SCOTUS scores another win for freedom: This might actually be a larger boost for freedom than the hobby lobby case. This might even help in home daycare providers in MN take back their...

Constitutional libertarian Loc: St Croix National Scenic River Way

This might actually be a larger boost for freedom than the hobby lobby case.

This might even help in home daycare providers in MN take back their freedom. Last year they were all forced to pay union dues whether they belonged to the new union or not. The SCOTUS has ruled that you may be able to opt out dependent on whom your employer is. Well home daycare providers are small business owners who should fall under that category.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/07/01/why-harris-v-quinn-isnt-as-bad-for-workers-as-it-sounds/

rumitoid

Constitutional libertarian wrote:

This might actually be a larger boost for freedom ... (show quote)

This is a good thing, proper and right; the Hobby Lobby decision was a bad thing, horrendous and dangerous.

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

rumitoid wrote:

This is a good thing, proper and right; the Hobby Lobby decision was a bad thing, horrendous and dangerous.

Then the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was a bad thing, and 97% of Congress and Bill Clinton didn't even realize how they were endangering the country. Great, however, that we have great minds like yours - able to see beyond what Congress, Bill Clinton and the Supreme Court see - you, Obama and Sibelius are so much better.

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

rumitoid wrote:

This is a good thing, proper and right; the Hobby Lobby decision was a bad thing, horrendous and dangerous.

You are the second person to use the word "dangerous". How?

rumitoid

Dave wrote:

Then the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was a bad thing, and 97% of Congress and Bill Clinton didn't even realize how they were endangering the country. Great, however, that we have great minds like yours - able to see beyond what Congress, Bill Clinton and the Supreme Court see - you, Obama and Sibelius are so much better.

The two have nothing to do with each other; oil and water, apples and oranges.

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

Dave wrote:

Then the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was a bad thing, and 97% of Congress and Bill Clinton didn't even realize how they were endangering the country. Great, however, that we have great minds like yours - able to see beyond what Congress, Bill Clinton and the Supreme Court see - you, Obama and Sibelius are so much better.

Now...now, do not bring up the basis for the very narrowly defined decision. Rather then actually slogging through both the majority and dissenting writings of the SCOTUS, it is easier to just say it is "a bad thing".

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

rumitoid wrote:

The two have nothing to do with each other; oil and water, apples and oranges.

REALLY? As the RFRA was the basis for a major portion of the Hobby Lobby decision, it may have something to do with it. As the RFRA is specifically mentioned in the Hobby Lobby case, it may have something to do with it.

rumitoid

AuntiE wrote:

You are the second person to use the word "dangerous". How?

Though it may seem farfetched, what is to stop any so-called "deeply held religious beliefs" looking for exemptions to policy and law regarding health insurance or even in other areas. This is not intended just for Christian beliefs but any and all under freedom of religion. Nothing is codified. Define "deeply held"? How long and prove the depth? Is New Age a religion? Who is to say or rule that it is not? Scientology? Christian Scientists? These particular "faiths" have opinions on certain medical practices. Shouldn't they be equally honored, such as not allowing coverage for t***sfusions or even seeing a doctor if ill or injured? I think it is something like 40% of workers (I would not bet my life on that but I think I am close) are employed by "closely held" corporations; these are the corporations favored by the SCOTUS decision. In effect, corporations got a raise in citizenship class at the expense of the workers.

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

http://reason.com/blog/2014/07/01/why-is-it-so-hard-to-understand-governme

Why Is It So Hard to Understand Government Shouldn't Force Employers to Purchase Birth Control .....

jpgmag.comThe (leftie) internet went bonkers yesterday over the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision, a narrow ruling that only let "closely held" corporations whose owners had a religious objection to paying for certain kind of contraceptives (abortifacients) off the hook from Obamacare's "contraceptive mandate." Employees, of course, would still be free to purchase supplemental insurance to cover birth control and to see their doctor to get a prescription for birth control. They can't purchase birth control over the counter but that's not because of the Supreme Court or employers with objectionsit's because the federal government prohibits the sale of birth control over the counter.

Nevertheless for a certain kind of spouter of partisan talking points, the Supreme Court rulingthat the government could not, in fact, bully people into doing something if those people have religious objectionswas more evidence of the "war on women" Democrats plan to keep running on.

*******

rumitoid

AuntiE wrote:

REALLY? As the RFRA was the basis for a major portion of the Hobby Lobby decision, it may have something to do with it. As the RFRA is specifically mentioned in the Hobby Lobby case, it may have something to do with it.

It was used but it was a blind for corporation bias. As you have read everything about this case, you must know from the dissenting comments that RFRA was seen as woefully misapplied.

roy

Constitutional libertarian wrote:

This might actually be a larger boost for freedom ... (show quote)

so they want somebody to stand up for them for better pay and maybe benfits but they dont want to pay the dues,tipical consertives view let somebody else do the work let me me be rewarded

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

rumitoid wrote:

It was used but it was a blind for corporation bias. As you have read everything about this case, you must know from the dissenting comments that RFRA was seen as woefully misapplied.

I did see that; however, it is, to use a favorite phrase on many things, the law of the land.

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

roy wrote:

so they want somebody to stand up for them for better pay and maybe benfits but they dont want to pay the dues,tipical consertives view let somebody else do the work let me me be rewarded

Actually, they do not want anyone to "stand up for them". They have an objection to their money being utilized on political matters they do not agree with. It was nothing short of forced political donations.

rumitoid

AuntiE wrote:

I did see that; however, it is, to use a favorite phrase on many things, the law of the land.

It is the law of the land when applied correctly; being as it was, in the opinion of four Justices, woefully misapplied, it is called injustice.

Constitutional libertarian Loc: St Croix National Scenic River Way

roy wrote:

so they want somebody to stand up for them for better pay and maybe benfits but they dont want to pay the dues,tipical consertives view let somebody else do the work let me me be rewarded

These are self employed business owners who have for years been able to do as these please within the requirements of the state. They did not ask for or wish to be unionized. They should not be forced to pay for something they do not need want or asked for.

Did you read the article I attached, it was written by a union organizer who actually agrees with my position.