SCOTUS Rules employers do not have to provide contraception

[MarAzul]

Ouch MA . . . with as much as you complain about Obama, couldn't the same statement be said to you (Or maybe a different state with Merkley and Wyden)

OK to love a country and state but questions it's rules and leaders right?

I am not sure what your question is? I like the US. I do not like anything I know about Obama's philosophy or policies. I find myself in a similar place with respect to Oregon. All true
Are there better places to live? Perhaps, Iceland or New Zealand as suggested to me. Iceland is out, too cold, New Zealand, far too liberal and immigration is screwing it up rappidly. Dang near all the South Pacific
has the right to go to New Zealand.

But I am not sure what you ask.

 

[Sinobas]

Non sequiturs, every one of your questions.

Has a muslim employer imposed Sharia law? Bring it to court and let's get a resolution. But it hasn't happened, so you're just making shit up.

Quakers can refuse to serve in the military. And that's legit.

Religion is protected by the 1st, that's why.

Can you come up with something that's not so much bullshit?

Come on, you're playing dumb Denny, I know you're not that dense. All of Crandc's questions were addressing the question of whether or not a person or organization should be able to bypass a law, to the detriment of another party, in the name of religion. This is exactly what happened in this case. Why should it apply to contraception if it doesn't apply to those other things? Now that this precedent has been set, what justification would they have for refusing the things Crandc mentioned?

What was irrelevant was your post about how much birth control costs.

 

[Sinobas]

It must be disconcerting to live in a country with a Constitution. Especially one that grants you freedom to freely exercise your religion, or none if you wish, instead of giving you the right to buy cheesburger.
Dang, I never ran into that need, lucky me.

What country do you think would serve you well, since this one is so distasteful?

She's not talking about having the right to buy a cheeseburger, she's talking about OTHER PEOPLE imposing THEIR religious beliefs onto you. If we make adjustments in our laws for some whacko religion, that violates the principal of separation of church and state. Especially if we only do it for certain religions.

 

[Denny Crane]

At least the religious right has a reason for their stupidity....but you are true enigma.

I support the 1st amendment - it's not that hard to figure out.

 

[Denny Crane]

Come on, you're playing dumb Denny, I know you're not that dense. All of Crandc's questions were addressing the question of whether or not a person or organization should be able to bypass a law, to the detriment of another party, in the name of religion. This is exactly what happened in this case. Why should it apply to contraception if it doesn't apply to those other things? Now that this precedent has been set, what justification would they have for refusing the things Crandc mentioned?

What was irrelevant was your post about how much birth control costs.

All crandc's questions were bullshit. The court didn't rule on any of them. Nobody is bypassing any law. Should congress and/or the president stomp on our constitutional rights?

You're acting like you don't give a shit if they do. One day it will be a republican doing it and I'll be laughing at your change of heart.

 

[Denny Crane]

The court ruling is not denying anyone birth control or allowing anyone else to deny it.

You've got your panties in a bunch over imaginary issues.

 

[Denny Crane]

In fact, read this.

http://thefederalist.com/2014/06/30/6-stupid-arguments-about-hobby-lobby-from-dumb-liberals/

 

[PtldPlatypus]

All of Crandc's questions were addressing the question of whether or not a person or organization should be able to bypass a law, to the detriment of another party, in the name of religion. This is exactly what happened in this case. Why should it apply to contraception if it doesn't apply to those other things?

The Hobby Lobby did not impose their beliefs on anyone else. They simply want the business to have the freedom to choose how the business spends the money that the business is required by law to spend.

None of crandc's examples are analogous to this situation.

 

[barfo]

In fact, read this.

http://thefederalist.com/2014/06/30/6-stupid-arguments-about-hobby-lobby-from-dumb-liberals/

Tweets?

Arguing via tweets about a court case is just absurd. It's a little more complicated than that.

barfo

 

[Denny Crane]

Tweets have words to them. You read them one at a time from left to right. The person who wrote the words is included with the text.

Feel free to try again. Maybe you'll understand how it works the second try.

 

[The_Lillard_King]

I am not sure what your question is? I like the US. I do not like anything I know about Obama's philosophy or policies. I find myself in a similar place with respect to Oregon. All true
Are there better places to live? Perhaps, Iceland or New Zealand as suggested to me. Iceland is out, too cold, New Zealand, far too liberal and immigration is screwing it up rappidly. Dang near all the South Pacific
has the right to go to New Zealand.

But I am not sure what you ask.

I think you answered it, my question was simply:

What country do you think would serve you well, since this one is so distasteful?

What state do you think would serve you well, since Oregon is so distasteful?

 

[barfo]

Tweets have words to them. You read them one at a time from left to right. The person who wrote the words is included with the text.

Feel free to try again. Maybe you'll understand how it works the second try.

When the SCOTUS starts issuing their opinions in tweets, I guess tweets will be a good way to argue the merits of the case.
Until then, I'm going to continue to think that tweeting about a court decision is dumbing the subject down to the point it loses meaning.

barfo

 

[Eastoff]

I don't know if someone already mentioned it, but already scouts has changed their effective ruling to ALL forms of birth control.http://motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/supreme-court-scotus-hobby-lobby-all-forms-contraception

 

[oldmangrouch]

I support the 1st amendment - it's not that hard to figure out.

Interesting answer. As a "Libertarian", you are perfectly willing to tell government to MYOB. But when it comes to an individual bullying another and imposing their beliefs on them....that's OK.

Even the Constitution needs to be read with common sense. You can't have "freedom OF religion" unless you also have "freedom FROM religion". I don't even claim to be an atheist and I understand that. In a vacum, this decision may strike you as harmless. In context, it is the court starting down a very dangerous road.

 

[oldmangrouch]

The Hobby Lobby did not impose their beliefs on anyone else. They simply want the business to have the freedom to choose how the business spends the money that the business is required by law to spend.

None of crandc's examples are analogous to this situation.

A) That description also applies to the employees' wages. There is nothing in this decision to differentiate the two.

B) Individuals have freedom of religion. Applying that to a corporation is absurd.

 

[MarAzul]

A) That description also applies to the employees' wages. There is nothing in this decision to differentiate the two.

B) Individuals have freedom of religion. Applying that to a corporation is absurd.

Looks like you and Obama are both wrong. Nice huh, it's bitch to be alone.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

A) That description also applies to the employees' wages. There is nothing in this decision to differentiate the two.

B) Individuals have freedom of religion. Applying that to a corporation is absurd.

A) What is at issue here is the type of item that is provided. Insurance is being provided; the employer wants to be permitted to determine the type of insurance, within the framework of the law. How can that correlate to wages, specifically with regard to religious liberty?

B) This only applies to closely-held corporations, ie, those privately held by very few individuals. Mandating that a small business owner must abandon their religious principles in order to obtain the protections of incorporating sounds like a violation of the equal protection act.

 

[Sinobas]

The Hobby Lobby did not impose their beliefs on anyone else. They simply want the business to have the freedom to choose how the business spends the money that the business is required by law to spend.

None of crandc's examples are analogous to this situation.

Totally wrong. Their whole argument centered around freedom of religion. Businesses have to abide by the law, and whether you agree with it or not, the contraception aspect was apart of the law until it was over-turned on RELIGIOUS grounds.

 

[Denny Crane]

When the SCOTUS starts issuing their opinions in tweets, I guess tweets will be a good way to argue the merits of the case.
Until then, I'm going to continue to think that tweeting about a court decision is dumbing the subject down to the point it loses meaning.

barfo

The democrats who disagree with the decision are writing the tweets. And sinobas and crandc are repeating them here.

 

[Denny Crane]

Interesting answer. As a "Libertarian", you are perfectly willing to tell government to MYOB. But when it comes to an individual bullying another and imposing their beliefs on them....that's OK.

Even the Constitution needs to be read with common sense. You can't have "freedom OF religion" unless you also have "freedom FROM religion". I don't even claim to be an atheist and I understand that. In a vacum, this decision may strike you as harmless. In context, it is the court starting down a very dangerous road.

As a libertarian, I don't think we should have laws that force people to do what they don't want to do, period.

Employment is a voluntary situation. Don't like the benefits, go work somewhere else.

 

[Sinobas]

The court ruling is not denying anyone birth control or allowing anyone else to deny it.

You've got your panties in a bunch over imaginary issues.

They are not imaginary issues, you are simply not grasping the issue at all. I think you're being deliberately obtuse, just like the warden in the Shawshank Redemption.

 

[Denny Crane]

I don't know if someone already mentioned it, but already scouts has changed their effective ruling to ALL forms of birth control.http://motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/supreme-court-scotus-hobby-lobby-all-forms-contraception

Mother Jones has got it wrong. Scotus hasn't changed their effective ruling one iota.

It is ordering lower courts to rehear cases that may fall under this ruling.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Totally wrong. Their whole argument centered around freedom of religion. Businesses have to abide by the law, and whether you agree with it or not, the contraception aspect was apart of the law until it was over-turned on RELIGIOUS grounds.

Yes, and that is the point of constitutional challenges to laws. If a law is perceived to be in violation of the constitution, the affected party has the right to have their concern addressed. And that's what happened here.

What are you arguing about?

 

[Denny Crane]

They are not imaginary issues, you are simply not grasping the issue at all. I think you're being deliberately obtuse, just like the warden in the Shawshank Redemption.

No, you don't grasp the issue at all. See how easy that kind of argument is?

The court is not denying anyone birth control. Period.

If a woman wants to go buy pills, she can go buy them. If she wants to go to a doctor and get a prescription, she can. Walk in clinic is $15, the pills are $9/month. Boo fucking hoo.

Contraceptives for men were never covered by ObamaCare for some odd reason.

 

[Sinobas]

As a libertarian, I don't think we should have laws that force people to do what they don't want to do, period.

Employment is a voluntary situation. Don't like the benefits, go work somewhere else.

That's your ideology, but it doesn't change the fact that laws should not be circumvented by religion. An employer can't just say, "Hey I don't want to pay my employees this month, if they don't like it they can go somewhere else". They could start their own "don't pay your employees" cult that was rooted in a 3,000 year old religion and it wouldn't make one god damn bit of difference. They're breaking the law, and they gotta pay.

 

[Denny Crane]

That's your ideology, but it doesn't change the fact that laws should not be circumvented by religion. An employer can't just say, "Hey I don't want to pay my employees this month, if they don't like it they can go somewhere else". They could start their own "don't pay your employees" cult that was rooted in a 3,000 year old religion and it wouldn't make one god damn bit of difference. They're breaking the law, and they gotta pay.

Why should YOU tell anyone else what they must do?

You wouldn't like it if you were the one being told to do something you don't want to do.

I could care less about the religion. I hope it dies and goes away. But the 1st is the 1st.

 

[MarAzul]

That's your ideology, but it doesn't change the fact that laws should not be circumvented by religion. An employer can't just say, "Hey I don't want to pay my employees this month, if they don't like it they can go somewhere else". They could start their own "don't pay your employees" cult that was rooted in a 3,000 year old religion and it wouldn't make one god damn bit of difference. They're breaking the law, and they gotta pay.

You have got it backward sir.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

See! There is to be no law passed that gets in the way.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Why should YOU tell anyone else what they must do?

Why should Hobby Lobby....a fictional legal construct and not even a human being? You are granting a corporation power you admit neither government nor person should excercise.

Phooey. We are just going in circles at this point.

 

[Sinobas]

The court took away their coverage. And you know that some women are allergic to the pill and use an IUD which can cost up to $1,000. But the central issue here is principal and the precedent this sets. The total illogic of it and the abuse of judicial power. But anyway, we're just talking in circles here.

 

[3RA1N1AC]

hobby lobby can suck my balls

but we are just conversing in a circular manner