BREAKING: Court upholds religious exemptions to Obamacare mandate
The article doesn't go into the details of the ruling, which is far tighter than the article would have you believe, but at least they came up with the correct verdict.
And it was no surprise to me that it was a 5-4 decision. What angered me was the argument that somehow other people would be "burdened" by someone else's religious objections. Hypocritical much, Justice Ginsberg?
And it was no surprise to me that it was a 5-4 decision. What angered me was the argument that somehow other people would be "burdened" by someone else's religious objections. Hypocritical much, Justice Ginsberg?
O-care and his mandate violates so many aspects of individual freedom as outlined in the Bill of Rights that its absurd to have found a foothold in American politics.
Many aspects of each of the Bill of Rights cascade into so much of life that it renders so much that the government does and seeks to do unconstitutional. The audacity of American government today!
"Supreme Court Extends Freedom of Conscience Rulings to Atheists"
I'm afraid that if you are pointing at something specific, you're going to have to enumerate it. I'm not particularly good at inference.
Since neither atheism nor Objectivism are religions, they do not qualify as "sincerely held religious beliefs" and acting on our principles does not qualify as an "exercise of religion." Under the Supreme Court's logic, an atheist with moral objections to providing birth control as part of his or her company's health insurance plan would not be entitled to the type of exemption that was granted by this decision.
I think the larger challenge is in defining your moral code. Atheism isn't known for its belief in something, but rather its anti-belief. Hobby Lobby had the very strong position of arguing for the sanctity of life and that life begins at conception - just as God defined it (again, according to their beliefs). For them, the devices such as the Plan B pill and IUD's constituted agents of death - an argument that obviously scored enough points to win them not only lower court decisions, but a win at the Supreme Court as well. I am struggling to identify anything other than a purely economic argument an atheist would use in this context.
Now don't get me wrong, I abhor the idea of a government mandating participation in any market and believe the Supreme Court got the original Obamacare ruling dead wrong. I believe everyone should have the right to choose their own moral code/religion as long as that religion respects the rights of others. If you are struggling with how to apply this ruling to the beliefs of an atheist, so am I, but not because I disagree that you should not have the same protections, rather that the lack of a codified, recognized belief set acts as a significant barrier.
"Supreme Court Rules That No-Tea is equivalent to Tea" (Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy text-adventure reference)