The Hobby Lobby case is not about a constitutional right

[FreeJoe]

Hobby Lobby has no constitutional right to an exemption based on the first amendment. The court has ruled in the past that religious groups must conform to the law. When the court made that ruling several years ago, congress passed a law that generally overruled that ruling. I think it was called the Restoring Freedom of Religion Act or something similar. The question is whether this law supersedes the ACA or vice-versa. Either way it is ruled, congress can (if they could ever agree to) pass a law to change it in either direction.

Just wanted to make it clear that there isn't a consititutional issue at stake in this debate. The consititution does not provide a blanket exception corporations or even churches themselves to ignore laws against their creed.

[PoliticAverse]

1. There most certainly is a constitutional issue at stake in this debate.

The issue is about the limits of Constitutional rights.

And it was "The Religious Freedom Restoration Act" (Co-sponsored by Sen. Edward Kennedy).

“We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise
valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate,’’ (Employment Division v. Smith).

[LostOne4Ever]

2. Unless the heads of Hobby Lobby

are being forced to take and use contraception I see no real infringement on their rights. Rather, what I see is Hobby Lobby trying to tell their employees that they can not use the health benefits the way they want because its against Hobby Lobby's owner's beliefs.

IE He is forcing his beliefs on his employees

That should be the issue. What next refusing to pay an employee the money he has earned because they might spend it on alcohol or pornography? If SCotUS sides with Hobby Lobby it will set a very dangerous precedent.

[FSogol]

3. Agreed. Corporations do not have religious rights. n/t

[PoliticAverse]

4. Do they have first-amendment rights? n/t

[FSogol]

5. Corporations aren't people, my friend. n/t

[PoliticAverse]

6. So media corporations don't have first amendment rights? n/t

[FSogol]

7. Corporations don't and shouldn't have the same rights as people.

Do they have some rights? Yes.
Should they have the same rights? No.

Not sure what you are getting at.

[PoliticAverse]

8. That's the point of cases like this one, the extent of those rights. n/t

[FSogol]

9. Was I arguing that? I don't think they should have religious rights.

They are not people.