So now what's our take on Religious Freedom Restoration Act?

[Proud Public Servant]

Because that's our baby: proposed by a Democrat, passed by a Democratic congress, signed into law by a Democratic president. Is it a good law interpreted badly in Hobby Lobby? Or did we screw the pooch on that one? Thoughts?

[peacebird]

1. It was always a bad law. HL just pointed out the obvious.

[GeorgeGist]

2. It's abuse by the CATHOLIC MEN OF SCOTUS ...

will result in backlash. Hopefully.

[el_bryanto]

3. Interesting

It seems to have been passed in reaction to two cases involving the Federal Government encroaching on the religious practices of Native Americans, according to Wikipedia. The point appears to be that even if a law is applied to all people equally, if it interferes with free practice of religion, it can be challenged.

So if Texas passed a law saying that Catholics can't vote, that would be a direct challenge to the Catholic faith and be unconstitutional. If Texas passed a law saying nobody could recite the Catholic Mass out loud - well that's an indirect challenge - even though the law applies to everybody, it would have the effect of silencing the free practice of religion of Catholics (Catholics were not picked to offend anybody - just on the top of my head).

I guess from that you get to the point that the ACA requires employers to provide Birth Control, but some people object to providing Birth Control. Not providing Birth Control is a fundamental belief in their faith, and requiring them to do it, violates their ability to freely practice their religion - at this point the argument, in my mind, breaks down.

But interesting anyway.

Bryant

[valerief]

4. But "people" don't provide birth control insurance. A corporation does. A corporation CAN'T

have religious beliefs, because a corporation can't think or feel. SCOTUS has imbued corporations with thinking and feeling.

[el_bryanto]

5. That's where it falls down

But I think the OP was asking if the Freedom Restoration act was positive or negative.

Bryant

[valerief]

6. Yes, that's right. Anything that bolsters religion is bad in my book. I know

other people think differently, and I have to live in a world of compromise, but no one is going to make me "Like" a law that bolsters ANY religion.

[el_bryanto]

7. Do you oppose the free practice of religion, then? nt

[valerief]

8. I wish religion didn't exist. nt

[el_bryanto]

9. That doesn't actually answer the question. Do you oppose the free practice of religion? nt

[valerief]

10. I'm not a lawmaker. I don't have to answer that question. I wish religion didn't exist.

Please, stop harassing me.

[el_bryanto]

11. OK - I apologize for asking follow up questions to determine what you actually believe.

I'll just say that as a religious person, I do support the free expression of religion - but feel that the Hobby Lobby Case goes beyond that to investing a corporation with further personhood rights, specifically the right to impose their religious beliefs on their employees.

Bryant

[valerief]

13. I agree. SCOTUS has imbued a non-human legal entity with human attributes and human power.

That's abominable and criminal in my book. SCOTUS is telling us not only that but that a non-human legal entity's "beliefs" can trump federal law, and in this case, federal law affecting only women.

I wish religion didn't exist and I wish this horrendous SCOTUS didn't exist.

[Bluenorthwest]

15. I see you use that sort of rhetorical gambit and sadly it requires me to point out the context

And that context is that religious groups use actual language of elimination about LGBT people. LDS does it, RCC does it, Evangelicals do it, in some countries the Anglicans do it too. They speak of ridding themselves of all of us, they mention blood in the streets, they pass laws at great expense to force their views onto others, as they have again with HL they already did with many other laws, always 'against' something, someone, or someone's rights.
So. When the side for which you advocate says 'we want them all dead' and the other side says 'I wish their belief that I should be dead had never existed' which side do you think is in the wrong? Should people be happy that others have a 'you should die' philosophy? Why?

Clown time is over. All that vicious rhetoric, it is time for those who are 'of faith' to either own it or denounce it with extreme insistence.

[el_bryanto]

17. Either denounce my faith or become a bigot. Interesting set of choices you give me.

But fortunately I know that that is a bullshit choice.

If you think I'm a homophobic bigot get me thrown off this board. The evidence should be there - present it to the moderators and I'm sure they'll do the right thing.

Bryant

[theHandpuppet]

12. I think what's very disturbing now is it's being tied to the Hobby Lobby example

http://www.usccb.org/news/2014/14-117.cfm

Just how far do they want to take this is what worries me.

[el_bryanto]

16. That's the question - how far can they take it

But I contend that this decision of the Supreme Court takes the intent of the original law a lot further than was intended or practical, particularly by allowing a corporation to have political rights that take precedence over their employees. And by once again asserting that woman's health rights are somehow fair game.

Bryant

[Laelth]

14. The RFRA is a good law.

The SCOTUS used it as an excuse to grant Constitutional rights to a company. No company (a legal fiction created by the state) ought to have any Constitutional rights at all. Companies are not people. They are created by the state and, therefore, ought to always be subject to state law without exception.

-Laelth

[BootinUp]

18. Mitt never told them corporations are people. Its Mitt's fault. nt