“You’re born with a religion or you adopt a religion. You have to obey the precepts of that religion and the government gives you a wide penumbra – you don’t have to form a corporation,” Schumer said.
“When we wrote RFRA back in 1993 we did so to protect individuals with strong religious beliefs and give them the presumption they have always enjoyed. That they should be able to exercise their religious beliefs without interference from the government”, Schumer said.
“The court took that and applied it – misapplied it – to for-profit companies who exist for the purpose of benefitting from the open market, working in the marketplace under our laws.”
“We wouldn’t tell the owners of Hobby Lobby to convert to a different religion or disobey their religion - but we don’t say that they have to open up a company and go sell toys or hobby kits.”
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a more direct attack on religious freedom than that. Democrats are truly waging war against religion. And they should be called on it.
Wow, you really haven’t seen much of the world, have you?
How about this: conservatives blocking a so-called mosque (actually it was in truth a community center, and not a mosque at all) from being built a couple blocks from the World Trade Center. That’s a lot more direct an attack on religious freedom, and totally un-American to boot.
I’m sure if you keep your eyes and mind open, you’ll find untold numerous better examples, almost all from the conservative religious right foisting their views on others. Keep looking.
Laughable hyperbolic nonsense. You’ve “never seen” a more direct attack on religious freedom?!? If so, then I take it you’re not very familiar with either American or world history.
Hannity-esque nonsense. Please, please try and drop the Hannity talking points. There might be legitimate issues of disagreement here, but insisting that corporations follow the law regarding insurance requirements and the like is not an attack on religious freedom. A disagreement about whether corporations can have religious beliefs is not a “war on religion”.
Or the concerted efforts of conservatives to foist their personal religious views on homosexuals who simply want to be able to marry like other couples?
I think that would count as well.
I think adaher uses the Straight Dope as a sounding board for stupid arguments… what other explanation could there be for such consistently poorly formed, but suspiciously Fox News punditry-esque arguments?
That’s not what Schumer said. What you said is a cover for stripping business owners of religious rights. Schumer said it directly. If you are religious, don’t start a business.
Gotta admit, the Democrats are getting bold. Trying to limit religious freedom to freedom of worship.
What he meant was “If your version of religion means you have to oppress someone for who they are, don’t start a business.” Of course, you don’t really give a shit about discrimination or disparity of treatment because you are a heteronormative white male and such things don’t apply to you, except when you do a soccer-dive to fake the injury.
It’s oppression to not include free contraception in your health care plan? Who knew that so many employees were oppressed before this year? Obama is truly the savior of the worker.
That’s why I’m not a professional. Call it a War Against Faith then. Or generally just a war against the 1st amendment, since Democrats aren’t too keen on individuals speaking out on politics, at least not in any effective way.
The difference is, the Republicans genuinely hate women and try every way they can to oppress, harm and kill women. The Democrats on the other hand unfortunately have nothing against “God”; they aren’t anti-religious at all. If anything they are less “at war” against religion than the Republicans, since they tend to be more accepting of non-Christian religions, while the Republicans want to suppress everything but Christianity.
Now that you mention it, how was your stay at the Jane Fonda Self-Criticism and Aerboic Re-Education Camp? Not yet? Listen, we’ll drop a word to Commissar Reid, get you moved up the list…
Schumer is absolutely, 100% correct. If your religious beliefs stop you from following the law, then you get to choose between your religious beliefs and not undergoing the consequences of that law. If your religious beliefs stop you from following business regulations that make sense and pass the sniff test, then you have the choice - follow your religious beliefs, or own a company. Simply because you think your magical man in the sky has some things to say about any given law or regulation doesn’t mean you get to ignore it. That’s asinine.
Look, let’s apply this to almost anything else. If my religion mandates that workers never wear protective clothing, then I have absolutely no business runing a construction site unless I’m willing to put my religious beliefs aside for the sake of my workers’ safety. If my religion mandates that certain regulations with regards to the safety of heavy machinery are not to be met, then I have absolutely no business opening an assembly line unless I’m willing to put my religious beliefs aside. It’s really not that hard to understand - you don’t get to ignore laws, laws put there for damn good reason, simply because your religion forbids or demands something of you. If Hobby Lobby weren’t Christians, this wouldn’t even be a discussion!
I don’t understand how the fuck you managed to twist that into “Christians don’t get to act under their faith”. Yeah, well, Rastafarians are kinda shit outta luck too, aren’t they? Your faith does not trump the law of the land, unless that law was made with the sole intent and effect of fucking with your faith. That’s how life in a secular society works. Or what, do you think we should get rid of the laws against murder because Islam has a thing for honor killing? Fucking moron.
On a side note, holy shit the comments section of that article is just as dumb as you are.
If your religion requires you to not use contraceptives, since when does that mean you have to coerce other people into not using them, or deny them the ability?
When did your private observance of your religion and your choices which should only impact you *personally *have anything at all to do with people you are merely business associates with?
If my religion says I’ve got to sacrifice a cow and pray to its disembodied head, would it be an attack on religious freedoms if someone stepped in and said I couldn’t coerce my employees to do the same thing?
Attack on religious freedom indeed. What about my freedom to not follow your religion? Why are religious values more important than secular ones? Since when does your observance of your religion mandate that everyone else needs to follow it?
This is the same reason why religious arguments against gay marriage don’t work. You don’t believe gay people should marry? Don’t ever marry anyone of your own gender. Why does your observance of your belief mean no one else in the world is allowed to think and behave differently? Since when does your belief mean that everyone else is required to adhere to your faith?
If that’s the line you want to draw in the sand, if that’s the battle you want to fight, just about everyone who thinks the way I do about this issue is going to continue to cross that line and fight that battle, until the day we keel over and breathe our last.
You believe whatever the hell you want to believe on your own time. The workplace, and your employees, is not a church, and are not your acolytes.
Budget Player Cadet, you are arguing that Congress can pass laws infringing on people’s religious beliefs and citizens just have to suck it up? That’s quite a bit more radical a view than Chuck Schumer’s. Plus it’s completely at odds with the RFRA.