Friday, July 11, 2014

Shumer vs. Religious Rights

Somehow I don't see the right to Chuck Schume as enshrined in the First Amendment of our Constitution 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

subject to the whims of this guy  Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) or those of like mind.

How many times are regular Americans subject to the intolerance progressive-liberal-leftist tirade about intolerance just to have Chuck come out with this tirade?


At a press conference Thursday, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said people with religious beliefs who disagree with the Obamacare contraception mandate should be given a choice between living by their faith or being allowed to form a corporation to do business.
“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.
HuH, WHAT?
Government GIVES!
Since when?
Silly Question to ask a liberal/progressive.
Read the rest of the article.
In the Hobby Lobby case, decided last month, the Supreme Court ruled that a closely-held family-owned corporation could not be forced by the government to violate their Christian beliefs by providing insurance coverage for drugs and devices that can cause abortions. Schumer argues that the court "misapplied" the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
“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.”
Schumer’s comments came at a conference to push the Protect Women's Health from Corporate Interference Act, a Democratic bill aimed at forcing employers to abide by the ObamaCare contraception mandate reversing the Supreme Court’s recent ruling on the issue.

No comments: