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  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/2/2014 1:59:41 AM   
Marc2b


Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline 		The solution to his problem is obvious: start his own religion in which blow jobs are a sacrament.

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 101
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/2/2014 2:06:19 AM   
Marc2b


Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

See and here I thought using name calling to hide one's lack of any form of rational argument was something most ceased doing during elementary or middle school.


You sir, have evidently been living under a rock . . . in a cave . . . on Mars.

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to Raiikun)
Profile   Post #: 102
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/2/2014 2:11:56 AM   
Marc2b


Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

I think their sales might be going up. Remember the boycott against ChickFilet ?


You mean the one that ultimately succeeded?

< Message edited by Marc2b -- 7/2/2014 2:30:02 AM >

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to servantforuse)
Profile   Post #: 103
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/2/2014 2:24:03 AM   
Marc2b


Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

After they dismantled the 35 foot barrier rules for clinic It was very likely they would go this way...


Despite my disdain for for the kind of people who like to stand on sidewalks and scream at other people, I come too close to being a free speech purist (one of the few things I come close to being a purist on) to disagree with that ruling. Certainly people have to right to walk down the sidewalk (and enter buildings) unimpeded but they don't have the right to censor those around them just because they don't like the message.

Conversely, however, I believe that people also have the right to stand on a sidewalk outside of church holding a sign that says: "your god is fictional, Jesus is just a dead carpenter, so stop being a dick to people."

< Message edited by Marc2b -- 7/2/2014 2:31:12 AM >

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 104
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/2/2014 3:02:08 AM   
DomKen


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

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

After they dismantled the 35 foot barrier rules for clinic It was very likely they would go this way...


Despite my disdain for for the kind of people who like to stand on sidewalks and scream at other people, I come too close to being a free speech purist (one of the few things I come close to being a purist on) to disagree with that ruling. Certainly people have to right to walk down the sidewalk (and enter buildings) unimpeded but they don't have the right to censor those around them just because they don't like the message.

Conversely, however, I believe that people also have the right to stand on a sidewalk outside of church holding a sign that says: "your god is fictional, Jesus is just a dead carpenter, so stop being a dick to people."

My only problem with the ruling is they left in place the 250 foot barrier they enjoy around the Supreme Court building and their homes. If you protest inside that barrier the US Marshall service takes you to jail.

(in reply to Marc2b)
Profile   Post #: 105
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/2/2014 3:35:39 AM   
Marc2b


Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

My only problem with the ruling is they left in place the 250 foot barrier they enjoy around the Supreme Court building and their homes. If you protest inside that barrier the US Marshall service takes you to jail.


Ya know, my first thought upon reading that sentence was: Well, yeah, they naturally attract nutcases who like to use bullets and bombs so a little extra precaution is necessary. Then it occurred to me that the same could be said about abortion clinics (and I'm not usually that quick in this early in the morning).
Philosophically speaking, I too have to be opposed to the Supreme's barrier.

Realistically, I think it would be reasonable to have a small (say 10 or 15 feet) exclusionary zone around building entrances to prevent bottlenecks, both as a safety precaution and to preserve people's right to unimpeded access. As for the rest, if we don't like the message someone is advocating, we are free to ignore it or respond to it as we wish (within the same reasonable restrictions). Freedom of speech after all, is not the freedom to be listened to or the freedom of to be taken seriously.

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 106
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/2/2014 4:18:32 AM   
LookieNoNookie


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

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
How can any reasonable person disagree with this:
Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said the court’s decision “jeopardizes the health of women employed by these companies” and that “women should make personal health care decisions for themselves, rather than their bosses deciding for them.”


Where does this ruling declare that a woman can't use birth control, IUD's, morning after pills, etc.? They can still make personal health care decisions for themselves, but can't force the costs of those decisions on their bosses in cases where it goes against their bosses religious beliefs

They can still go out and purchase birth control, can't they? They can still use IUD's and "morning after" pills, right?



That is correct.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 107
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/2/2014 4:36:53 AM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline 		They pay for their insurance, why should they pay twice?

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to LookieNoNookie)
Profile   Post #: 108
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/2/2014 4:59:07 AM   
PeonForHer


Posts: 19612
Joined: 9/27/2008
Status: offline
quote:

"your god is fictional, Jesus is just a dead carpenter, so stop being a dick to people."


Uninterestingly, I heard a while ago that it doesn't say he was a carpenter in the Bible.

_____________________________

http://www.domme-chronicles.com


(in reply to Marc2b)
Profile   Post #: 109
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/2/2014 5:26:21 AM   
Marc2b


Posts: 6660
Joined: 8/7/2006
Status: offline
quote:

Uninterestingly, I heard a while ago that it doesn't say he was a carpenter in the Bible.


I've read . . . somewhere, once . . . that the original word being translated as "carpenter" would be more accurately translated as "builder" or - if your are feeling conspiratorial minded - "stonemason."

Either way, the man is as dead and so is Elvis.

_____________________________

Do you know what the most awesome thing about being an Atheist is? You're not required to hate anybody!

(in reply to PeonForHer)
Profile   Post #: 110
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/2/2014 6:01:09 AM   
Raiikun


Posts: 2650
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
How can any reasonable person disagree with this:
Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said the court’s decision “jeopardizes the health of women employed by these companies” and that “women should make personal health care decisions for themselves, rather than their bosses deciding for them.”

Where does this ruling declare that a woman can't use birth control, IUD's, morning after pills, etc.? They can still make personal health care decisions for themselves, but can't force the costs of those decisions on their bosses in cases where it goes against their bosses religious beliefs
They can still go out and purchase birth control, can't they? They can still use IUD's and "morning after" pills, right?

Women employed at low wages can't generally afford $600 a year in extra expenses.


There is a way to change that, isn't there?

That something is difficult for some isn't a good reason for them to be given out at another's expense.



This exactly.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 111
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/2/2014 6:26:47 AM   
vincentML


Posts: 9980
Joined: 10/31/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LookieNoNookie


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
How can any reasonable person disagree with this:
Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said the court’s decision “jeopardizes the health of women employed by these companies” and that “women should make personal health care decisions for themselves, rather than their bosses deciding for them.”


Where does this ruling declare that a woman can't use birth control, IUD's, morning after pills, etc.? They can still make personal health care decisions for themselves, but can't force the costs of those decisions on their bosses in cases where it goes against their bosses religious beliefs

They can still go out and purchase birth control, can't they? They can still use IUD's and "morning after" pills, right?



That is correct.

No. Incorrect. If, as DS says, these are "personal health care decisions" they should not be proscribed by the boss's religious sensitivities. What the Majority ignored was that personal health care decisions have impacts on the society. There is a greater public interest for women to refrain from pregnancy and stay in the work place. The Hobby Lobby religious sensibility is woven out of the fabric of a history of keeping women in inferior positions.

If "they can still go out and purchase birth control" you and I can "still go out and purchase our own damn flu shots." Even of course if insurance supported inoculations offend the religious creed of some ass hole boss.

(in reply to LookieNoNookie)
Profile   Post #: 112
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/2/2014 7:26:40 AM   
mnottertail


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

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

The solution to his problem is obvious: start his own religion in which blow jobs are a sacrament.


Already got that.

_____________________________

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


(in reply to Marc2b)
Profile   Post #: 113
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/2/2014 8:23:29 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline 		Babies are people, but who is claiming that a building is composed of people?

No one denies that babies are people.
But somehow the med school you flunked out of taught you that a fetus was a baby. One has to wonder how fucking stupid someone has to be to believe that moronic shit. One also has to wonder why that fucking moron has never thought to consult a real doctor about what is and is not a baby. Are you terminally fucking stupid or did your momma use your head for an anvil while you were growing up?

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 114
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/2/2014 8:39:11 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

SCOTUS got it right on both rulings today.


Don't get to cocky. The Supreme Court has gotten it right before - Dred Scott, Plessy vs Ferguson - only to have a bunch of crybaby liberals reverse those decisions later on.


Indeed

(in reply to Marc2b)
Profile   Post #: 115
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/2/2014 8:42:51 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
ORIGINAL: Marc2b


Conversely, however, I believe that people also have the right to stand on a sidewalk outside of church holding a sign that says: "your god is fictional, Jesus is just a dead carpenter, so stop being a dick to people."


Would it be ok if I used my sign to bar your way. Would the volume and vitriol of my speech be subject to any control?I thought it was his mom's husband that was the carpenter who fired the pool boy for knocking his wife up.

(in reply to Marc2b)
Profile   Post #: 116
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/2/2014 8:44:57 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

The solution to his problem is obvious: start his own religion in which blow jobs are a sacrament.


Already got that.


Where do I sign up?
How much are the dues???Will tithing work?

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 117
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/2/2014 8:52:01 AM   
eulero83


Posts: 1470
Joined: 11/4/2005
Status: offline 		FR

but if corporations are people, shouldn't owning and trading them a crime?

edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSLGt0-bHIA

< Message edited by eulero83 -- 7/2/2014 8:54:47 AM >

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 118
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/2/2014 10:28:43 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
There is a way to change that, isn't there?
That something is difficult for some isn't a good reason for them to be given out at another's expense. You do realize, don't you, that this ruling only applies to IUD's and a couple "after the act" pills, right?

Not with all the cutting to planned parenthood and other people who supply low cost contraceptives to low income women.Its not at someone elses expense, the women are paying for their own expenses when they pay their insurance. they are covered by the ACA.
Why is contraception the only medical choice disallowed, you dont get to pick and choose where your tax/insurance money goes to.well unless you use religion as a reason.
Can you imagine Obama trying to get a bill thru congress making all BC types available wether or not your boss says no you cant have it?
LMFAO
especially since just in the last six months that 733 provisions to bills by the repukes are limiting womens health choices even farther.


Edited to strike: This only applies to 4 "birth control" things: 2 "morning after" pills, and 2 IUD's. So, "The Pill" is still covered.

The problem is, Lucy, that I don't have any need for women's birth control, but it will factor into my insurance costs. Unless the person is paying 100% of the insurance costs (premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and whatever the insurance company isn't paying), someone else is paying for the birth control. If the person is paying none of the premiums and birth control is mandated to be covered at 100%, then that woman is having her birth control 100% subsidized by someone else.

Most employers I've worked for covered 60-75% of the premium cost. My ex's employer covers 100% of the premiums.

If a woman is getting a subsidy to help her afford the insurance premiums, she's not paying all her costs, either.


< Message edited by DesideriScuri -- 7/2/2014 10:35:42 AM >

_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 119
RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom - 7/2/2014 10:33:05 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Actually it applies to all forms of contraception. SCOTUS issued a clarification to all lower courts today.
http://news.yahoo.com/justices-act-other-health-law-mandate-cases-133633160--politics.html;_ylt=A0LEV0_Jw7JTfGsAwEJXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB0aTRxYjk3BHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDQ2NF8x


Thanks for that update. I hadn't seen that.


_____________________________

What I support:

  • A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  • Personal Responsibility
  • Help for the truly needy
  • Limited Government
  • Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: SCOTUS on HOBBY LOBBY and religious freedom Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   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 Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109