Employing a metaphor in a judicial opinion does not raise the metaphor to the status of law–particularly when it is used by both sides in conflicting opinions:
In your beloved case:
The majority and dissenting Justices in Everson split over this very question, with Rutledge in the minority by insisting that the Constitution forbids “every form of public aid or support for religion”
So, in the decision to which you look, it was the minority/losing/overruled side that took your position.
Really, that is what you are left defending, well the SCOTUS claimed “ABC1234” but ABC1234 is not a legal term!!!
And your second defense, well, people on side of the debate don’t like “ABC1234” so therefor “ABC1234” is vague. If it wasn’t vague then everyone would agree what it means!!!
Similar First Amendment cases have flooded the courts in the decades following Everson. Having invoked Thomas Jefferson’s metaphor of the wall of separation in the Everson decision, the lawmakers and courts have struggled how to balance governments’ dual duty to satisfy both the nonestablishment clause and the free exercise clause contained in the language of the amendment. The majority and dissenting Justices in Everson split over this very question, with Rutledge in the minority by insisting that the Constitution forbids “every form of public aid or support for religion”.
So then, it seems, we are arguing over the application of “ABC1234” not whether such a term actually exists or what it means.
I previously asked whether you even know what the word discrimination means. You didn’t answer, presumably because the answer is that you don’t. The difference between discrimination and withholding service is blatantly obvious to any person who knows the definitions.
Currently the Obamacare exchanges will sell a ‘catastrophic’ insurance plan to anyone under the age of 30, but not to anyone over the age of 30. That’s a textbook example of discrimination; they offer the product to one group of people, but arbitrarily deny the same product to other people.
If the Obamacare exchanges were unwilling to sell such an insurance plan to anyone of any age group, they would be withholding that type of plan. Everyone would be treated the same; everyone would be denied that type of plan, regardless of whether they wanted it.
Of course, there’s an obvious difference between Obamacare banning a certain type of insurance plan and Hobby Lobby not selling a certain type of plan. Nobody has to buy insurance from Hobby Lobby, but millions of people are forced to buy insurance on the Obamacare exchanges.
Here’s one last piece of advice. If you want to be taken seriously, you should learn to use correct punctuation, grammar, and syntax. If you continue to write like an ten-year-old, most people will probably dismiss your claims to intellectual superiority. Writing things like “LOL” doesn’t help your case either.
LOL
I’d call acting upon a religious bias a type of discrimination. The fact that we have to split hairs shows the weakness of your “argument”. It may not technically be “discrimination” but it is still withholding based upon a bias. Do you deny that Hobby Lobbys decision was prompted by a religious bias?
BTW if you want to have a separate discussion about what you don’t like about the ACA or whether it discriminates, thats fine, but its a separate conversation
It is exactly the point I have made since the second post in this thread while you have danced around and tried to elevate metaphor to law, go off on personal comments, and generally fail to understand the situation as it appears in law in the U.S.
That you cannot grasp that is not my problem.
Well, that was exactly the point I made in my first post to this thread:
The phrase was coined in a personal note to a group of religious people who thought they were getting the short end of the stick in Connecticut politics.
The letter had no force of law, although, once it was published, the metaphor entered the American political dialogue, with no specific meaning attached to it.
It was quoted in both sides of the judicial opinions of a case in 1947, in which the meaning that you assign it was rejected by all but one of the jurists in their opinions.
So, when you asked, in the OP, how could we have a situation when this phrase is already the law of the land, my response that it is not the law of the land was correct and has continued to be correct throughout this entire thread.
If this disappoints you, get a time machine and go back to ask Jefferson to push his view into the Constitution. (Actually, you would be better to go back to 1788 and try to get Madison to modify the First Amendment to say more what you want it to say.)
LOL
If you use incorrect definitions while I use correct definitions, it’s hardly surprising that we come to different conclusions.
LOL
There is a wall of separation between the corn field and the wheat field.
What mental image did that bring up for you? Did you picture a huge field with a wall down the middle and corn on one side and wheat on the other side? That’s what I pictured. I’d love for you to describe to me how the terminology I used was either vague or open to interpretation.
All you’ve done this far is document that some people, religious people at that, don’t think this standard should apply 100% of the time or 99% of the time or even 90% of the time.
Sorry, I don’t know how else to say this… your position is like that of FOX news who give a negative editorial at 9AM and 11AM, then proclaim at 3PM, "many people have complained about proposition “ABC1234”. Sorry, that is exactly what you are doing. Various people complain about separation over the decades, and then you point to their complaints asif they had, as you previously used the term, “legal merit”. Your side can not muddy the waters and then declare the debate no longer valid because the water is not clear.
In case any of that got lost in translation… “wall of separation” is not vague and it is not open to interpretation. And it’s the term used by the SCOTUS to express their view on the topic.
Fine
Is Hobby Lobbys decision the result of a religious bias?
Well, now that we have established the intellectual level of your “debate” . . .
Ok, great
Can we establish what is vague or open to interpretation about:
A wall of separation between the corn field and the wheat field.
I’ve suggested that you use correct grammar, punctuation, and syntax. You obviously didn’t take my advice, but if you want me to answer questions, you’ll need to write them in proper English. Good grammar isn’t important only because it makes you look mature and respectful, but also because it conveys your meaning clearly. Your English is so sloppy that no one could truly know what you’re trying to say.
At the start of this thread, you referenced “the Hobby Lobby decision”, which most people would assume refers to the Supreme Court’s decision in the case Hobby Lobby vs. Burwell, a landmark victory for religious freedom. If you were referring instead to some decision made by the Hobby Lobby corporation, you should have written “Hobby Lobby’s decision”. Now you’re asking me, “Is Hobby Lobbys [sic] decision the result of a religious bias?” That question isn’t in proper English, so it’s not clear what decision you’re referring to.
If you intended the question to refer to some decision made by the Hobby Lobby corporation, could you please specify exactly what decision you’re referring to?
What? I thought it was clear. I will restate it. Hobby Lobby’s objection to birth control pills, is that objection motivated by a religious objection?
Hobby Lobby doesn’t have any objection to birth control pills.
Then why won’t they supply them to their employees?
The US Supreme Court ruled on June 30 that the owners of closely-held, profit-making corporations cannot be forced under the Affordable Care Act to provide their employees with certain kinds of contraceptives that offend their religious beliefs.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/DC-Decoder/2014/0710/Hobby-Lobby-101-explaining-the-Supreme-Court-s-birth-control-ruling
Hobby Lobby does sell its employees insurance that covers birth control pills. The article that you just linked to says so directly. Surely you read the article before you linked to it.
What was the basis of the owners’ religious objections?
Both Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood are controlled by family members with shared religious beliefs. Those beliefs hold that life begins at conception and that any birth control method that may result in the destruction of a fertilized egg is a form of abortion and killing that is forbidden by their faith.
They also believe that supporting and financing their company health care plan in a way that provides their employees with the means to destroy a fertilized egg makes them complicit in a sinful and immoral act.
Do they oppose all birth control?
No. Their objections were to four of 18 methods required to be provided to female employees under the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate. They objected to paying for two forms of the emergency morning-after pill and two kinds of intrauterine device (IUD).
They did not object to providing their employees cost-free access to the most common forms of birth control, including daily birth-control pills.
So… they object to the morning after pill, on religious grounds but are ok with regular birth control. Are you going to deny that they object to the morning after pill based upon religious objection?
So when you said that Hobby Lobby had an objection to birth control pills, you were not telling the truth. Now that we’ve finally agreed on that, let’s move on.
Why are you asking me a question that I’ve already answered? My answer hasn’t changed. Hobby Lobby refuses to buy insurance that covers the “morning after pill” because of a religious objection, which the First Amendment obviously gives them the right to do. The Obama Administration tried to force them to buy insurance that covers the morning after pill, which was an obvious violation of the First Amendment. (It is also an obvious violation of separation of church and state, though there’s no law requiring separation of church and state.) The Supreme Court ruled against the Obama Administration.
Well, as far as you want it to work, yeah.
Since we’re pointing out where people have gotten the basic of the Hobby Lobby case wrong, we might as well clarify that the Court did not find that Hobby Lobby’s first amendment rights were being violated.
Since we are splitting hairs now: Technically Robert was telling the truth. He claimed that Hobby Lobby had an objection to birth control pills, and they do - after all, morning after birth control pills are birth control pills. He never claimed that they had an objection to all birth control pills.
That’s three “obvious” in s short paragraph. Well - since it took a supreme court ruling to decide the matter, it seems obvoius (sorry) to me that the whole issue is everything but. Callings something “obvoius” in a debate often comes across as nothing more than an attempt to avoid having to actually make a case for your claims. Can you substantiate why in your opinion Hobby Lobby’s first amendment rights were violated?