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.

CNS NEWS

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.

Obamacare vs. Regil

This President Obama guy just doesn't seem to understand the Bill of Rights thing.
Here I going to look at the First Amendment Right,

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

Of course nobody antagonistic to religion would confront that on it’s face. Attacks to the natural rights of, the people are side blinded.

The Hobby Lobby Hubub

ON March 25th the Affordable Care Act, better known as “Obamacare”, was back before the Supreme Court. Two years ago the justices upheld most of the law. This week they heard oral arguments in Sebelius v Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v Sebelius. These two consolidated cases concern Obamacare’s “contraceptive mandate”—the requirement that businesses offering their employees health insurance must provide plans that cover all federally-approved contraception methods at no extra cost to their employees.

Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties are both owned by Christians who believe that some of those contraceptive methods are tantamount to abortion, because they can prevent a fertilised egg from implanting in the uterus. The owners seek an exemption to the contraceptive mandate under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a statute that Congress passed almost unanimously in 1993. This says that “government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability”, unless the law is the least restrictive way to further a compelling state interest. (Many states have similar rules—see map.)

OK people. Abortion or what is considered  contraceptive methods are tantamount to abortion, because they can prevent a fertilised egg from implanting in the uterus. The owners seek an exemption to the contraceptive mandate under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)

That was step one. Next step moves from Christians to the Jews.

The Economist