Satanists and Hobby Lobby

[Factinista]

Looks like the recent Hobby Lobby descision has opened the flood gates to Satanism!!!!1

http://www.salon.com/2014/07/28/sat...us_exemption_from_anti_choice_counseling_law/

Exerpt from the article

“While we feel we have a strong case for an exemption regardless of the Hobby Lobby ruling, the Supreme Court has decided that religious beliefs are so sacrosanct that they can even trump scientific fact,” Satanic Temple spokesperson Lucian Greaves said in a Monday statement. ”This was made clear when they allowed Hobby Lobby to claim certain contraceptives were abortifacients, when in fact they are not. Because of the respect the Court has given to religious beliefs, and the fact that our our beliefs are based on best available knowledge, we expect that our belief in the illegitimacy of state* mandated ‘informational’ material is enough to exempt us, and those who hold our beliefs, from having to receive them.”


Ohh what the Christian Right hath wraught!

 

[ZiprHead]

Lucian Greaves? Wasn't he a character in a Dark Castle movie?

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

The fallout from this ruling is going to make a mine field look like a hopscotch course.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Except that ruling doesn't apply to this case. This case or lack of case would apply on it's own merits and not the Hobby Lobby case.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Except that ruling doesn't apply to this case. This case or lack of case would apply on it's own merits and not the Hobby Lobby case.

Exactly. Hobby Lobby was a matter of Christians expressing their faith and can't be used as a precedent for people expressing their faith in religions that aren't even true.

 

[repoman]

Kill your children, the government will import more.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Except that ruling doesn't apply to this case. This case or lack of case would apply on it's own merits and not the Hobby Lobby case.

Exactly. Hobby Lobby was a matter of Christians expressing their faith and can't be used as a precedent for people expressing their faith in religions that aren't even true.

The argument in the case was whether freedom of religion applied to a corporation, not individuals. So the merit of the case of the state requiring providers to disclose information about abortion would be under an individuals freedom and not the Hobby Lobby case. However you are the one who has argued, that once commerce happens, then parties in an commercial relationship lose their rights.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Exactly. Hobby Lobby was a matter of Christians expressing their faith and can't be used as a precedent for people expressing their faith in religions that aren't even true.

The argument in the case was whether freedom of religion applied to a corporation, not individuals. So the merit of the case of the state requiring providers to disclose information about abortion would be under an individuals freedom and not the Hobby Lobby case. However you are the one who has argued, that once commerce happens, then parties in an commercial relationship lose their rights.

No, I didn't. Stop pounding your irrelevant strawmen from other threads which were unrelated to my arguments in unrelated threads.

Also, corporations are people. You shouldn't be arguing that one group of people gets rights and privileges that are not available to other groups of people. That's what they used to do with blacks.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The argument in the case was whether freedom of religion applied to a corporation, not individuals. So the merit of the case of the state requiring providers to disclose information about abortion would be under an individuals freedom and not the Hobby Lobby case. However you are the one who has argued, that once commerce happens, then parties in an commercial relationship lose their rights.

No, I didn't. Stop pounding your irrelevant strawmen from other threads which were unrelated to my arguments in unrelated threads.

Also, corporations are people. You shouldn't be arguing that one group of people gets rights and privileges that are not available to other groups of people. That's what they used to do with blacks.

Two different issues, but we'll go with your last one. This argument doesn't apply to a group here, only individuals.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Two different issues, but we'll go with your last one. This argument doesn't apply to a group here, only individuals.

Or a company owned by a small group, which can claim rights as an individual.

But that doesn't seem to be at odds with the Satanists. They are individuals, who share certain beliefs, and their individual rights to those beliefs should trump any government's legislation that burdens their beliefs.
Since the purpose of the legislation they're against was clearly to make abortions burdensome, it should be a slam dunk.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Two different issues, but we'll go with your last one. This argument doesn't apply to a group here, only individuals.

Or a company owned by a small group, which can claim rights as an individual.

But that doesn't seem to be at odds with the Satanists. They are individuals, who share certain beliefs, and their individual rights to those beliefs should trump any government's legislation that burdens their beliefs.
Since the purpose of the legislation they're against was clearly to make abortions burdensome, it should be a slam dunk.

I agree mostly. But the argument for this issue would have been the same whether or not there was a Hobby Lobby case. We'll see how far any case goes and if the court agrees with you that it places undo burden.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Oh, i'm sure the courts will find some way to construe it so that paying a fine for not obeying the law is a burden, but making unnecessary additional trips to the clinic, and wasting time sitting through propaganda is merely the cost of doing business. it's not like this court seems to give a rat's about precedents, even their own.
But at least that'll highlight them for the weasels they are.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Oh, i'm sure the courts will find some way to construe it so that paying a fine for not obeying the law is a burden, but making unnecessary additional trips to the clinic, and wasting time sitting through propaganda is merely the cost of doing business. it's not like this court seems to give a rat's about precedents, even their own.
But at least that'll highlight them for the weasels they are.

I agree with you there. I was going on the one that was in the article that said they had to say that abortion may cause psychological problems. But I don't think they will win this case on religious grounds.