Ruth Bader Ginsberg Hates Religious Freedom For Christians But Loves It For Muslims
By Brian Anderson, January 20, 2015.
In a unanimous decision the Supreme Court ruled that a Muslim prisoner had the right to grow a beard, citing religious freedom. Interestingly enough, the 4 liberal justices that felt Islam was worthy of protection today, last year felt Christianity didn’t have similar protection in the famous Hobby Lobby decision.
Last June the SCOTUS ruled in a split decision in the Burell v. Hobby Lobby case, that a family run company could opt out of paying for certain types of birth control that induce abortion because of religious beliefs. The court was divided with the 5 conservatives voting in favor of Hobby Lobby and the 4 liberal judges dissenting.
In today’s ruling, Arkansas Muslim prisoner Greg Holt’s beard was given immunity by the full bench, including the 4 liberal judges that suddenly found an interest in protecting religious freedom.
Fox News reports:
The justices said that inmate Gregory Holt could maintain a half-inch beard because Arkansas prison officials could not substantiate claims that the beard posed a security risk.
Holt claimed that he has a right to grow a beard under a federal law aimed at protecting prisoners’ religious rights.
This time around, the Obama administration, religious groups and atheists alike backed Holt, also known as Abdul Maalik Muhammad.
I know, it’s shocking that Obama would support the freedom of religion of a Muslim convict when he was against that same freedom for law-abiding Christian business owners.
So the question remains: why do the liberal judges support religious freedom sometimes and not others? Shouldn’t Constitutional protection be a blanket that covers everyone?
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who wrote the dissenting opinion in the Hobby Lobby case, explains the difference:
Unlike the exception the court approved in June for Hobby Lobby, “accommodating petitioner’s religious belief in this case would not detrimentally affect others who do not share petitioner’s belief,” Ginsburg wrote.
What she is comparing is a Muslim’s right to grow a beard, which isn’t even a tenet of Islamic law, versus a Christian’s right to not help facilitate the killing of an unborn child. So if I’m reading this correctly, Ginsberg feels that saving babies from being aborted is detrimental to society. That killing babies is more important than religious freedom. How do liberals look at themselves in the mirror?
Once again, liberals have shown their true hypocritical colors. They like some civil rights, but not all. They support freedom of speech as long as it’s speech they approve of. They support freedom of the press as long as what’s being reported leans left. They support freedom of assembly as long as those gathered are promoting a liberal cause. And they love freedom of religion as long as it’s a religion they don’t hate.
Sorry libs, but that’s not how a fair and just society works.
http://downtrend.com/71superb/ruth-bader-ginsberg-hates-religious-freedom-for-christians-but-loves-it-for-muslims/
