A US district court judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Diocese of Joliet, the Diocese of Springfield, and four other Illinois Catholic entities against the HHS mandate. Judge …
So we have to violate our conscience in order for there to be a ruling? :shrug:
How crazy is that! :mad:
It seems to me the courts have been inconsistent on this matter. Some judges have granted injunctions blocking the mandate and others refuse to do anything on the grounds that there aren’t damages sustained yet.
There has always been the concept of seperation of Church and State. Now Obamacare is subrogating the Church to the State.
Not quite… he’s ruling that there have been no damages.
Essentially, what’s being said is that the diocese will have to end up paying fines and then suing for damages (or refusing to pay the fines, sue for damages, and risk going to jail in the meantime).
As others have said, there usually has to be a consequence (fine, imprisonment) or grievance for the courts to look at the unconstitutionality. You need to stand up for your conscience and be willing to take the consequences to demonstrate the unjustness of an unjust law
Judg is a Bil Clinto apointee
I hope the cases were not dismissed on merit but timing
This was always one of the possible outcomes, and it was the reason similar suits were filed in many different districts.
I believe this judge is wrong because the planning for insurance has to be done ahead of time and the HHS regulation makes it difficult or impossible to plan prudently.
No matter what courts rule, we have to answer to a higher authority and we were warned about this 2000 years ago.
"You will be hated by all because of My name, but the one who endures to the end, he will be saved.
1). No one is forcing anyone to do anything.
2). They just altered the contraception rules to allow for religious institution exemptions.
The courts have always allowed injuctions to prevent injuries. You can bet if this was some Democratic or left-leaning groups suing they would have been heard. Clinton appointee, now liberal stooge. If the reason wasn’t so lame, they might have a point.
- That is incorrect - the State is forcing entities to comply with the State’s dogmatic beliefs on contraception under threat of financial penalty.
- The alteration failed to account for the religious liberty of huge portions of the population.
They aren’t forcing anyone to get contraception or use it is the point. And you can’t keep moving the goalposts once someone comes your way. The problem was there was no exemption for religious institutions. Well now there is. You can’t now say oh but what about other people. Sorry but like I said no one is forcing anyone to use anything.