Results 1 to 2 of 2
  1. #1 Elite Feminists Ignorant of Legal Underpinnings of Hobby Lobby Decision 
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    9,940
    Elite Feminists Ignorant of Legal Underpinnings of Hobby Lobby Decision
    http://collegeinsurrection.com/2014/...obby-decision/

    Modern feminists are incredibly prone to black and white thinking (just think of all the times someone has been called a ‘misogynist’ for disagreeing with them), often at the expense of understanding the real issues at hand. Here’s another example of that: feminists at a recent Feminist Majority conference seemed completely unaware of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which was instrumental in the Hobby Lobby decision.

    Gabrielle Okun from Accuracy in Academia has the story:

    Ignorance of Elite, Liberal Feminists
    http://www.academia.org/ignorance-of...ral-feminists/

    It is one thing to be ignorant of a law. There are so many out there that none of us can keep track of them all, including the lawyers. It is quite another matter to be behind the curve on a statute you are debating.

    While the outcome of the Hobby Lobby Stores v. Burwell case is still heavily debated, it remains important to consider why the Supreme Court ruled the way it did in this controversial case.

    This issue received considerable attention at a recent Feminist Majority conference in which the importance of creating a women’s history museum in DC, the alleged gender pay gap, sexual assault, and female inequality in developing nations were also discussed. “This sets a dangerous precedent for the future of religious liberty and women’s rights,” Feminist Majority Foundation President Eleanor Smeal stated on the day of the decision, before the conference even began.

    Actually, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 says it “shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless “that burden is least restrictive to means of further compelling governmental agreement.” The question that the court debated was whether “RFRA allows a for-profit corporation to deny its employees the health coverage of contraceptives to which the employees are otherwise entitled by Federal Law, based on the Religious Objections of the Corporation’s Owners.” Clearly the RFRA provided the basic structure for the whole court case, which both sides must have realized.

    Unfortunately, this point was not brought up by anyone at the Feminist Majority Foundation’s DC Conference. When I asked for further questions about whether they agree or disagree with The Religious Freedom Restoration Act on For-Profit Corporations, the speakers offered no input on whether RFRA was applicable or even what the act entailed. It was quite disconcerting. When asked for further questions, they offered no comments.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #2  
    CU Royalty JB's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    8,060
    ...and female inequality in developing nations were also discussed.
    Like what and about whom I wonder. Did they mention the "M" word? Not likely.
    Be Not Afraid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •