Please Hit

Folks, This is a Free Site and will ALWAYS stay that way. But the only way I offset my expenses is through the donations of my readers. PLEASE Consider Making a Donation to Keep This Site Going. SO HIT THE TIP JAR (it's on the left-hand column).

Wednesday, July 2, 2014

The Hobby Lobby Slippery Slope Liberals Don't Talk About

The liberals are big on telling falsehoods about the Supreme Court such as now employers can decide which contraceptives a woman can take. False, even after this decision a woman can use any birth control they want--- its a question of which ones will be covered.

Another more serious falsehood being promoted by the liberal's objecting to the ruling is " the slippery slope." Now, according to those angry with the Hobby Lobby decision, corporations will be able to stop covering immunization if their religion bans it, or blood transfusions, or even worse since "everyone knows" that people who promoted slavery in the US did it on religious grounds, people can avoid hiring black people on religious grounds. They forget that those religious claims were considered shaky even back then, and even more compelling is the fact that many of those who fought to abolish slavery did so based on religious teaching.

Those who claim a slippery slope ignore the fact that religious freedom was not the primary reason the court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby. Justice Alito wrote in his decision that the government's coverage mandate was not the least restrictive method. In other words since the government was paying for the coverage in the case of not for profit religious organizations they could do the same for company's such as Hobby Lobby.

Additionally many of the slippery slope predictions by the left are addressed in the Hobby Lobby decision which reads in part:
In any event, our decision in these cases is concerned solely with the contraceptive mandate. 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. Other coverage requirements, such as immunizations, may be supported by different interests (for example, the need to combat the spread of infectious diseases) and may involve different arguments about the least restrictive means of providing them.

The principal dissent raises the possibility that discrimination in hiring, for example on the basis of race, might be cloaked as religious practice to escape legal sanction. See post, at 32–33. Our decision today provides no such shield. The Government has a compelling interest in providing an equal opportunity to participate in the workforce without regard to race, and prohibitions on racial discrimination are precisely tailored to achieve that critical goal.

Then there is the other slippery slope, the real one---the slippery slope of not making the Hobby Lobby decision. What would happen if the government tried to ban certain religious practices for example two that are a big part of my world circumcision and kosher slaughter of animals. Now some of you are thinking that is crazy it will never happen. I agree it won't happen now, but ten years ago many people would have told you that an Obamacare would never happen.

In 2012 A regional court in Cologne Germany has ruled that the practice of circumcision performed on young male children was illegal. According to the Judges
...circumcision went against the "fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity outweighed the fundamental rights of the parents." They added that religious freedom would not be curtailed because the child would be able to choose later whether he wanted to have a circumcision. However, if the parents decided for the boy, it changed the body of the child "irreparably and permanently" and went against that child's rights to choose his religious beliefs.
"The religious freedom of the parents and their right to educate their child would not be unacceptably compromised, if they were obliged to wait until the child could himself decide to be circumcised," the court added.
True the decision was overturned but Norway tried to ban ritual circumcision last year and in 2011 a ballot initiative to ban circumcision in San Francisco was taken off the ballot by a Judge. If a family who owns a company can be forced to pay for what they believe is abortion, could a Jewish company be prosecuted for promoting circumcision one day?

What about Kosher slaughter? Both Poland and Denmark have passed bans on the Kosher method of slaughtering animals. Could it happen here? Not today, but it could happen. If congress passed a bill that all animals must be "knocked out" before they were slaughtered for food no meat made in the US would be Kosher. What if a Jewish-owned company was prosecuted for shipping Kosher meat into the country, against the law? Would the Hobby Lobby case calling for the least restrictive protect that Jewish company?

Some would say the two slippery slope examples above are ridiculous, The Hobby Lobby case had nothing to do circumcision and/or kosher slaughter. I would respond by saying they are exactly right. The Hobby Lobby case is totally unrelated to circumcision and/or kosher slaughter, it also has nothing to do with inoculations, blood transfusions and/or racial discrimination. The slippery slopes the liberals talk about are just as ridiculous as mine.

5 comments:

Jeff Dunetz said...

Excellent perspective, as always Jeff!

Jeff Dunetz said...

Since Alito's decision seems to be 'religious practices supported by Catholics (birth control) are protected, while religious practices supported by others (blood transfusions, vaccinations) are not' I have no reason to believe circumcision and/or shechita will be found to be protected by RFRA.

Jeff Dunetz said...

Thanks for this.


Breaking down a psychopathic communist's lies is so futile as to be almost laughable. But good people feel morally bound to do so, if only to get the truth on the record.


I follow Klonsky's little blog and Ayers Facebook just to see what they are up to now--people and pols think this relatively small cabal that is destroying our country are just harmless academics. Well,in addition to sweeping our traditional education system out of the way and replacing it with Marxism, their 'I'm just a teacher' routine acts as a pretty neat cover for clueless, uninterested Americans. I mean Ayers textbooks are used at major universities like Catholic Marquette so he must be legit.


All Kelly did was lend legitimacy to this snake and put herself in danger. I don't pretend to know why D'Nesh D'Souza is debating a freed killer or putting him in his movie or 'coaxing" him into an interview with Kelly, but I do know psychopaths--they should be avoided at all costs.

Jeff Dunetz said...

I listened to Hitlary Clinton's outrageous and absurd comments yesterday, following the announcement of the Hobby Lobby decision. Hitarly as usual, made no sense and completely obfuscated the issues resolved by the decision. Hitlary needs to get a new propagandist. The one she uses now, is not serving her cause too well.

Jeff Dunetz said...

I agree Cathnealon with your comments. And great information, big Jeff. thank you so much for article! I thought I was alone in thinking all Kelly was doing was giving that slime terrorist bomber a platform to lie. The interview might have been worth something 6 years ago before Obama got elected-- a lot of good it does now. And am I the only one who got sick to their stomach watching Megyn Kelly shake his hand at the end. I tweeted to her and asked if she would have shaken the hand of a KKK member because she got to interview him.