Skip to main content

View Diary: Hobby Lobby: Does RFRA violate the Establishment Clause? (263 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Sometimes discrimination is just discrimination (0+ / 0-)

    If a doctor refuses to perform any procedure necessary to save a person's life, because of religion  he/she shouldn't be a doctor. The same with Pharmacists who "have religious issues" in prescribing.
    If a butcher can't slaughter meat he/she shouldn't be a Butcher. These people went into these fields knowing their duties.
    If a company refuses to follow federal laws, they shouldn't have filed as a corporation to begin with. Here we have a case with Justice's refusing to uphold the precedent of existing established Constitutional law.

    I'm so sick of people using religion to discriminate.
    Alito and Robert's have been listed respectively as the 1st and 2nd most pro corporate Justices in a half century.
    If they can't safeguard our constitution they shouldn't be Justices. (not that Robert's is remotely qualified any more than any of Bush's appointees) "Good job, Brownie" anyone.

    It's bad enough we have no remedy for grossly unqualified elected officials making dangerous laws based in ignorance, that the general public is against. But lifetime appointees with the power to change the constitution out of Party favor is an even more dangerous precedence. If this happens where do we draw the line as a country?  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site