Discrimination | Gay Rights | Law - Gay, LGBT | News | Supreme Court

Rachel Maddow On How The SCOTUS Hobby Lobby Ruling Is Already Being Used To Justify Anti-Gay Discrimination: VIDEO

Rachel

Last night Rachel Maddow took time to focus on the broad and dangerous impact of the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling, particularly, how the claim of “religious freedom" is already being used by religious groups to justify anti-gay discrimination:

"These groups want their religious beliefs to excuse them from having to follow the law on, not just contraception, not just health law rules, but on non-discrimination. They now, because of this ruling, want a religious exemption from laws that say you can't fire someone for being gay. They want to be able to fire people for being gay because they think God wants that."

Watch the segment, AFTER THE JUMP...

You can also read Ari Ezra Waldman's incisive analysis of the Hobby Lobby ruling HERE

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. small govt my GOP assholes....my ass

    Posted by: disgusted american | Jul 3, 2014 9:27:42 AM


  2. ...and as Usual the USA makes MORE problems for itself,and NOTHING to Help anyone moves forward...what a Joke this govt is

    Posted by: disgusted american | Jul 3, 2014 9:29:38 AM


  3. This is such a joke. This would allow any business to impose whatever religious beliefs it stewards have. Anti-gay, anti-woman, anti-people of color, etc.

    Conservatives suck.

    Posted by: Marshall | Jul 3, 2014 9:37:06 AM


  4. Let's see. I believe in Zeus. Modern medicine is incompatible with my belief. I think I should have the right not to provide health insurance to my employees. Does this exemption only apply to the Catholics? Is that religious discrimination against a much older and more respectable religion?

    Posted by: simon | Jul 3, 2014 9:51:25 AM


  5. The US is fūcked

    Posted by: Will | Jul 3, 2014 10:47:13 AM


  6. The conservatives are always concerned about the slippery slope of marriage equality, you know, marrying a horse or goat. This is the slipperiest slope I've ever seen. It brings us much closer to a theocracy, which is what they want as long as it is a Christian theocracy. The only ray of hope I see here is when various Christian sects start persecuting each other over how to say The Lord's Prayer and other trivial matters. Catholics vs Protestants, just like Sunni vs Shia.

    Posted by: Rich | Jul 3, 2014 10:49:47 AM


  7. Wait until men will not be able to get their hands on viagra - because the religious right labels that a form of birth control. Ha. Oh no this will never happen. The right likes it's men strong and viral. The right wants it's women to be second class citizens. They will use anything to keep this non religious belief. Sad day for America.

    Posted by: robertL | Jul 3, 2014 10:49:47 AM


  8. Sorry correction - virle

    Posted by: robertL | Jul 3, 2014 10:54:21 AM


  9. the conservative supremes made this mess, now let's watch as they attempt to clean it up - this is what happens when decisions handed down are political instead of constitutional.

    Posted by: northalabma | Jul 3, 2014 11:19:19 AM


  10. The militant Liberal lesbian apparently despises religious freedom.

    Posted by: Petey | Jul 3, 2014 12:57:39 PM


  11. Just like my conservative family despised having to call me their son. Having me for a son made my parents go from staunchly pro-Life to adamantly pro-abortion.

    Posted by: Petey | Jul 3, 2014 1:03:57 PM


  12. My mother did try to abort me by bouncing her stomach off the wall, resulting in a distorted fetus with the head up inside the ass.

    Posted by: petey | Jul 3, 2014 1:26:16 PM


  13. I forgot. My "peter" is also up my ass.

    Posted by: petey | Jul 3, 2014 2:26:31 PM


  14. The Roberts Court is such an embarrassment. Not a surprise, since we know who nominated this ideologue....

    How long do we need to wait for another Supreme Court reverses this stupidity.... (any remember Lawrence vs. Texas (and the original ruling)?

    Posted by: TonyJazz | Jul 3, 2014 2:43:35 PM


  15. She's right that people will attempt make such claims, but she's entirely wrong that such claims will now be upheld. Just this year, appeals using such claims were already denied cert at the SC, so the HL ruling changes nothing. This is just election year rabble rousing.

    Posted by: anon | Jul 3, 2014 4:37:54 PM


  16. @Simon - Forget about Zeus. What if your Jehovah's Witness boss doesn't have to give you coverage for that blood transfusion you need after a major accident, violent incident, or chemo. Or chemo itself. Or immunisation. Talk about slippery slopes - on Mount Everest.

    Posted by: Bob | Jul 3, 2014 8:38:53 PM


  17. Since there is no law that requires employers to provide medical coverage to anyone, maybe it is time to abolish the insurance companies and go to single-payer health coverage for everyone, Medicare for everybody and be done with it.

    Posted by: JSB | Jul 3, 2014 10:56:06 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Federal Judge Strikes Down Kentucky's Marriage Discrimination Law« «