Supremes vote for religious bigotry

[djv8ga]

Originally Posted by finnbow

I think that a lot of women will see GOP cheerleading/support of the Hobby Lobby decision as them again being willing accomplices in wealthy, influential men phucking with their rights.

Like Bill Clinton signing the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993"...Correct?

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

His opinion doesn't matter because he's a billionaire?

Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press - it's all freedom period, all facets of the same jewel. A restriction on one is a restriction on all.

Pete

It's not his opinion that is troubling. It's that he's willing to use his own (mythological) beliefs to screw with the benefits of his employees and/or carry the water of the GOP's nihilist agenda.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by bhunter

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

Then for giggles try this link

http://famguardian.org/Publications/...ts/corpor.html

You migfht brush up on your history.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

WTF? In what sense is the state 'telling women they are weak' here? Illogical meme trigger, seems to me....

And god-damn state? Such animosity! Such emotion!

could it be?

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by whell

Your statement, of course, is in jest an not universally true. Many liberal women just unfortunately spring ugly parents. Take Chelsea Clinton. Its not her fault that Howdy Doody was cosmetically challenged.

I just can't imagine why anyone would think that the Republican Party is populated with misogynists.

And how do women spring parents?

[whell]

Originally Posted by d-ray657

I just can't imagine why anyone would think that the Republican Party is populated with misogynists.

And how do women spring parents?

...spring FROM... would be the the corrected language.

And in case you've not noticed, ugly is ugly, and knows no gender. On the other hand, you've got similar misogyny on the left: the men here in the forum believing that women without birth control devices are somehow powerless. I'd suggest that's a streaming pile of crap, but its also a pretty interesting insight in how lefty men view women.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by whell

...spring FROM... would be the the corrected language.

And in case you've not noticed, ugly is ugly, and knows no gender. On the other hand, you've got similar misogyny on the left: the men here in the forum believing that women without birth control devices are somehow powerless. I'd suggest that's a streaming pile of crap, but its also a pretty interesting insight in how lefty men view women.

It's an interesting insight in how you'll say stuff that doesn't have a single thing to do with reality....

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by whell

Crock alert. How is covering 16 out of the 20 HHS defined essential contraceptive treatments/devices "dumping their beliefs on others"? And by the way, it could also be said that the HHS regulation of requiring coverage for post-conception birth control was the government "dumping its beliefs" on Hobby Lobby's owners.

The crock is between your ears. There are devices and medications in this case that are not "abortifacients" in even the most vague sense of the term.

How TF is a copper wire intrauterine device an abortion, outside of the delusional religiosity of David Green? Because it won't let a fertilized ovum develop into a zygote? Well guess what whell...that makes mother nature the world class abortionist of all time. IUD's are not abortions.

And there are contraceptive medication in this case that are used to treat non-gestation related female reproductive system disorders...endomitriosis, polycystic disease, and certain uterine cancers. The Green family and other delusional religious fanatics want to deny women with these conditions coverage for the most appropriate treatment available because there might be a "morally objectionable" application that somebody else might utilize. Tough shit. It's none of their business.

So OK...let's say David Green decided to be a marignal human being and pontificate that it's OK for women who work for him to get contraceptive medication only if it's gonna be used to treat their endomitriosis. Fuck you Dave, it's none of your goddamn business. It's nobody's business but the woman and her physician.

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

It's an interesting insight in how you'll say stuff that doesn't have a single thing to do with reality....

Has a lot to do with misogyny though.

[MrPots]

Originally Posted by whell

Your statement, of course, is in jest an not universally true. Many liberal women just unfortunately spring ugly parents. Take Chelsea Clinton. Its not her fault that Howdy Doody was cosmetically challenged.

I don't often make personal comments, but you sir are an ugly little man. Both in stature and character.