Please help = Did any one hear a segment on NPR today about the peyote/religion decision?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

I just heard a small piece and it seems they were trying to connect this to the Hobby Lobby Decision.

I think this is the case they were referencing = The Supreme's Smith Indian Peyote Decision

[elleng]

1. Heard it somewhere.

Was behind RFRA, which was basis for Hobby Lobby.

Aftermath[edit]
Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in 1993, which required the application of strict scrutiny. In response to the Supreme Court's 1997 ruling in City of Boerne v. Flores, which declared the RFRA unconstitutional as applied to the states, Congress passed the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) in 2000, which grants special privileges to religious land owners.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith

[Tuesday Afternoon]

2. yes, thanks =

on edit:
I tried to search NPR and my local affiliate for the segment and could not find it. That is the case they were discussing.

[House of Roberts]

3. Scalia reversed himself

http://www.publiceye.org/ifas/fw/9004/court.html

In rejecting the men's claim that Oregon's law barring peyote use under all circumstances violates their religious freedom, Justice Antonin Scalia, in writing for the majority, said that the First Amendment freedom of religion does not allow individuals t o break the law: "We have never held that an individual's beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the state is free to regulate." He said it would be "courting anarchy" to create exceptions every time a reli gious group claims that a law infringes on its practices.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

4. yes, with this Hobby Lobby, it is the opposite of what he voted on The Smith Decision, correct?

Am I understanding this correctly?

[House of Roberts]

7. As I understand it, in the Smith case

Scalia's opinion reads that the individual's religion doesn't allow them to break a valid law.

In Hobby Lobby, Scalia has voted to allow exactly that.

I heard it this morning on Thom Hartmann.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

8. How can he do that? What is his reasoning/justification/rationale for this?

[MADem]

12. Well, if that Son of a Biscuit is going to get all situational on the law,

I think he needs to be impeached.

I think I'll become a Rastafarian and demand my right to practice my (inhale) religion (exhale) from, say, the visitor's gallery in Congress...during the morning prayer.

"Unhand me, Capitol Police...I am only practicing my (inhale) RELIGION!! (exhale)~~~! Yi feel mi, mon?"

[Tuesday Afternoon]

16. I feel ya, mon!

There is something very wrong going on here and, I think this needs more exposure.

[sheshe2]

5. I found this

http://www.thetakeaway.org/story/scotus-ruling-preceeded-hobby-lobby/

The SCOTUS Ruling on Peyote that Helped Hobby Lobby Win

Tuesday, July 01, 2014

Perhaps the most closely watched case before the Supreme Court this session came down yesterday with a 5-4 split decision that allows some privately held companies to opt out of a federal mandate to offer health insurance that includes birth control.

The court ruled in favor of two Christian-owned companies, Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties. The businesses challenged Affordable Care Act provisions requiring them to provide contraceptive benefits for their employees.

The key component of the Court's majority decision is a decades-old law passed by Congress in 1993 called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). It says that if there is another way to accomplish the government's purpose with a lesser restriction on religious liberty, that is what is required.

RFRA was adopted to counteract the 1990 Supreme Court case Oregon v. Smith in which two Native American men were denied unemployment benefits because they were fired for smoking peyote as part of a religious ritual. That landmark Supreme Court case established that the government is free to enact laws that interfere with an individual's religion so long as it applies to everyone and doesn't single out a specific group.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

6. I don't understand =

That landmark Supreme Court case established that the government is free to enact laws that interfere with an individual's religion so long as it applies to everyone and doesn't single out a specific group.

women aren't a specific group ... ?

[sheshe2]

9. I know Tuesday, I'm trying to understand too.

I would certainly think that we (women) are a specific group...

Kinda late for me but I have still been trying to find more. I haven't seen the NPR link yet.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

10. yes, late for me, too. Thanks for all the help, though

[House of Roberts]

11. The ACA didn't single out women.

The religious objectors in Hobby Lobby were granted special privileges they wouldn't have gotten in 1990, but I guess Scalia's reasoning used this Religious Freedom Restoration Act from 1993.

I still think the individual's rights should supersede the rights of the employer. If the religious objector employers don't want to use contraception, no one is forcing them to do so. Also, no one is forcing them to buy insurance, for themselves, that covers contraception.

I'm still waiting to see how the insurance companies comply with what the Hobby Lobby folks want, and yet comply with the ACA at the same time.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

13. confused

of course not the ACA but, didn't Hobby Lobby single out women ... ?

[kcr]

14. I think it's referring to the law, not the group of people

If the law applies to everyone equally, it can't be broken for religious purposes.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

15. Thanks, but what I think is I need someone to break it down like I am 5 y/o.

I guess I need to find the time to listen to the podcast and maybe then I will understand it.

Now that I know it was Thom Hartman I can search NPR and hear the whole thing.

Maybe, that will explain it.

Thanks everyone for helping.