Page 57 of 129 FirstFirst ... 747555657585967107 ... LastLast
Results 561 to 570 of 1290

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

  1. #561
    He's the most tip top
    Top Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,299

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    You just have your panties twisted because they dared defy the government and your cause.
    I couldn't care less about the government per se. I just don't cotton to people who want me to live by their religious mores.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    You have no empirical evidence backing up your false assertion. You are simply conjecturing based on a whim...
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkeye10 View Post
    Or maybe "We now understand why women provoke men into hitting them".
    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    . Losing insurance does not mean losing healthcare. .

  2. #562
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,699

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    I couldn't care less about the government per se. I just don't cotton to people who want me to live by their religious mores.
    And no one is. Your argument is goofy beyond words.

  3. #563
    He's the most tip top
    Top Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,299

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by VanceMack View Post
    And no one is. Your argument is goofy beyond words.
    Let's make **** up shall we Vance?
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    You have no empirical evidence backing up your false assertion. You are simply conjecturing based on a whim...
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkeye10 View Post
    Or maybe "We now understand why women provoke men into hitting them".
    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    . Losing insurance does not mean losing healthcare. .

  4. #564
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,699

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    Let's make **** up shall we Vance?
    You have been doing a great job of it...keep going. Religion isnt meddling in government. You are making a goofy argument. Religion isnt meddling in your life. You are making a goofy argument. I'd bet money that without googling it right now you dont even know what is being considered. You cant even answer Grants question of you without an open book and at least 2 instructor assists. Hell, I'd bet you are one of those guys that believe Sandra Fluke was denied contraceptives.

  5. #565
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,053

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Is anyone else a bit surprised that the second largest privately held company in the US is Koch Industries?
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  6. #566
    He's the most tip top
    Top Cat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    22,299

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    [QUOTE=VanceMack;1063472216]You have been doing a great job of it...keep going. Religion isnt meddling in government. /QUOTE]

    Like I said, let's make **** up now shall we?
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    You have no empirical evidence backing up your false assertion. You are simply conjecturing based on a whim...
    Quote Originally Posted by Hawkeye10 View Post
    Or maybe "We now understand why women provoke men into hitting them".
    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    . Losing insurance does not mean losing healthcare. .

  7. #567
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,193

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by poweRob View Post
    Or you could try to find out why your boys refuse to rule on precedent and instead just fabricates one time bias laws from the bench. Then you can actually begin to understand how a nation of laws is supposed to work and therefore learn what is and isn't unconstitutional instead of doing these throw-away non sequiturs.
    They're not "my boys" - but if you want to talk about whose "boys" did what, presuming no female members of congress were involved, you might want to ask why the Democrat who ran the entire ACA show weren't up front when the legislation was being drafted and passed with their desire to fully fund all forms of contraceptives and abortive drugs? You think it might have had something to do with a lot of pro-life Democrats not supporting the bill if they did? I think so.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  8. #568
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,193

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    Well, let Navy Pride tell it and the other five ruled by their religious convictions not the constitution.
    Could be, but I doubt it - otherwise, they'd be looking for opportunities to trash Roe v Wade and they've basically always supported it.
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  9. #569
    Maquis Admiral
    maquiscat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,010

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    The court says it does apply to closely held corporations but it does not say that the ruling does NOT or cannot apply to publicly held corps, only that it's less likely and none have made a claim so far. But what if a Saudi buys 50.01% of a public company? Can they make a claim based on Sharia? Who knows, but there is nothing in the ruling preventing such a claim under RFRA.
    Any claim that they would make based upon Sharia would have to be in regards to what they would provide or do, but not what an employee could do outside the workplace. So they could make women who worked in their company wear burkas while on the job but they could not enforce that rule outside of the workplace. The same principle is what is being applied to HL. HL is not going to provide what they do not religiously support, but they aren't even trying to stop women from getting what they want on their own.
    Bi, Poly, Switch. I'm not indecisive, I'm greedy!

  10. #570
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,234

    Re: Supreme Court backs Hobby Lobby in contraceptive mandate challenge

    Quote Originally Posted by Perotista View Post
    Perhaps as I said, what we are going on is what each one of us heard, Ginsburg may be on to something or she just might be hyperboling a descending point of view. Time will tell. But the first amendment is pretty specific:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

    Perhaps the SCOTUS will have to rule on exactly prohibiting the free exercise thereof and what exactly is free exercise thereof.

    You got me.
    Actually the ruling wasn't even based on the First Amendment. It was based on RFRA, which was signed into law by Clinton in 1993.

Posting Permissions

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