Discussion: Gitmo Detainees Point To Hobby Lobby In Fight For Prayer Rights

Discussion for article #224728

Haha. I bet the Christianista never thought this would apply to Mooslims.

16 Likes

Unfortunately, the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act does not apply to the Guantanamo Bay detainees because they are not American citizens, whereas US corporations are.

1 Like

You know, the fucked up part about this is the Guantanamo detainees have much better logic and a more sound legal basis than Hobby Lobby does

16 Likes

If they incorporate, they would have an interesting case.

7 Likes

Probably, but that is still unbelievably f*#ked up.

1 Like

I’m curious. Do you believe that corporations are “natural-born” citizens, or are they “naturalized” citizens? Could a corporation be elected President?

8 Likes

Let’s all watch just how fast our right-leaning friends flip a 180 on the recent SCOTUS ruling, now that they know Muslims are trying to get in on it. Cue Fox News fake outrage in 5-4-3-2-1…

4 Likes

Don’t call it Wahabi Lobby for nutin’

9 Likes

If all HobbyLobby wanted to do was pray I wouldn’t have a problem with the decision.

4 Likes

Yes, it did happen. 2000 to be exact.

1 Like

The ‘Wahhabi Lobby’ decision will have consequences these shortsighted Xtians never expected…out of Pandora’s ‘box’ might spring many Whores of Babylon.

8 Likes

Sale on black Hajib and Burkha cloth - aisle 3…50% off if you buy in the next 30 minutes.

3 Likes

Corporations aren’t citizens yet my friend!

1 Like

I keep waiting for someone to try to block a Chapter 7 bankruptcy with a claim that it violates the 8th Amendment.

2 Likes

Interestingly, in Boerne vs. Flores, Justice John Paul Stevens had this to say in his concurrence [Archbishop Flores wanted to expand a historic mission contrary to Texas’s Historic Preservation Act. The City of Boerne Denied. Archie sued under RFRA. RFRA was declared unconstitutional as applied to states. Still valid federally]:

In my opinion, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) is a “law respecting an establishment of religion” that violates the First Amendment to the Constitution. If the historic landmark on the hill in Boerne happened to be a museum or an art gallery owned by an atheist, it would not be eligible for an exemption from the city ordinances that forbid an enlargement of the structure. Because the landmark is owned by
the Catholic Church, it is claimed that RFRA gives its owner a federal statutory entitlement to an exemption from a generally applicable, neutral civil law. Whether the Church would actually prevail under the statute or not, the statute has provided the Church with a legal weapon that no atheist or agnostic can obtain. This governmental
preference for religion, as opposed to irreligion, is forbidden by the First Amendment. Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 52—55 (1985).

Note, that it doesn’t MATTER WHAT RELIGION, Mormon, Catholic Protestant Hebrew, Muslim, Rastafarian, Zoroastrian, etc., we’re talking about. All other arguments and ethical considerations aside, as an agnostic leaning toward atheist, Hobby Lobby and others who hold “sincerely held religious beliefs” have a legal and financial advantage, whether used or not, that no atheist or agnostic business owner could ever avail themselves of.

8 Likes

And yet, we’re probably just one SCOTUS ruling away from that. Once corporations are granted more rights than actual citizens, it’s just a matter of time before they are granted citizenship.

A few years ago there was a small company (owned by progressives) that actually filed the paperwork and ran for office. It was done partly as snark, but also to push the point as far as possible. The corporation lost the election, but there was no legal challenge.

2 Likes

Challenge the ruling all the way to Supreme Court, if necessary! Shove the unintended consequences in the Five Supremes’ faces!!

2 Likes

American-origin corporations are natural-born citizens; foreign-origin corporations doing business here are naturalized citizens.
Only natural-born corporations 35 years of age and older can be elected POTUS.

Were they to run for office, the candidate debates would rival the Super Bowl ads!

2 Likes

But the justices may let the age requirement slide if the paperwork is too complicit to complete.

1 Like