Can the president now order Kosher delis to give away pork?

[Cyclone Ranger]

If you honestly think that means churches have no rights, there literally is no helping you. And again, what would be your reaction to a law forcing Kosher delis to buy, prepare and give away pork?

Churches as houses of worship have the right to free exercise, without question. That is, perhaps, the most fundamental principle of our democracy.

But as employers, churches have only limited rights. They don't have the absolute right to deny their employees state-mandated benefits, even if that contravenes their principles.

And the deli thing is a red herring: restaurants aren't religious institutions. If people want pork, they can always go to the Chinese place next door.

[Cyclone Ranger]

They're not denying benefits, they're simply refusing to pay for them. The people can still get the benefits.

The law says they must pay them - at least until Obama's compromise.

[hadit]

Churches as houses of worship have the right to free exercise, without question. That is, perhaps, the most fundamental principle of our democracy.

Correct, and TFO is trying to violate that.

But as employers, churches have only limited rights. They don't have the absolute right to deny their employees state-mandated benefits, even if that contravenes their principles.

They're not denying them anything. They're simply refusing to pay for them. The people can still buy condoms if they want.

And the deli thing is a red herring: restaurants aren't religious institutions. If people want pork, they can always go to the Chinese place next door.

Not under this kind of ruling, they cannot. If we really had that freedom of choice, we could choose to work for an organization that does not subsidize our sex lives or work for one that does. Just apply the same kind of law that we have here, and be honest about it. If this power grab is allowed to stand, there will be no Constitutional protection for Kosher delis should a future admin mandate they buy and supply pork. I know what your reaction would be. You would be rightly outraged if a future president and Congress were to mandate such a thing, and I would hope you would have the integrity to admit that there would be no Constitutional protection against them doing so.

[hadit]

The law says they must pay them - at least until Obama's compromise.

The law is wrong, and will be challenged in court. Heck, Oh-crap! care itself is being challenged, and this whole thing could be moot.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Again, there is no freedom of religion clause that applies to employers which outweighs the rights of employees.

A restaurant customer, however, has no such right to order pork.

[hadit]

Again, there is no freedom of religion clause that applies to employers which outweighs the rights of employees.

A restaurant customer, however, has no such right to order pork.

Irrelevent. Insurance plans are being forced to give away contraception for free, and whether I want it or not, I have to pay for it. Using this same power, a future president and Congress could decide it is in society's best interest to force all food outlets to carry and give a way a certain set of food that might include things that Jews, for example, find abhorent. You would have to pay for that set whether you personally wanted to eat it or not and the formerly Kosher establishment would have to buy it and give it away. The scenario still stands, and while I understand your extreme reluctance to acknowledge your reaction to such a thing, it IS valid, given the interest the government has been expressing in such things as controlling what a child is allowed to eat or must eat in school. It is not difficult to imagine a future food czar with just such regulatory power.

Arguing that current law doesn't force this to happen is moot.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Again, ordering food at a restaurant is not a right, while the contraceptives are. So, your parallel is misguided at best

[Freedom&Liberty]

There is no constitutional right to contraceptives. You need to stop making shit up.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Not all rights are enumerated.

[hadit]

Again, ordering food at a restaurant is not a right, while the contraceptives are. So, your parallel is misguided at best

What part of: "Arguing that current law doesn't force this to happen is moot" is hard to understand? The whole point of the exercise is to forsee the possible consequences of this action.

Now that the president has grabbed this power, what Constitutional provision could stop a future one from doing what I have described as possible? You've dodged and ducked enough. I thought you had more integrity than that.

[hadit]

Not all rights are enumerated.

The Supreme Court has not declared it an unenumerated right, therefore it is not one.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Not all rights are enumerated.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

You were done before you started.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Those rights only accrue to individuals, and quite specifically not businesses.

In fact, Article One explicitly grants Congress regulatory authority over interstate commerce, while intra-state commerce is delegated to the states to oversee.

[Powerboss]

LOL. Didn't you just say a week ago that rights applied to individuals and groups? You're a doubletalker who will say anything, including outright lie.

[Cyclone Ranger]

Groups and businesses are not generically identical concepts. Whether the COTUS acknowledges some group rights or not, it very explicitly grants government, federal and state, regulatory oversight of business.

Consequently, businesses have, at most, limited constitutional rights.

[hadit]

Those rights only accrue to individuals, and quite specifically not businesses.

In fact, Article One explicitly grants Congress regulatory authority over interstate commerce, while intra-state commerce is delegated to the states to oversee.

Okay, so what you're saying is that Congress could TODAY force Kosher delis to buy and give away pork, that they don't need this latest power grab. The fact that the Jewish owners have a strong religious objection to pork and they tailor their offerings to clientele who also abhor pork is meaningless. The mere act of obtaining a business license removes First Amendment privileges from the owners. That's good to know.

[Freedom&Liberty]

Those rights only accrue to individuals, and quite specifically not businesses.

Businesses are owned and operated by individuals who have the right to freely exercise their religion without interference from government. You've lost and you know you've lost and all that remains is your usual nonsensical grasp at straws, ass pulling marathon.

In fact, Article One explicitly grants Congress regulatory authority over interstate commerce, while intra-state commerce is delegated to the states to oversee.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with contraception.

[Vader]

The law is wrong, and will be challenged in court. Heck, Oh-crap! care itself is being challenged, and this whole thing could be moot.

No... you rightest religious zealots are wrong. Keep your relgious beliefs to yourselves.

[Vader]

Businesses are owned and operated by individuals who have the right to freely exercise their religion without interference from government. You've lost and you know you've lost and all that remains is your usual nonsensical grasp at straws, ass pulling marathon.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with contraception.

You are wrong ... AS USUAL. Businesses ARE NOT PEOPLE they DO NOT have the right to exercise religion. When will you pull you head out of your ass and realize this?

[Vader]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

You were done before you started.

That law applies to CITIZENS .... NOT TO BUSINESSES. Why do you righty idiots have such a hard time understanding that? The 2nd Amendment DOES NOT give business the right to force their religion on others.

Pull your head out of your inbred ass and realize it.