Massive Victory For Religious Freedom Over Obamacare Contraceptive Mandate

  
Via:  heartland-american  •  2 months ago  •  64 comments

Massive Victory For Religious Freedom Over Obamacare Contraceptive Mandate
Federal Judge Reed O’Connor’s 35-page decision is thorough and comprehensive in its reasoning. No American company should be forced to violate its religious beliefs, and no American should be forced to forgo health insurance to avoid subsidizing contraceptive methods that violate his or her religious convictions. “The Contraceptive Mandate systematically discriminates against the Individual Class by blocking members’ entrance into the marketplace—due to religious exercise—[and] is a...

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


190607HotzeObamacareLawsuit.jpg
In a sweeping and dramatic victory for religious freedom, that the establishment media has refused to cover and Google has all but hidden from search results, a federal court in Fort Worth, Texas permanently blocked the federal government from enforcing the Obama Administration’s “Contraceptive Mandate” against any employer or individual who objects to the provision of contraception on religious grounds.

The court issued this injunction in response to a class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of individuals and employers who object to the Contraceptive Mandate based on their religious beliefs. The objecting individuals were represented by four Christian residents of Fort Worth who wish to purchase health insurance that excludes coverage of contraception, but are unable to do so on account of the Obama-era Contraceptive Mandate. The objecting employers were led by Steven F. Hotze, M.D., who operates his company as a Christian business and is unwilling to provide contraceptive coverage in the plan that he offers to his company’s employees.

Federal Judge Reed O’Connor’s 35-page decision is thorough and comprehensive in its reasoning. No American company should be forced to violate its religious beliefs, and no American should be forced to forgo health insurance to avoid subsidizing contraceptive methods that violate his or her religious convictions.

“The Contraceptive Mandate systematically discriminates against the Individual Class by blocking members’ entrance into the marketplace—due to religious exercise—[and] is a substantial burden of the highest order,” the court held in siding with religious freedom. The Court applied and enforced the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which is based on the First Amendment, to protect all who oppose the Contraceptive Mandate on religious grounds.

“This is a dramatic, historic victory for religious liberty in our country,” Dr. Hotze declared. “We took a strong stand for our beliefs and it is gratifying to prevail in protecting this fundamental right of Americans to remain true to their religious beliefs.”

The Contraceptive Mandate has forced religious objectors to financially support abortifacients, drugs that cause abortions, despite their opposition to abortion. It has also compelled religious employers to become complicit with the provision of abortifacients. These compelled violations of religious freedom were permanently prohibited by Judge O’Connor’s ruling.

This decision follows on the heels of the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision from 2014, and continues the broad protections for religious liberty that were established in that ruling. “The Individual Plaintiffs having demonstrated a substantial burden on their religious exercise, it is again up to the government to demonstrate that the compelling interest test is satisfied,” the court held. It concluded that “the Government cannot do so,” and that religious freedom must prevail over the Contraceptive Mandate.

“I want this decision to encourage Christians to assert their religious liberty rights against the Obama Administration’s regulations,” said Dr. Hotze. He further stated, “There is a war between the secularists who promote a culture of death through the killing of the unborn and those who adhere to a Biblical faith and revere life. All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men and women to do nothing. It is critical that Christians demonstrate the courage of their convictions and oppose the civil government when it violates their fundamental, God-given rights.”

The unprecedented news blackout of this important decision is in stark contrast to the wall-to-wall coverage of the order of a federal judge in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania who issued a nationwide injunction blocking a Trump administration healthcare policy that would allow employers to choose whether or not to provide free birth control to employees. The policy was supposed to take effect on Monday.

When U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone issued the injunction back in January, temporarily preventing the policy from taking effect that would have reversed a mandate from Obamacare forcing employers to provide free healthcare to employees, whether or not they may have a moral or religious objection to birth control practices the major networks gave it substantial coverage and news of the temporary injunction still tops Google search results on the subject.

You may read the order granting the motions for summary judgement and permanent injunction in the case of RICHARD W. DEOTTE et al. v. ALEX M. AZAR II et al. (Civil Action No.  4:18-cv-00825-O) through this link [15].

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
Heartland American
1  seeder  Heartland American    2 months ago

“This decision follows on the heels of the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision from 2014, and continues the broad protections for religious liberty that were established in that ruling. “The Individual Plaintiffs having demonstrated a substantial burden on their religious exercise, it is again up to the government to demonstrate that the compelling interest test is satisfied,” the court held. It concluded that “the Government cannot do so,” and that religious freedom must prevail over the Contraceptive Mandate.

“I want this decision to encourage Christians to assert their religious liberty rights against the Obama Administration’s regulations,” said Dr. Hotze. He further stated, “There is a war between the secularists who promote a culture of death through the killing of the unborn and those who adhere to a Biblical faith and revere life. All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men and women to do nothing. It is critical that Christians demonstrate the courage of their convictions and oppose the civil government when it violates their fundamental, God-given rights.””

 
 
 
epistte
1.1  epistte  replied to  Heartland American @1    2 months ago
“I want this decision to encourage Christians to assert their religious liberty rights against the Obama Administration’s regulations,” said Dr. Hotze. He further stated, “There is a war between the secularists who promote a culture of death through the killing of the unborn and those who adhere to a Biblical faith and revere life. All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men and women to do nothing. It is critical that Christians demonstrate the courage of their convictions and oppose the civil government when it violates their fundamental, God-given rights.””

What victory do they claim to have gotten? They already had a religious exemption from the birth control mandate if they filled out the paperwork.  Do you think that their religious beliefs also entitle them to determine my birth control decisions?

A business does not have the right to tell their employees what medication that they can use because those heath decisions are earned with their paycheck and the decisions are between the patient and the Dr. The bosses religious beliefs don't fit inside the stirrups or a speculum.

 
 
 
Tessylo
2  Tessylo    2 months ago

Doesn't sound like victory to me.  Sounds like stomping on women's rights.

 
 
 
bbl-1
2.1  bbl-1  replied to  Tessylo @2    2 months ago

Ah.  In christian taliban world, women's rights are...……….lets just be polite and say they are somewhat in the category of 'determinant limited.'

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.1  epistte  replied to  bbl-1 @2.1    2 months ago
Ah.  In christian taliban world, women's rights are...……….lets just be polite and say they are somewhat in the category of 'determinant limited.'

In [removed

 
 
 
SteevieGee
2.2  SteevieGee  replied to  Tessylo @2    2 months ago

My religion requires mandatory abortions for Republicans.

 
 
 
bbl-1
3  bbl-1    2 months ago

How can a 'company' have religious beliefs?

Religious liberties for christians?  No birth control?  Would masturbation be categorized as...………..a willful waste of opportunity?

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  bbl-1 @3    2 months ago

It is therefore ORDERED that:
1. Defendants Alex M. Azar II, Steven T. Mnuchin, and R. Alexander Acosta, and their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, designees, and subordinates, as well as any person acting in concert or participation with them, are ENJOINED from enforcing the Contraceptive Mandate, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 300gg–13(a)(4), 45 C.F.R. § 147.130(a)(1)(iv), 29 C.F.R. § 2590.715–2713(a)(1)(iv), and 26 C.F.R. § 54.9815–2713(a)(1)(iv), against any group health plan, and any health insurance coverage provided in connection with a group health plan, that is sponsored by an Employer Class member. If an Employer Class member’s sincere religious objections extend to the coverage of only some but not all contraceptives, then the defendants may continue to enforce the Contraceptive Mandate to the extent it requires coverage of contraceptive methods that the Employer Class member does not object to.
2. Defendants Alex M. Azar II, Steven T. Mnuchin, and R. Alexander Acosta, and their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, designees, and subordinates, as well as any person acting in concert or participation with them, are ENJOINED from enforcing the Contraceptive Mandate, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 300gg–13(a)(4), 45 C.F.R. § 147.130(a)(1)(iv), 29 C.F.R. § 2590.715–2713(a)(1)(iv), and 26 C.F.R. § 54.9815–2713(a)(1)(iv), to the extent that the Mandate requires the Individual Class members to provide coverage or payments for contraceptive services that they object to based on their sincerely held religious beliefs, and to the extent that the Mandate prevents a willing health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage, and as applicable a willing plan sponsor of a group health plan, from offering a separate policy, certificate or contract of insurance, or a separate group
33
Case 4:18-cv-00825-O Document 76 Filed 06/05/19 Page 34 of 35 PageID 1841
health plan or benefit package option, to any group health plan sponsor (with respect to a member of the Individual Class) or to any member of the Individual Class, that omits coverage for contraceptive services that the Individual Class member objects to based on that individual’s sincerely held religious beliefs.
If an Individual Class member objects to some but not all contraceptive services, but the issuer, and as applicable, plan sponsor, are willing to provide the plan sponsor or individual, as applicable, with a separate policy, certificate or contract of insurance or a separate group health plan or benefit package option that omits all contraceptives, and the Individual Class member agrees, then the injunction applies as if the Individual Class member objects to all contraceptive services.
3. Nothing in this injunction shall prevent the defendants, or their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, designees, and subordinates, as well as any person acting in concert or participation with them, from:
(a) Inquiring about whether any employer (including any member of the Employer Class) that fails to comply with the Contraceptive Mandate is a sincere religious objector;
(b) Inquiring about whether an individual (including any member of the Individual Class) who obtains health insurance that excludes coverage for some or all contraceptive methods is a sincere religious objector;
(c) Enforcing the Contraceptive Mandate against employers or individuals who admit that they are not sincere religious objectors; against any group health plan, and any health insurance coverage provided in connection with a group health plan, that is sponsored by an employer who admits that it is not a sincere religious objector; or
34

Case 4:18-cv-00825-O Document 76 Filed 06/05/19 Page 35 of 35 PageID 1842
against issuers or plan sponsors to the extent they provide health insurance to individuals who admit that they are not sincere religious objectors;
(d) Filing notice with this Court challenging any employer or individual who claims to hold sincere religious objections to some or all contraceptive methods, if the defendants reasonably and in good faith doubt the sincerity of that employer or individual’s asserted religious objections, and asking the Court to declare that such employer or individual falls outside the scope of the Employer Class or the Individual Class;
(e) Enforcing the Contraceptive Mandate against employers or individuals whom a court has declared to fall outside the scope of the Employer Class or the Individual Class; against any group health plan, and any health insurance coverage provided in connection with a group health plan, that is sponsored by an employer whom a court has declared to fall outside the scope of the Employer Class; or against issuers or plan sponsors to the extent they provide health insurance to individuals that a court has declared to fall outside the scope of the Individual Class.
SO ORDERED on this 5th day of June, 2019.
_____________________________________
Reed O’Connor
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE   http://msgfocus.com/files/amf_convert/workspace_42/Contraceptive_Mandate_Order_Granting_Summary_Judgment__granting_34_Motion_for_Injunction_6.5.2019_CLEAN_.pdf

 
 
 
bbl-1
3.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  Heartland American @3.1    2 months ago

And...…………?

 
 
 
Texan1211
3.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Heartland American @3.1    2 months ago

I don't think everyone understands the judge's order.

They simply aren't yelling enough yet.

Good seed!

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
3.1.3  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.2    2 months ago
I don't think everyone understands the judge's order. They simply aren't yelling enough yet.

they have no problems... butt hurt is still covered by obamacare

cheers :)

 
 
 
epistte
3.2  epistte  replied to  bbl-1 @3    2 months ago
How can a 'company' have religious beliefs?

A company that is incorporated is not a person and therefore cannot have religious beliefs that are reserved only for citizens. The owners religious beliefs stop at the end of their nose and are not part of the compensation package.

 
 
 
MUVA
3.2.1  MUVA  replied to  epistte @3.2    2 months ago

My company is incorporated  and I'm a sole proprietor.

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.2  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  MUVA @3.2.1    2 months ago

Didn’t you know that when you incorporated you lost all your individual rights as a citizen? /s    Well, citizens united fixed that issue.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  MUVA @3.2.1    2 months ago

Nice work if you can get it I'm sure.

 
 
 
epistte
3.2.4  epistte  replied to  MUVA @3.2.1    2 months ago
My company is incorporated  and I'm a sole proprietor.

The incorporation legally separates you from the company. You may be the owner but the corporation is not a person.

 
 
 
epistte
3.2.5  epistte  replied to  Heartland American @3.2.2    2 months ago
Didn’t you know that when you incorporated you lost all your individual rights as a citizen? /s    Well, citizens united fixed that issue.  

You have all of your rights, just like everyone else, but you don't get more rights by incorporating. 

 

 
 
 
MUVA
3.2.6  MUVA  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.3    2 months ago

It's great thanks for asking.

 
 
 
MUVA
3.2.7  MUVA  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.3    2 months ago

By the way I worked about 75 hour this past week it is nice work if you can do it.

 
 
 
MUVA
3.2.8  MUVA  replied to  Heartland American @3.2.2    2 months ago

And I donate.

 
 
 
MUVA
3.2.9  MUVA  replied to  epistte @3.2.5    2 months ago

It does but I can use my income for whatever I want.

 
 
 
MUVA
3.2.10  MUVA  replied to  epistte @3.2.5    2 months ago

I can donate twice.

 
 
 
Don Overton
3.2.11  Don Overton  replied to  MUVA @3.2.7    2 months ago

So

 
 
 
Don Overton
3.2.12  Don Overton  replied to  MUVA @3.2.8    2 months ago

So?

 
 
 
epistte
3.2.13  epistte  replied to  MUVA @3.2.9    2 months ago
It does but I can use my income for whatever I want.

Nobody said that you could not. You still do not get extra rights by the act of incorporation.

 
 
 
epistte
3.2.14  epistte  replied to  MUVA @3.2.10    2 months ago
I can donate twice.

This is why Citizens United is wrong, because our rights are not determined by our wealth. You cannot be permited to buy more speech because you can afford it. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
3.2.15  MrFrost  replied to  MUVA @3.2.10    2 months ago
I can donate twice.

You may have a cookie. 

 
 
 
SteevieGee
3.2.16  SteevieGee  replied to  MUVA @3.2.1    2 months ago
My company is incorporated  and I'm a sole proprietor.

Is it called Trollco?

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
3.2.17  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.3    2 months ago
Nice work if you can get it I'm sure.

complete and sole ownership of ones business and production is a capitalist thing.

try it some time, beats the hell out of socialism :)

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.2.18  Ozzwald  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @3.2.17    2 months ago
try it some time, beats the hell out of socialism
  • Does this mean that you provided your own internet to advertise and possibly sell on?
  • Does this mean you built your own roads, tunnels, bridges for deliveries and customers?
  • Does this mean you generated your own electricity to provide the lights that you use to conduct business with?

Capitalism is fine, it's just that many capitalists ignore the fact that they are supported by some socialist policies.  You didn't build that business by yourself.

 
 
 
epistte
3.2.19  epistte  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @3.2.17    2 months ago
complete and sole ownership of ones business and production is a capitalist thing. try it some time, beats the hell out of socialism

I'd rather have market socialism where the business is cooperatively owned and managed by the employees as a group.  There is more money to be spent and drive the consumer economy rather than the net profits going only to one person. You might call it a partnership.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.20  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2.18    2 months ago
'You didn't build that business by yourself.'

Neither did MUVA

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
3.2.21  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  epistte @3.2.19    2 months ago
where the business is cooperatively owned and managed by the employees as a group. 

that is not socialism... they call that an employee-owned business. you can do that right now.

https://www.bing.com/search?q=employee+owned+business

socialism would be taxpayers taking all the risk by funding the creation of that business which is never going to happen in this country.

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.22  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Ozzwald @3.2.18    2 months ago

Government providing basic services that government has always provided since before anyone invented socialism isn’t socialism.  And your reference to dictator lord Barry and his you didn’t build that remark is typical big brother big government.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.23  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  epistte @3.2.19    2 months ago

I’d never invest any money in companies run like that. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.2.24  Tessylo  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @3.2.17    2 months ago

'complete and sole ownership of ones business and production is a capitalist thing.'

His wife's family's businesses.  Nice work if you can marry into it.    

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
3.2.25  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.24    2 months ago
'complete and sole ownership of ones business and production is a capitalist thing.'

so is an employee owned business. lots of people are doing that now and they do not call themselves socialists unless they are stupid.

it only becomes socialism when you use the govt to get tax payers to fund the creation of the business = NEVER GONNA HAPPEN IN THIS COUNTRY.

 
 
 
katrix
3.2.26  katrix  replied to  epistte @3.2.19    2 months ago
I'd rather have market socialism where the business is cooperatively owned and managed by the employees as a group. 

The problem is that not all employees are capable of managing a business.  If I start a business, I'm not going to have unqualified people "helping" me decide how to run it.  They're always free to start their own.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
3.2.27  Ozzwald  replied to  Heartland American @3.2.22    2 months ago
Government providing basic services that government has always provided since before anyone invented socialism isn’t socialism.

It's also not Capitalism, is it?  It is a lot closer to a form of Socialism than you are willing to admit.

 
 
 
SteevieGee
3.2.28  SteevieGee  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @3.2.21    2 months ago
socialism would be taxpayers taking all the risk by funding the creation of that business which is never going to happen in this country.

Really?  That sounds a lot like Lehman Brothers to me.

 
 
 
Heartland American
3.2.29  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Tessylo @3.2.24    2 months ago

Selling shares in a company to raise funds to run it and having shareholders being part owners is capitalism as well.  I’m a proud tiny partial owner of multiple companies.  

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
4  Thrawn 31    2 months ago

[delete

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1  Texan1211  replied to  Thrawn 31 @4    2 months ago
Your religious beliefs are fucking stupid.

So everyone who belongs to a religion has fucking stupid beliefs, according to you.

Even the very politicians you claim to support.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
4.1.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1    2 months ago
So everyone who belongs to a religion has fucking stupid beliefs, according to you. Even the very politicians you claim to support.

I don't know about Thrawn, but for me the answer is YES!

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
4.1.2  Thrawn 31  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1    2 months ago
So everyone who belongs to a religion has fucking stupid beliefs, according to you.

Depending on the belief, but on the whole yes.

Even the very politicians you claim to support.

Yep. They have some idiotic beliefs as well.

 
 
 
Texan1211
5  Texan1211    2 months ago

I can tell this will definitely trigger some folks here.

Hilarious!

 
 
 
Heartland American
5.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Texan1211 @5    2 months ago

It will but it really shouldn’t.  It’s a religious liberty issue.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
5.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Heartland American @5.1    2 months ago
It’s a religious liberty issue.

There's the trigger!

 
 
 
MrFrost
5.1.2  MrFrost  replied to  Heartland American @5.1    2 months ago
 It’s a religious liberty issue.  

Ah, ok, so this is also a violation of the 1st Amendment, got it, good to know. 

 
 
 
Don Overton
5.1.3  Don Overton  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.1    2 months ago

And how does religion play in abortion?  Where in the bible does it make abortion a crime or even mentioned?

 
 
 
epistte
5.1.4  epistte  replied to  Don Overton @5.1.3    2 months ago
And how does religion play in abortion?  Where in the bible does it make abortion a crime or even mentioned?

Even if the Bible did mention abortion, but it doesn't, we have the separation of church and state to keep the government from enforcing religious ideas on others. If a person doesn't want to have an abortion because of their religious beliefs that is their choice, but that same person cannot force others to not have an abortion because of those same religious beliefs that they hold.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
5.1.5  Ozzwald  replied to  Don Overton @5.1.3    2 months ago
Where in the bible does it make abortion a crime or even mentioned?

Abortion is mentioned several places in the Bible, the problem is that Bible makes God out to be pro-choice, the xians that think otherwise are the ones that only believe the parts of the Bible that mirror their own beliefs. 

God has caused abortions directly (still does by Christian beliefs) and advised others on how to cause an abortion.

Scriptural truths

Ten biblical episodes and prophecies provide an unequivocal expression of God's attitude toward human life, especially the ontological status of "unborn children" and their pregnant mothers-to-be. Brief summaries:

• A pregnant woman who is injured and aborts the fetus warrants financial compensation only (to her husband), suggesting that the fetus is property, not a person (Exodus 21:22-25).

• The gruesome priestly purity test to which a wife accused of adultery must submit will cause her to abort the fetus if she is guilty, indicating that the fetus does not possess a right to life (Numbers 5:11-31).

• God enumerated his punishments for disobedience, including "cursed shall be the fruit of your womb" and "you will eat the fruit of your womb," directly contradicting sanctity-of-life claims (Deuteronomy 28:18,53).

• Elisha's prophecy for soon-to-be King Hazael said he would attack the Israelites, burn their cities, crush the heads of their babies and rip open their pregnant women (2 Kings 8:12).

• King Menahem of Israel destroyed Tiphsah (also called Tappuah) and the surrounding towns, killing all residents and ripping open pregnant women with the sword (2 Kings 15:16).

• Isaiah prophesied doom for Babylon, including the murder of unborn children: "They will have no pity on the fruit of the womb" (Isaiah 13:18).

• For worshiping idols, God declared that not one of his people would live, not a man, woman or child (not even babies in arms), again confuting assertions about the sanctity of life (Jeremiah 44:7-8).

• God will punish the Israelites by destroying their unborn children, who will die at birth, or perish in the womb, or never even be conceived (Hosea 9:10-16).

• For rebelling against God, Samaria's people will be killed, their babies will be dashed to death against the ground, and their pregnant women will be ripped open with a sword (Hosea 13:16).

• Jesus did not express any special concern for unborn children during the anticipated end times: "Woe to pregnant women and those who are nursing" (Matthew 24:19).

 
 
 
Heartland American
5.1.6  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.1    2 months ago

Probably so as secularism can’t stand religious people have the liberty to actually live according to our beliefs.  They think they should be free to compel and coerce is into going against everything we believe in and are bitterly disappointed when they are prevented from trampling all over upon our rights and beliefs and then call us names when we insist on preserving our religious liberty. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
5.1.7  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  MrFrost @5.1.2    2 months ago

The free exercise clause is in the first amendment and the establishment clause has nothing to do with limiting the free exercise there of of religious belief.  

 
 
 
epistte
5.1.8  epistte  replied to  Heartland American @5.1.7    2 months ago
The free exercise clause is in the first amendment and the establishment clause has nothing to do with limiting the free exercise there of of religious belief.

The Free Exercise clause has never been interpreted as permitting discrimination based on a person's religious beliefs in a public business.  Our religious rights are the right to believe or not to believe in god and the right to worship. The Free Exercise clause isn't an exemption from obeying secular law or to limiting the rights of others.

This has been explained to you multiple times.  

 
 
 
epistte
5.1.9  epistte  replied to  Heartland American @5.1.6    2 months ago
Probably so as secularism can’t stand religious people have the liberty to actually live according to our beliefs.  They think they should be free to compel and coerce is into going against everything we believe in and are bitterly disappointed when they are prevented from trampling all over upon our rights and beliefs and then call us names when we insist on preserving our religious liberty. 

Where in the Bible did Jesus teach his followers to be judgemental homophobes? Am I also trampling on your religious rights by quoting passages of your bible in response to your claims? 

Matthew 7:12

In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the prophets.

Luke 6:31

27“But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. 30Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31Do to others as you would have them do to you.

Maybe the religious people who oppose the idea of treating others as equals should sell the business and work for their church, stop making wedding cakes or make it a private members-only business so they can pick and choose who they will serve according to their religious beliefs? 

 
 
 
katrix
5.1.10  katrix  replied to  Heartland American @5.1.6    2 months ago
Probably so as secularism can’t stand religious people have the liberty to actually live according to our beliefs.  

Who's forcing you to get an abortion, use birth control, or marry a man? 

 
 
 
MrFrost
6  MrFrost    2 months ago

Weird. You would think those opposing abortions would be handing out condoms on every street corner of America...but....nope. Oppose birth control as well. So make it harder to not get pregnant, then force the woman to have the kid?

That's the dumbest fucking thing I have ever heard, but considering this "judge" is nothing more than an activist that hates women, guess that explains the stupidity. 

Also, state laws cannot over ride federal laws. Not the way it works. My guess is that this will be challenged and struck down. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
6.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  MrFrost @6    2 months ago

“Federal Judge Reed O’Connor’s 35-page decision is thorough and comprehensive in its reasoning. No American company should be forced to violate its religious beliefs, and no American should be forced to forgo health insurance to avoid subsidizing contraceptive methods that violate his or her religious convictions.

“The Contraceptive Mandate systematically discriminates against the Individual Class by blocking members’ entrance into the marketplace—due to religious exercise—[and] is a substantial burden of the highest order,” the court held in siding with religious freedom. The Court applied and enforced the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which is based on the First Amendment, to protect all who oppose the Contraceptive Mandate on religious grounds.

“This is a dramatic, historic victory for religious liberty in our country,” Dr. Hotze declared. “We took a strong stand for our beliefs and it is gratifying to prevail in protecting this fundamental right of Americans to remain true to their religious beliefs.””

 
 
 
katrix
6.1.1  katrix  replied to  Heartland American @6.1    2 months ago

Oh, bullshit.  Nobody is forcing these people to use birth control. 

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
6.2  Thrawn 31  replied to  MrFrost @6    2 months ago

It is in fact the dumbest fucking position of all time. 

 
 
 
Heartland American
6.2.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Thrawn 31 @6.2    2 months ago

It is the pro choice position that meets what you describe all time.  

 
 
 
Thrawn 31
7  Thrawn 31    2 months ago
No American company should be forced to violate its religious beliefs

So a company could therefore require its female employees to abort every pregnancy as a religious belief and be cool?

 
 
 
Heartland American
7.1  seeder  Heartland American  replied to  Thrawn 31 @7    2 months ago

According to what religion?  I know of none besides state sponsored Chinese atheism that comes close to that.  

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Trout Giggles
Nerm_L
Sparty On
It Is ME
squiggy
JaneDoe
Tacos!
Gordy327
Kathleen
JBB

Ronin2


45 visitors