Rachel Maddow - SCOTUS claim of narrow ruling defies reason

[Galraedia]

[Stuart G]

1. Thank You For Posting...I do not have cable and will never get it.

It is really great that people put many of Rachel's segments up from time to time.
Thanks Again....Stuart....

[freshwest]

2. It normalizes relgious discrimination. The ACLU says:

Using Religion to Discriminate

With increasing frequency, we are seeing individuals and institutions claiming a right to discriminate – by refusing to provide services to women and LGBT people – based on religious objections. The discrimination takes many forms, including:

* Religiously affiliated schools firing women because they became pregnant while not married;

* Business owners refusing to provide insurance coverage for contraception for their employees;

* Graduate students, training to be social workers, refusing to counsel gay people;

* Pharmacies turning away women seeking to fill birth control prescriptions;

* Bridal salons, photo studios, and reception halls closing their doors to same-sex couples planning their weddings.

While the situations may differ, one thing remains the same: religion is being used as an excuse to discriminate against and harm others.

Instances of institutions and individuals claiming a right to discriminate in the name of religion aren’t new. In the 1960s, we saw institutions object to laws requiring integration in restaurants because of sincerely held beliefs that God wanted the races to be separate. We saw religiously affiliated universities refuse to admit students who engaged in interracial dating. In those cases, we recognized that requiring integration was not about violating religious liberty; it was about ensuring fairness. It is no different today.*

Religious freedom in America means that we all have a right to our religious beliefs, but this does not give us the right to use our religion to discriminate against and impose those beliefs on others who do not share them.

Through litigation, advocacy and public education, the ACLU works to defend religious liberty and to ensure that no one is either discriminated against nor denied services because of someone else’s religious beliefs.

LEARN MORE. Go to the link to see the case that are involved and the principles being violated:

https://www.aclu.org/using-religion-discriminate

*That is the Ron and Rand Paul view and that of their Libertarian followers- their rights to discriminate based on property rights. Just like their 'liberty' and 'freedom' are not for all, only those with money.

It goes directly against the premise of the Constitution, that 'All Men Are Created Equal' that the Confederacy rejected. These guys aren't 'perfecting the Union,' they are destroying it.

The effects of this ruling won't stop at denying full autonomy to women over their bodies. It's not just a 'women's issue.'

I can't find the link to what I read last night but the Supreme Corporate Justices will be taking on 5 cases designed to gut the EEOC.

GOTV or lose it all.

[elleng]

3. Why Ginsburg’s Hobby Lobby dissent might backfire

Liberals are praising Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s pointed dissent from the ruling in the Hobby Lobby case, which found that “closely held” corporations can be exempt from having to provide insurance coverage to their employees that includes birth control. Ginsburg’s opinion savages the majority’s departure from precedent, its double standards regarding religious freedom, and its disregard for the impact of denying women coverage for contraception. But some legal experts say it might end up doing more harm than good.

Ginsburg’s dissent begins by calling the decision one of “startling breadth.” The high court ruled that under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the government cannot require “closely held” corporations–those with most of their stock owned by fewer than five individuals–whose owners possess “sincerely religious beliefs” against the use of contraception to provide health insurance to employees that covers birth control. Ginsburg fears that the majority has “ventured into a minefield” with the decision, which could allow corporations to “opt out of any law” that “they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Two of the justices in the majority disagree with her–Justice Samuel Alito, writing the court’s majority opinion, wrote that “Our decision should not be understood to hold that an insurance coverage mandate must necessarily fall if it conflicts with an employer’s religious beliefs.” Justice Anthony Kennedy, in a concurrence, tips his hat to Ginsburg’s “respectful and powerful dissent,” but says that the opinion “does not have the breadth and sweep ascribed to it.”

Ginsburg’s opinion, some legal experts say, may turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. By stating that the opinion is much broader than the majority claims it to be, she may be providing lower-court judges with a stronger foundation to provide more religious exemptions in the future.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/why-ginsburgs-hobby-lobby-dissent-might-backfire?cid=sm_m_reidreport_4_20140701_27032116

[zebonaut]

4. My Religion is against war. So I won't be paying my taxes; now that its legal

[indivisibleman]

5. So if a person cannot get coverage

for birth control under their health insurance with some employers do they get a discount on their insurance?
If the ACA requires that coverage but exempts some employers from providing is the government required to provide that service? Can the employee opt for this supplemental insurance from the government or from an independent insurance plan?
It seems to me that an employee of this company should still have the right to this protection even though the employer is exempt.
I have not heard any discussion on how employee's rights are protected from this supposed religious protection.