Supremes vote for religious bigotry

[Rajoo]

Interesting that you respond to dumbass, mutt, idiot, troll, shill, dipshit, dumbshit, pissant.....

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by finnbow

How exactly is it that corporations have religious beliefs? IMO, they are an inanimate construct incapable of belief and undeserving of treatment as people under our constitution. What a crock of chit.

Right. General Dynamics is a devout Christian, he's in church every Sunday.

How a business, filled with thousands of transient employees, managers and myriad stockholders of diverse demographic and background can be called an "individual" has to be the biggest stretch in the universe. It is so bizarre and nonsensical it boggles the mind.

When the lie is so big................

Dave

[ebacon]

Here is a link to the opinion. IMO the majority got it right. The opinion is narrowly carved such that it applies only to closely-held corporations. The court does a good job of explaining how it closed the person-corporation gap for this set of facts. See Sec. IIIA, PDF pages 22-25.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...3-354_olp1.pdf

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by ebacon

Here is a link to the opinion. IMO the majority got it right. The opinion is narrowly carved such that it applies only to closely-held corporations. The court does a good job of explaining how it closed the person-corporation gap for this set of facts. See Sec. IIIA, PDF pages 22-25.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions...3-354_olp1.pdf

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.

[whell]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

For one, they say 'you may not use your health insurance for certain things, for religious reasons.'

So? You can't use health insurance to get a nose job or liposuction either. Does that mean that insurance companies are also discriminating against fat and ugly people?

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by whell

So? You can't use health insurance to get a nose job or liposuction either. Does that mean that insurance companies are also discriminating against fat and ugly people?

Weak, weak, weak.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by whell

So? You can't use health insurance to get a nose job or liposuction either. Does that mean that insurance companies are also discriminating against fat and ugly people?

That would be the insurance industry not funding elective procedures that are often purely cosmetic in nature. The purpose is economic, not because the High Holy Hokus Poker came to them during a mushroom induced dream, in the form of a golden Bullfrog, and told them they'd burn in hell for funding the liposucking of muffin-tops.

There is a difference.

Dave

[bobabode]

Oh man, I'm dyin' here Dave.

Cheesy golden bullfrog Chia Pets on sale now 50% off at Hobby Lobby.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by whell

So? You can't use health insurance to get a nose job or liposuction either. Does that mean that insurance companies are also discriminating against fat and ugly people?

But you can use health insurance to circumvent ED, hardly a life threatening condition and surely an elective procedure.

As and HR type you must admit that Health insurance is part of the total compensation package. If her employer can dictate how that is parceled out then is it not just a step along to say said employer can dictate how the rest is spent? This asinine decision by five old men is about what I have come to expect from the Robert's court. Next on the agenda is probably the rollback od women's suffrage.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by whell

So? You can't use health insurance to get a nose job or liposuction either. Does that mean that insurance companies are also discriminating against fat and ugly people?

But you can use health insurance to circumvent ED, hardly a life threatening condition and surely an elective procedure.

As and HR type you must admit that Health insurance is part of the total compensation package. If her employer can dictate how that is parceled out then is it not just a step along to say said employer can dictate how the rest is spent? This asinine decision by five old men is about what I have come to expect from the Robert's court. Next on the agenda is probably the rollback of women's suffrage.