Supremes vote for religious bigotry

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by whell

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.

The insurance pays for it for heavens sake. I am sure Care First Blue Cross who covers me privately will pay for those little blue pills. Frankly I strongly believe they should be outlawed simply because I believe ED is just Heaven's way of keeping the gene pool cleaner but I don't campaign in front of their HQ about it.

We all pay auto insurance although we all know that our rates are what they are because some people are allowed to drive cars yet should not even be allowed a tricycle.

Same deal with homeowners insurance, fire insurance so what the hell ever happened to separation of church and state. So keep your religion, enjoy it and all that goes with it but keep it out of government. If I wanted to live in a theocracy I could move to Iran.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by bhunter

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.

Well now that the camel's nose is in the tent we will just have to wait and see, won't we?

After all it only affects a few women and women are not anyone whose rights we should consider.

We really need to do universal healthcare and all of this crap would be moot. Instead ACA simply continues the diseasecare we currently have in place.

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by bhunter

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.

Do you really think the number of gunowners affected by an assault weapon ban would be significant?

IMHO the only civilians that would want to own an assault rifle are pea brained knuckle dragging psychopaths like the Yayhoo in this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkavwuWE5eQ

Seriously Dude, at the very mention of any kind of proposed gun control, no matter how minor and unobtrusive it may be, you right wingers start screaming your tits off about how Obama is going to take away your guns. As long as you are doing that kind of shit, you don't get to use the old "it's not a big deal" argument.

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by merrylander

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.

No they didn't. Once again the democrats and their minions expanded the scope of the Citizen United decision to bolster their divisive politics via their so-called "war on corporations." The concept of corporate personhood goes back to the early 1800s. Moreover, that wasn't even the issue wrt Citizen United. The only thing BCRA did: "The Citizens United ruling did however remove the previous ban on corporations and organizations using their treasury funds for direct advocacy. These groups were freed to expressly endorse or call to vote for or against specific candidates, actions that were previously prohibited." A corporation ought have an input into elections as ought unions or other associative groups. Note that all the other parts of McCain-Feingold remained including campaign contributions, limits on foreign contributions, etc.

http://billofrightsinstitute.org/res...ed-v-fec-2010/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen...ion_Commission

[icenine]

Originally Posted by bhunter

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.

You are sort of ignorant about demographics and the role single women play in running households. Birth control access is an important economic consideration for career women.

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

Do you really think the number of gunowners affected by an assault weapon ban would be significant?

IMHO the only civilians that would want to own an assault rifle are pea brained knuckle dragging psychopaths like the Yayhoo in this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkavwuWE5eQ

Non sequitur. There isn't a readily available remedy for an assault weapons ban like there is here for the proscribed methods of birth control.

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by icenine

You are sort of ignorant about demographics and the role single women play in running households. Birth control access is an important economic consideration for career women.

No I'm not. I think women are capable of making their own decisions and don't need the god-damn state telling them they're weak and need help. Speaking of which: Do you think democrats prefer single women households or married households given the demographics over the last, say, 50 years?

[djv8ga]

Originally Posted by bhunter

No I'm not. I think women are capable of making their own decisions and don't need the god-damn state telling them they're weak and need help. Speaking of which: Do you think democrats prefer single women households or married households given the demographics over the last, say, 50 years?

Dude, what's up with you? Democrat women are too damn ugly to need birth control.

[whell]

Originally Posted by merrylander

The insurance pays for it for heavens sake. I am sure Care First Blue Cross who covers me privately will pay for those little blue pills.

Do you understand the difference between a self insured plan like the one in place at Hobby Lobby, and a fully insured group or individual plan that you're describing. Your statement suggests that you don't, and the fact that Hobby Lobby has a self-insured plan was a key element in their lawsuit.

[piece-itpete]

Ike, at least you're honest

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.

Thank you.

Pete