RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom

RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

mnottertail -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (6/30/2014 1:47:03 PM)
Well, I dont see those as equivalents, there are a lot more women with cunts that penises are chasing than there are gay folks. And for reality, gay rights are not as 'looming' an issue as women's repro rights. For good or bad, there it is.

Raiikun -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (6/30/2014 2:17:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail -10 for usual dipshittery. -10 for lack of factual basis. -10 for lack of reality. +8 for portraying a broken toilet seat That's a little too harsh on yourself I think. Actually, nah, I'd have to say it's pretty accurate, and scoring yourself as such would probably be the first time you have said anything with a kernel of truth and insight.

mnottertail -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (6/30/2014 2:20:59 PM)
Nope, you got your bad breath and stupidity blowing back in your face.

Raiikun -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (6/30/2014 2:38:36 PM)
[image]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8e/Pee-Wee_Herman_%281988%29.jpg/220px-Pee-Wee_Herman_%281988%29.jpg[/image]

Moderator3 -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (6/30/2014 2:40:08 PM)
I realize this is the dungeon, but if nearly every post you make is name calling, etc. you are going a bit too far even for the dungeon. Personal attacks may be allowed as long as they don't go too far and we don't have a free-for-all. Please don't make me keep score. Do remember there is another section for politics if the dungeon is a bit too much for you. You can use the hide feature or simply not engage, as well. Thank you

mnottertail -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (6/30/2014 2:42:08 PM)
.... [Removed gross picture]

LookieNoNookie -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (6/30/2014 2:44:05 PM)
WOW!!!! That was entirely unnecessary.

LookieNoNookie -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (6/30/2014 2:45:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse The labor ruling is the most interesting. Private citizens caring for a loved one in their own home will not be forced to join a union. Nobody was ever forced to join a union. ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? You're running a crack house....right?

Moderator3 -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (6/30/2014 2:47:10 PM)
While members cannot see that picture, staff will be forced to see it every time we check this thread. Extreme pictures will not be allowed and if that one makes me barf, someone is in big trouble! [:D] !#&*#! Thanks! [:'(] I will revise my comment by saying, forget that gross out, I have just deleted it. [:'(]

Raiikun -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (6/30/2014 2:48:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie WOW!!!! That was entirely unnecessary. Now I'm almost curious as to what I missed when I took the kind Moderator's advice.

servantforuse -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (6/30/2014 3:21:08 PM)
Consider the source.

DaddySatyr -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (6/30/2014 3:24:52 PM)
... and yet, another topic that the lefties have no answer for, completely run off the rails by sandbox behavior. That's leadership for ya! Screen captures *still* RULE! Ya feel me?

Musicmystery -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (6/30/2014 3:26:34 PM)
I think it's a bipartisan effort. Show me ANY serious non-sandbox thread in this forum.

DomKen -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (6/30/2014 3:48:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr I read the ruling, earlier today and if I'm not mistaken (I'm not a lawyer), there's a part of the ruling that gets over-looked: This ruling will only allow companies with very few owners (my interpretation was smaller businesses and large corporations that are almost wholly owned by one family) to "set the tone" of their public face. Like it or not, you can't have it both ways; if there's such a thing as "corporate citizens" (I don't think there are/should be), the important word there is "citizen" and that's where the constitution comes into play. That wonderful document protects a citizen's right to freedom of religion. In fact, the wording is very specific: quote: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ... So, if corporations *are* citizens, they are entitled to not have the exercise of their religion curtailed in any way. I want to re-state: I don't think corporations are or should be viewed as citizens but, as long as they are ... Now, I think the ruling should absolutely apply to small, one-owner businesses. I don't think that just because a citizen owns a business (which contributes to the country's economic good) that they should be forced - by law - to go against their faith/conscience/morals/ethics (choose your word). If you read the ruling how did you miss that this was about the RFRA and not the 1st Amendment? The Court made a stupid ruling but they didn't go so far as to actually grant corporations 1st Amendment religious liberty rights. And that is what this ruling has done, started the clock on the demise of the RFRA. A solid majority don't like the ruling and no matter how Alito wrote the ruling that this won't apply to other sorts of mandates it is inevitable that other companies will try and use the RFRA to get out of other things the feds mandate.

Lucylastic -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (6/30/2014 4:38:10 PM)
After they dismantled the 35 foot barrier rules for clinic It was very likely they would go this way... I prefer Ginsbergs dissent. I have to admit I havent read it all yet, Im not that bored, but heres a snippet. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and mostly joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer. Ginsburg warned in her dissent that the decision was not as narrow as it claimed to be. "In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs," Ginsburg wrote. Ginsburg argued that the government has a "compelling interest" in providing no-cost birth control to women. "Those interests are concrete, specific, and demonstrated by a wealth of empirical evidence," she wrote. "To recapitulate, the mandated contraception coverage enables women to avoid the health problems unintended pregnancies may visit on them and their children." "President Obama believes that women should make personal health care decisions for themselves rather than their bosses deciding for them. Today’s decision jeopardizes the health of women that are employed by these companies." Just a snippet, for the full... ahem decision http://www.scribd.com/doc/231968582/Burwell-v-Hobby-Lobby strange that viagra and vasectomies are still covered...

JstAnotherSub -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (6/30/2014 4:45:34 PM)
I don't know if it has been covered, so excuse me if it has. Did anyone read enough to realize that Hobby Lobby and other companies will, in fact, provide birth control, such as regular birth control pills, foams, condoms and even surgical means. They just will not be forced to provide the morning after pills and, I believe IUD's, which they believe rather than preventing a pregnancy will stop an embryo from planting its self on the uterus and growing to a baby. At first glance, I was angry as hell about this, but I cannot say I am now. To me, and this is my opinion only, this allows all parties to get what they want and is a good compromise. Now I shall run and hide! link edit to include link to article

DomKen -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (6/30/2014 5:13:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JstAnotherSub I don't know if it has been covered, so excuse me if it has. Did anyone read enough to realize that Hobby Lobby and other companies will, in fact, provide birth control, such as regular birth control pills, foams, condoms and even surgical means. They just will not be forced to provide the morning after pills and, I believe IUD's, which they believe rather than preventing a pregnancy will stop an embryo from planting its self on the uterus and growing to a baby. At first glance, I was angry as hell about this, but I cannot say I am now. To me, and this is my opinion only, this allows all parties to get what they want and is a good compromise. Now I shall run and hide! link edit to include link to article Actually no. Any closely held corporation that believes that any contraceptive causes abortions can refuse to provide that contraceptive. And there definitely are cults that believe that the pill causes abortions, the morning after pill is simply a large dose BC pill. We have no idea what the various nuts who have sued over this will wind up refusing to cover. Specially once the Catholic companies get heard.

RockaRolla -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (6/30/2014 5:32:05 PM)
Hobby Lobby didn't let their religious beliefs get in the way when they invested in these same companies for their 401k plan. http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-401k-discovered-to-be-investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/

cloudboy -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (6/30/2014 6:54:46 PM)
quote: After they dismantled the 35 foot barrier rules for clinic The Supreme Court gets to have a 250 foot barrier between themselves and the public.

Lucylastic -> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom (6/30/2014 7:05:14 PM)
Of course they do, they are mostly men making decisions of importance!!!!!

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875