Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

dsc

(52,189 posts)
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 05:46 PM Jun 2014

There is a very simple solution to the Hobby Lobby case

now note simple, doesn't necessarily mean easy, but we simply need to amend the RFRA. My suggestion would be to amend it so that it doesn't apply to employment, salary, and/ or benefits nor to discrimination on the basis of those classifications listed in the civil rights act and sexual orientation. But that necessitates winning the House back hence the not being easy part.

13 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
There is a very simple solution to the Hobby Lobby case (Original Post) dsc Jun 2014 OP
So how do we defeat the Gerrymander? Anansi1171 Jun 2014 #1
a variety of things dsc Jun 2014 #2
Don't let "gerrymander" become an excuse to do nothing. GOTV. If we all show up FSogol Jun 2014 #4
Indeed!!!-nt Anansi1171 Jun 2014 #5
Dr Deans 50 state strategy, plus Keynes-ian Liberals. Volaris Jun 2014 #8
I think that's a point a lot of folks are missing. Nye Bevan Jun 2014 #3
Yes, the Court based their decision The Religious Freedom Restoration Act PoliticAverse Jun 2014 #6
Not in a good way. lol. BootinUp Jun 2014 #7
Good luck with that customerserviceguy Jun 2014 #9
Yeah the Supreme Court in an earlier case found that the RFRA couldn't constitutionally be applied PoliticAverse Jun 2014 #10
I figured that's because customerserviceguy Jun 2014 #11
It's easier than that MFrohike Jun 2014 #12
Repeal it. We have the First Amendment. That is enough. alarimer Jun 2014 #13

dsc

(52,189 posts)
2. a variety of things
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 05:53 PM
Jun 2014

one increase our turn out and hope theirs is low. two, when practical try to reverse gerrymand. If you are a liberal, in a liberal district, but close to a close district, consider moving to the other district in october, vote in november, and return back to your district after the election. One only needs a utility bill to prove residence so move in with someone and get the water in your name.

FSogol

(45,641 posts)
4. Don't let "gerrymander" become an excuse to do nothing. GOTV. If we all show up
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 06:01 PM
Jun 2014

and vote, we'll win.

Volaris

(10,296 posts)
8. Dr Deans 50 state strategy, plus Keynes-ian Liberals.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 06:24 PM
Jun 2014

Yeah we WILL lose some first round no doubt.
But Republicans can be broke-ass and out of work, too...and EVENTUALLY, they will put 2&2 together

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
3. I think that's a point a lot of folks are missing.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 05:57 PM
Jun 2014

Unlike Citizens United, for example, which can only be overturned by a constitutional amendment, Hobby Lobby can be overturned by Congress, if it wants to.

customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)
9. Good luck with that
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 06:42 PM
Jun 2014

RFRA was passed in the House on a voice vote (no head count available that way) and by the Senate on a 97-3 vote, then signed into law by President Clinton. That was in the first year of his Presidency, when one could fairly say that he still had a glimmer of a honeymoon.

The Act has been modified only to say that it applies only to the Federal government, and not to the states. Today's case was the first significant test of the law as it applied to Federal law, and the law of unintended consequences may well have prevailed.

Yeah, winning that House back is only the biggest of the problems. We'll be lucky to hold the Senate by a couple of Blue Dogs after November. I look for the reich wing to be emboldened by today's decision.

PoliticAverse

(26,366 posts)
10. Yeah the Supreme Court in an earlier case found that the RFRA couldn't constitutionally be applied
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 06:51 PM
Jun 2014

to the states.

customerserviceguy

(25,183 posts)
11. I figured that's because
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 06:58 PM
Jun 2014

we already had the First Amendment that applied to the states, and the RFRA holds the Federal government to a much stricter standard. Today was really the first test of what that meant.

In any case, RFRA is not going to be amended, and it's clearly not going to be struck down by the SCOTUS.

MFrohike

(1,980 posts)
12. It's easier than that
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 07:09 PM
Jun 2014

Add the word natural before persons to 42 USC 2000bb(a). Then, add a sentence to cover organizations entirely or almost entirely religious in nature.

alarimer

(16,245 posts)
13. Repeal it. We have the First Amendment. That is enough.
Mon Jun 30, 2014, 07:10 PM
Jun 2014

Nobody's religion needs protecting. We need protection FROM everyone's religion.

Religion poisons everything.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»There is a very simple so...