 hours ago, Guest Aubrey said: No, you don't need to spoon feed me case evidence. That's exactly what your asking as you don't see the business's point of view at all. 9 hours ago, Guest Aubrey said: As far as a change in sex...who cares? What difference can that possibly make to someone who is working in a funeral home? It's not a brothel. No one's having sex in that funeral home (or, at least I hope they're not). If a business is ran on the same moral Biblical principle as a church(and they should lest they become hypocritical), and if they believe transgender is a sin, then it is in there Constitution right to fire a person in the same way a church has the right to disfellowship a member. See 1Corinthians 5, it should clear any confusion. The SDA church does not practice disfellowship in a Biblical manner as some other conservative denominations do. If a church is sued for disfellowship of a member willfully continuing in sin, and the judge sided with the member, would that not violate the Church's Constitutionally protected right? A Christian's business should be seen as an extension of the church. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoAspen Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 If I only hired someone who was without Bible based sins.....I would have to fire myself or otherwise be hypocritical! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rossw Posted August 25, 2016 Share Posted August 25, 2016 1 hour ago, CoAspen said: If I only hired someone who was without Bible based sins.....I would have to fire myself or otherwise be hypocritical! Do you go on willfully sinning after receiving the knowledge of truth? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.