RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom

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

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 6/30/2014 1:47:03 PM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to servantforuse)

Post #: 41

RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 6/30/2014 2:17:54 PM

Raiikun

Posts: 2650
Status: offline

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.

< Message edited by Raiikun -- 6/30/2014 2:19:16 PM >

(in reply to mnottertail)

Post #: 42

RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 6/30/2014 2:20:59 PM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

Nope, you got your bad breath and stupidity blowing back in your face.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to Raiikun)

Post #: 43

RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 6/30/2014 2:38:36 PM

Raiikun

Posts: 2650
Status: offline

(in reply to mnottertail)

Post #: 44

RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 6/30/2014 2:40:08 PM

Moderator3

Posts: 3289
Status: offline

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

(in reply to mnottertail)

Post #: 45

RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 6/30/2014 2:42:08 PM

mnottertail

Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline

....

[Removed gross picture]

< Message edited by Moderator3 -- 6/30/2014 2:49:04 PM >

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30

(in reply to Raiikun)

Post #: 46

RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 6/30/2014 2:44:05 PM

LookieNoNookie

Posts: 12216
Joined: 8/9/2008
Status: offline

WOW!!!!

That was entirely unnecessary.

(in reply to mnottertail)

Post #: 47

RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 6/30/2014 2:45:19 PM

LookieNoNookie

Posts: 12216
Joined: 8/9/2008
Status: offline

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?

(in reply to mnottertail)

Post #: 48

RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 6/30/2014 2:47:10 PM

Moderator3

Posts: 3289
Status: offline

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!

!#&*#!

Thanks!

I will revise my comment by saying, forget that gross out, I have just deleted it.

< Message edited by Moderator3 -- 6/30/2014 2:50:13 PM >

(in reply to LookieNoNookie)

Post #: 49

RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 6/30/2014 2:48:25 PM

Raiikun

Posts: 2650
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to LookieNoNookie)

Post #: 50

RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 6/30/2014 3:21:08 PM

servantforuse

Posts: 6363
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline

Consider the source.

(in reply to Moderator3)

Post #: 51

RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 6/30/2014 3:24:52 PM

DaddySatyr

Posts: 9381
Joined: 8/29/2011
From: Pittston, Pennsyltucky
Status: offline

... 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?

_____________________________

A Stone in My Shoe

Screen captures (and pissing on shadows) still RULE! Ya feel me?

"For that which I love, I will do horrible things"

(in reply to servantforuse)

Post #: 52

RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 6/30/2014 3:26:34 PM

Musicmystery

Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline

I think it's a bipartisan effort.

Show me ANY serious non-sandbox thread in this forum.

(in reply to DaddySatyr)

Post #: 53

RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 6/30/2014 3:48:05 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to DaddySatyr)

Post #: 54

RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 6/30/2014 4:38:10 PM

Lucylastic

Posts: 40310
Status: offline

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...

< Message edited by Lucylastic -- 6/30/2014 4:45:57 PM >

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 55

RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 6/30/2014 4:45:34 PM

JstAnotherSub

Posts: 6174
Status: offline

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

< Message edited by JstAnotherSub -- 6/30/2014 4:47:30 PM >

_____________________________

yep

(in reply to Lucylastic)

Post #: 56

RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 6/30/2014 5:13:50 PM

DomKen

Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to JstAnotherSub)

Post #: 57

RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 6/30/2014 5:32:05 PM

RockaRolla

Posts: 1153
Joined: 1/20/2014
From: South Florida
Status: offline

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/

(in reply to DomKen)

Post #: 58

RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 6/30/2014 6:54:46 PM

cloudboy

Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline

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.

(in reply to Lucylastic)

Post #: 59

RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 6/30/2014 7:05:14 PM

Lucylastic

Posts: 40310
Status: offline

Of course they do, they are mostly men making decisions of importance!!!!!

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to cloudboy)

Post #: 60

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

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom

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

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.109