Page 102 of 129 FirstFirst ... 25292100101102103104112 ... LastLast
Results 1,011 to 1,020 of 1290

Thread: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge[W:513,870]

  1. #1011
    Sage
    disneydude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,145

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    You're the one who said the invitation went out to companies.
    Very unspecific.
    More of that intentionally sloppy language.

    But cutting through the crap, I've said before many times to someone else here, if any company can satisfy the markers noted in the ruling, then they can & should take advantage of the relief.
    Right?

    Now, why was the case even necessary given Obama said everyone could keep their coverage?
    Do you think he lied?
    Only "sloppy language" to those who don't have a focus on the big picture. I can see where if you really didn't understand the big picture you might have been confused however.

    As to your second point can and should aren't always the same thing.

    Finally...the "Hobby Lobby" case has nothing to do with "keeping your coverage". It had to do with a company that didn't want to cover certain birth control. It probably would help if you read the decision. It would be much easier to discuss it.
    <font size=5><b>Its been several weeks since the Vegas shooting.  Its it still "Too Early" or can we start having the conversation about finally doing something about these mass shootings???​</b></font>

  2. #1012
    Sage
    Moot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:15 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    27,471

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by bubbabgone View Post
    Jonathan Merritt is a Leftist who uses the Evangelical pose to get quoted in sources like The Huffington Post.
    Are you questioning his faith? Come now bubba, are you really suggesting that anyone who doesn't believe exactly what the Green's believe aren't really Christians?



    Looks like the rightwing are trying to use religion to win political battles now. Do you know who else does that? Islamic terrorists.
    Last edited by Moot; 07-02-14 at 04:07 PM.

  3. #1013
    Sage
    poweRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    35,090

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by ludin View Post
    Ginsburg is implimenting a slippery slope fallacy. the narrow ruling only allows for contraception no other restrictions.
    it doesn't apply to one religion it applies to all equally so there is no violation of the establishment clause.

    nope what was unconstitutional was government thinking that i can violate peoples religious beliefs and practices.

    again it only applies to private companies and non-publicly traded companies and it only applies to contraception.
    The problem is that it puts a precedent of using religion to ignore law. The bigger problem is the "narrowing" aspect of a rulings. Its trying to flaunt law by making it apply only for the few. That is what is unconstitutional.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    The sad fact is that having a pedophile win is better than having a Democrat in office. I'm all for a solution where a Republican gets in that isn't Moore.

  4. #1014
    Guru
    Samhain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Northern Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:15 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    3,887

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithros View Post
    What about a Fundamentalist Christian who owns a corporation and believes very deeply in 2Thessalonians 3:10 (For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, If any will not work, neither let him eat.) Because of this, the Christian has a deeply held moral objection to paying for unemployment insurance. Under current law, non-profits are already exempt from paying unemployment insurance, just like religious non-profits already had an exemption to providing birth control as part of the ACA.

    Here the state obviously has a compelling interest to require corporations to pay for unemployment insurance; just as the court deemed the state had a compelling interest to require corporations to provide a portion of health care plans which covered certain care options. But there is clearly a path available to certain non-profits to avoid paying unemployment insurance. So using this ruling, because the court can envision a way for unemployment insurance to be paid without impacting the objecting Christian, that Christian corporation should be exempt from paying unemployment insurance.

    Any flaws in that logic?
    Seems straightforward, but we should probably read up on the RFRA provisions to see if there are any other exclusions/rules.

    You would need to bring suit against the government that the FSLA violates your religious beliefs protected by RFRA before we can find out what the judiciary thinks though.

  5. #1015
    Sage
    poweRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    35,090

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    Do you not know about RFRA, which was the law that SCOTUS applied to this decision?

    I suggest some research on RFRA. It was signed into law by Clinton in 1993. Do you want to know the main reason RFRA came into being? It was to protect the Native Americans (remember - the people who had you all worked up last week, worrying about their rights and thoughts on that trademark thing?). RFRA was intended to keep the government from intruding on Native Americans' sacred land. Everyone from the ACLU to the Catholic Church supported RFRA.

    All of a sudden, Ginsburg - who was an ACLU attorney who supported RFRA - has an issue with its application. She launches into an hysterical hypothetical about gelatin, pigs, and transfusions. How realistic do you think it is that people will all of a sudden not get blood transfusions covered by their insurance? Good grief.

    HHS made a decision to force all employers to offer 20 forms of birth control to their employees in their insurance. HHS disregarded RFRA, and SCOTUS (the honest ones) upheld RFRA< which again was signed into law by Bill Clinton.

    So the ones who made up **** willy nilly were the dissenters, not the ones who ruled in favor of it. Ginsburg supported a law in 1993 that she chose to ignore in 2014.
    You asking me who made crap up willy nilly? The conservative morons on the scotus.

    Like idiot boy scalia for example... Where in employment division vs smith he wrote his opinion on how natives who use peyote... In a practice far predating Christianity BTW... Can't use religion as an excuse. What a hypocritical dork that guy is.

    Face it, the right only likes the ruling because its a sticking of the thumb in Obamas eye. It has nothing to do with the constitutionality of it at all.
    Last edited by poweRob; 07-02-14 at 04:26 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    The sad fact is that having a pedophile win is better than having a Democrat in office. I'm all for a solution where a Republican gets in that isn't Moore.

  6. #1016
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    21,830

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post
    The problem is that it puts a precedent of using religion to ignore law. The bigger problem is the "narrowing" aspect of a rulings. Its trying to flaunt law by making it apply only for the few. That is what is unconstitutional.
    I agree. It may not be 'unconstitutional' but it sure does reflect on the ruling itself as being a type of legislating from the bench rather than resting on any principle. That's especially true because their 'reasonable accommodation' is for the Feds to just pay for the problem. If that's the case, there are all kinds of rules and regulations I'd like out of if I can get the government to pay on my behalf. Unemployment insurance was an excellent example.

  7. #1017
    Educator
    mtm1963's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    05-25-17 @ 04:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,067

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by disneydude View Post
    Wow....you are sadly mistaken. Read the decision.
    what i know is that liberals are misrepresenting what the ruling means.

    see this thread.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/bias-m...by-ruling.html

    the ruling allows companies to maintain the same policy they had before the administration, not congress, decided to mandate ALL companies provide for free ALL forms of approved forms contraception under ACA.

    NO i'm not mistaken.
    Go Vols

  8. #1018
    Sage
    poweRob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    35,090

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    I agree. It may not be 'unconstitutional' but it sure does reflect on the ruling itself as being a type of legislating from the bench rather than resting on any principle. That's especially true because their 'reasonable accommodation' is for the Feds to just pay for the problem. If that's the case, there are all kinds of rules and regulations I'd like out of if I can get the government to pay on my behalf. Unemployment insurance was an excellent example.
    Another thing I noticed is this whole bit about a "narrow" ruling. Its being used as an excuse to ignore any precedence. They just say that this ruling is applied so narrowly that there is nothing else like it. These guys are frauds in robes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    The sad fact is that having a pedophile win is better than having a Democrat in office. I'm all for a solution where a Republican gets in that isn't Moore.

  9. #1019
    White trash on dope.
    d0gbreath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Denton, TX
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,875

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Maenad View Post
    The only contraceptive HL objected to was the type that causes an abortion. The employees who want this coverage can purchase their coverage through the exchanges.
    If it's "the morning after" pill, it's not an abortion to me.

  10. #1020
    Guru

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:51 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,671

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Samhain View Post
    Seems straightforward, but we should probably read up on the RFRA provisions to see if there are any other exclusions/rules.

    You would need to bring suit against the government that the FSLA violates your religious beliefs protected by RFRA before we can find out what the judiciary thinks though.
    But if that's straight forward then "Christian" corporations will have a competitive advantage over corporations with other religious beliefs. These corporations will have a lower labor cost and we will have to pick up the tab. That certainly seems like a clear violation of the establishment clause.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •