Supremes vote for religious bigotry

[icenine]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

Thanks!

that is what I call a BAM!

If I have to be in a post-Apocalyptic USA fighting Tea Baggers and Zombies things will be ok as long as you are in the trenches with me!

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by whell

Being honest and fair doesn't include asking one party to subordinate their religious beliefs to suit your point of view or your political agenda. .

I am not aking them to subordinate their religious view, merely suggesting that they abide by them and refrain from shoving them down everybody's throat. But you are so biased you just can't see that.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Being honest and fair doesn't include asking one party to subordinate their religious beliefs to suit your point of view or your political agenda.

I'm waiting for the Hobby Lobby CEO to get caught trying to force a hooker he impregnated to get an abortion. Holier-than-thou hypocrites like him are rarely so (from Larry Craig to Ted Haggard to Jimmy Swaggart).

[whell]

Originally Posted by merrylander

I am not aking them to subordinate their religious view, merely suggesting that they abide by them and refrain from shoving them down everybody's throat. But you are so biased you just can't see that.

I think you're so biased that you can't see that doing so would require them to violate their religious principles. They're not preventing women from accessing the contraceptive method of their choice. They're simply saying that if any of their employees want access to any of the 4 out of a possible 20 options, that the company won't pay for it. That's not "shoving anything down anyone's throat". That's living by a set of principles that are inspired by their religious beliefs.

[whell]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I'm waiting for the Hobby Lobby CEO to get caught trying to force a hooker he impregnated to get an abortion. Holier-than-thou hypocrites like him are rarely so (from Larry Craig to Ted Haggard to Jimmy Swaggart).

Hate much?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

Hate much?

Nope. I've just seen this movie before and it always ends the same.

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Having just read it, I disagree. They seem to be saying that because previous rulings have conveyed certain rights of people to corporations that all rights of persons should thereby convey in the future. The seem to stretch the concept of precedence a bit IMO. I gotta call BS on this ruling.

I'm about as anti-religious as they come; however, the narrow decision sought to resolve a fundamental conflict and did just that. The progressive caused problem can easily be remedied without walking on the religious liberty of the people, owners, of a closely held corporation. The assinine uproar by the left aptly demonstrates their utter lack of veracity wrt to the conflicting constitutional issue that their legislation caused. This case isn't the end of the world and is not a so-called attack on women's rights. The blatant misrepresentation of the decision is maliciously being used to gin up more division by what has now become the dividing party.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by bhunter

I'm about as anti-religious as they come; however, the narrow decision sought to resolve a fundamental conflict and did just that. The progressive caused problem can easily be remedied without walking on the religious liberty of the people, owners, of a closely held corporation. The assinine uproar by the left aptly demonstrates their utter lack of veracity wrt to the conflicting constitutional issue that their legislation caused. This case isn't the end of the world and is not a so-called attack on women's rights. The blatant misrepresentation of the decision is maliciously being used to gin up more division by what has now become the dividing party.

Please, the Preamble says "We the people" but the Roberts court has granted more rights to corporations than we the people enjoy. The owners of a limited corporation cannot be held responsible for the acts of a corporation, so the shareholders take the hit. You and I are held responsible for our action, not some third party. There are other examples of some on the court not following Article III "and shall hold their offices upon good behavior" what the Roberts court has been doing does not constitute 'good behavior' by any stretch of the imagination. Raising corporations to be above individuals is criminal.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by bhunter

I'm about as anti-religious as they come; however, the narrow decision sought to resolve a fundamental conflict and did just that. The progressive caused problem can easily be remedied without walking on the religious liberty of the people, owners, of a closely held corporation. The assinine uproar by the left aptly demonstrates their utter lack of veracity wrt to the conflicting constitutional issue that their legislation caused. This case isn't the end of the world and is not a so-called attack on women's rights. The blatant misrepresentation of the decision is maliciously being used to gin up more division by what has now become the dividing party.

Perhaps, but my gut tells me that the Hobby Lobby CEO doesn't really care one way or the other whether one of his many employees uses IUD's or RU486 (he even has personal investments in the companies manufacturing the things he apparently is upset about). He's more interested in being a willing tool of the GOP and a participant in a their war-of-a-thousand-cuts against Obamacare.

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Keeping in mind that Hobby Lobby's customer base is largely women, it will be interesting to see whether America's women will now shop elsewhere.

Do you really think that the number of women effected by the narrow decision is significant? IMHO most women are smart enough to understand the decision and skip the political meanderings by the democrat's to rev up their base.