Gutless Pence caves to pressure - Asks for new law.

[TemplarKormac]

Republicans hate it when the market slaps down their hate legislation.

It's already a law, moron.

 

[candycorn]

Governor Pence did not back down. He asked for a clarification.

These laws have to stand up people so they can't be challenged. So RFRA gets tweeked. No big smurf.

Nothing freaking changes.

The Obamacare law was bad law. That's how Holly Lobby could challenge and win for crying out loud.

Win? You do know that Hobby Lobby is required to provide coverage fot 11 types of contraception under the ACA.

Clarification is something press secretaries provide....begging for new legislation to fix bad legislation that you were proud of 48 hours earlier is an ass kicking

 

[TemplarKormac]

You do know that Hobby Lobby is required to provide coverage fot 11 types of contraception under the ACA.

Nope. Where did you get that idea? Care to point that out in the opinion? Or do I need to whip that out? I have tons of case law on this PC, don't make me use them on you.

Prove your case.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Clarification is something press secretaries provide....begging for new legislation to fix bad legislation that you were proud of 48 hours earlier is an ass kicking

Nope. Once again, a clarification is only needed for dumbasses like you who can't comprehend the meaning of a law. It's real sad actually, that people have to dumb shit down for you.

 

[candycorn]

Republicans hate it when the market slaps down their hate legislation.

It's already a law, moron.

That is being overhaule

You do know that Hobby Lobby is required to provide coverage fot 11 types of contraception under the ACA.

Nope. Where did you get that idea? Care to point that out in the opinion? Or do I need to whip that out? I have tons of case law on this PC, don't make me use them on you.

Prove your case.

since youre the one who is sponging off others for food and shelter....feel free to post your "proof"

 

[tinydancer]

Governor Pence did not back down. He asked for a clarification.

These laws have to stand up people so they can't be challenged. So RFRA gets tweeked. No big smurf.

Nothing freaking changes.

The Obamacare law was bad law. That's how Holly Lobby could challenge and win for crying out loud.

Win? You do know that Hobby Lobby is required to provide coverage fot 11 types of contraception under the ACA.

Clarification is something press secretaries provide....begging for new legislation to fix bad legislation that you were proud of 48 hours earlier is an ass kicking

Oh give it up. The Justices ruled in favor of Holly Lobby. That's called a freaking win. They weren't there to argue over all contraception. They agreed to many forms of contraception.

And the SCOTUS ruled based on the interpretation of the RFRA law.

"The companies said they had no objection to some forms of contraception, including condoms, diaphragms, sponges, several kinds of birth control pills and sterilization surgery."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/us/hobby-lobby-case-supreme-court-contraception.html

Re: Pence. Man didn't get his ass kicked at all. Give me a break.
And he won't give the Democrats and the LGBT movement what they want. .



"But Pence said he opposes the fix that many critics of the law have demanded: A statewide ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation.

"I've never supported that," Pence said. "It's not on my agenda. But I think it's a completely separate question.

I mean, we are talking about the religious freedom restoration act, which is about restoring the highest level of scrutiny in our state courts in matters of government action that intrude upon the religious liberty of Hoosiers. That's where I want to stay focused".

Gov. Mike Pence Change RFRA law to make it clear discrimination won t be allowed

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

'He said the religion freedom bill he signed was never considered by him or the bill’s sponsors to allow a “license to discriminate.” '

Their lack of political acumen comes as no surprise.

Anyone reading the bill in good faith and not in a partisan context can see the intent of the law was clearly to create a climate in the state where discrimination against gays was acceptable – particularly given the fact that the measure was completely unnecessary, as the state's public accommodations law affords no protections with regard to sexual orientation, and where the 'religious liberty' of Indiana business owners was in no way 'in jeopardy.'

 

[tinydancer]

The coward should say "If discrimination is bad, why do we have affirmative action"?

Pence is responding to the free market.

Businesses and their customers are rebelling. The state is losing money because free citizens are, through their spending choices, boycotting Indiana. Conventions are canceling. NCAA/Final Four advertisers are leveraging future contracts w/the state. The market is voting with its fucking feet my friend.

I know that you and the Republican Party want big government to impose its values down the throat of free consumers and businesses, but when companies like Walmart are threatening Pence because of consumer backlash, it's time to listen to the market.

Republicans hate it when the market slaps down their hate legislation. They only like freedom when the outcome suits their top-down values.

The market may be responding but they are responding to a flat out lie.You know. Like "Hands up don't shoot".

Because the media lies, interest groups lie and the general public are out and out ignorant of facts.

The law will stand though. Just like it does in 20 other states. And just as it does in Federal law. President Clinton signed it into law in 1993.

Oh and Obama voted for it when he was a Senator in Illinois in 1998.

 

[tinydancer]

'He said the religion freedom bill he signed was never considered by him or the bill’s sponsors to allow a “license to discriminate.” '

Their lack of political acumen comes as no surprise.

Anyone reading the bill in good faith and not in a partisan context can see the intent of the law was clearly to create a climate in the state where discrimination against gays was acceptable – particularly given the fact that the measure was completely unnecessary, as the state's public accommodations law affords no protections with regard to sexual orientation, and where the 'religious liberty' of Indiana business owners was in no way 'in jeopardy.'

Considering the Federal Bill on which the States' laws are based just came into play big time in Burwell vs Holly Lobby State Legislators are getting their act together and passing a State version of RFRA. 20 States already last I read.

Two key points.

" The idea that a for-profit business has religious rights, and can cite them in contesting government action, was not widely considered until recently. But last year the Supreme Court upheld that principle in the case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/01/us/religious-freedom-restoration-act-arkansas-indiana.html

And here's the kicker. They expanded the law.

"The RFRA figured prominently in oral arguments in the case, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, heard by the Supreme Court on March 25, 2014.

In a 5-4 decision, Justice Alito stated, that the RFRA did not just restore the law as before Smith but contains a new regulation that allows to opt out of federal law based on religious beliefs."

Religious Freedom Restoration Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[TemplarKormac]

That is being overhaule

No its not.

since youre the one who is sponging off others for food and shelter....feel free to post your "proof"

That part of the law was ruled to be a substantive burden on Hobby Lobby's owners, thus, they are not required to cover contraception as mandated by the ACA.

Okay, you asked for this. Read carefully, or like the liberal you are, don't read it at all.


Question:

Does the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 allow a for-profit company to deny its employees health coverage of contraception to which the employees would otherwise be entitled based on the religious objections of the company’s owners?


Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Hobby Lobby Stores, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA)

Yes. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. delivered the opinion for the 5-4 majority. The Court held that Congress intended for the RFRA to be read as applying to corporations since they are composed of individuals who use them to achieve desired ends. Because the contraception requirement forces religious corporations to fund what they consider abortion, which goes against their stated religious principles, or face significant fines, it creates a substantial burden that is not the least restrictive method of satisfying the government’s interests. In fact, a less restrictive method exists in the form of the Department of Health and Human Services’ exemption for non-profit religious organizations, which the Court held can and should be applied to for-profit corporations such as Hobby Lobby. Additionally, the Court held that this ruling only applies to the contraceptive mandate in question rather than to all possible objections to the Affordable Care Act on religious grounds, as the principal dissent fears.

In his concurrence, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote that the government had not met its burden to show that there was a meaningful difference between non-profit religious institutions and for-profit religious corporations under the RFRA. Because the contraception requirement accommodates the former while imposing a more restrictive requirement on the later without showing proper cause, the requirement violates the RFRA.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissent in which she argued that the majority’s decision was precluded by the Court’s decision in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith in which the Court held that there is no violation of the freedom of religion when an infringement on that right is merely an incidental consequence of an otherwise valid statute. Additionally, judicial precedent states that religious beliefs or observances must not impinge on the rights of third parties, as the sought-after exemption would do to women seeking contraception in this case. Justice Ginsburg also wrote that the majority opinion misconstrued the RFRA as a bold legislative statement with sweeping consequences. Because for-profit corporations cannot be considered religious entities, the burden the respondents claim is not substantial, and the government has shown a sufficiently compelling interest, Justice Ginsburg argued that the contraception mandate does not violate the RFRA. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, and Justice Elena Kagan joined in the dissent. In their separate dissent, Justice Breyer and Justice Kagan wrote that the Court need not decide whether for-profit corporations or their owners may sue under the RFRA.

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Gutless Pence caves to pressure - Asks for new law."

A simple veto would have solved the problem, followed by a request to the state legislature to amend the measure to afford protections to gay Americans in matters of public accommodations.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That is being overhaule

No its not.

since youre the one who is sponging off others for food and shelter....feel free to post your "proof"

That part of the law was ruled to be a substantive burden on Hobby Lobby's owners, thus, they are not required to cover contraception as mandated by the ACA.

Okay, you asked for this. Read carefully, or like the liberal you are, don't read it at all.


Question:

Does the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 allow a for-profit company to deny its employees health coverage of contraception to which the employees would otherwise be entitled based on the religious objections of the company’s owners?


Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Hobby Lobby Stores, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA)

Yes. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. delivered the opinion for the 5-4 majority. The Court held that Congress intended for the RFRA to be read as applying to corporations since they are composed of individuals who use them to achieve desired ends. Because the contraception requirement forces religious corporations to fund what they consider abortion, which goes against their stated religious principles, or face significant fines, it creates a substantial burden that is not the least restrictive method of satisfying the government’s interests. In fact, a less restrictive method exists in the form of the Department of Health and Human Services’ exemption for non-profit religious organizations, which the Court held can and should be applied to for-profit corporations such as Hobby Lobby. Additionally, the Court held that this ruling only applies to the contraceptive mandate in question rather than to all possible objections to the Affordable Care Act on religious grounds, as the principal dissent fears.

In his concurrence, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote that the government had not met its burden to show that there was a meaningful difference between non-profit religious institutions and for-profit religious corporations under the RFRA. Because the contraception requirement accommodates the former while imposing a more restrictive requirement on the later without showing proper cause, the requirement violates the RFRA.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissent in which she argued that the majority’s decision was precluded by the Court’s decision in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith in which the Court held that there is no violation of the freedom of religion when an infringement on that right is merely an incidental consequence of an otherwise valid statute. Additionally, judicial precedent states that religious beliefs or observances must not impinge on the rights of third parties, as the sought-after exemption would do to women seeking contraception in this case. Justice Ginsburg also wrote that the majority opinion misconstrued the RFRA as a bold legislative statement with sweeping consequences. Because for-profit corporations cannot be considered religious entities, the burden the respondents claim is not substantial, and the government has shown a sufficiently compelling interest, Justice Ginsburg argued that the contraception mandate does not violate the RFRA. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Stephen G. Breyer, and Justice Elena Kagan joined in the dissent. In their separate dissent, Justice Breyer and Justice Kagan wrote that the Court need not decide whether for-profit corporations or their owners may sue under the RFRA.

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

So if the makeup of the court had just happened to be one vote different, Hobby Lobby would have lost and you'd be certain THAT was the right decision?

 

[candycorn]

Clarification is something press secretaries provide....begging for new legislation to fix bad legislation that you were proud of 48 hours earlier is an ass kicking

Nope. Once again, a clarification is only needed for dumbasses like you who can't comprehend the meaning of a law. It's real sad actually, that people have to dumb shit down for you.

Governor Pence did not back down. He asked for a clarification.

These laws have to stand up people so they can't be challenged. So RFRA gets tweeked. No big smurf.

Nothing freaking changes.

The Obamacare law was bad law. That's how Holly Lobby could challenge and win for crying out loud.

Win? You do know that Hobby Lobby is required to provide coverage fot 11 types of contraception under the ACA.

Clarification is something press secretaries provide....begging for new legislation to fix bad legislation that you were proud of 48 hours earlier is an ass kicking

Oh give it up. The Justices ruled in favor of Holly Lobby. That's called a freaking win. They weren't there to argue over all contraception. They agreed to many forms of contraception.

And the SCOTUS ruled based on the interpretation of the RFRA law.

"The companies said they had no objection to some forms of contraception, including condoms, diaphragms, sponges, several kinds of birth control pills and sterilization surgery."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/01/us/hobby-lobby-case-supreme-court-contraception.html

Re: Pence. Man didn't get his ass kicked at all. Give me a break.
And he won't give the Democrats and the LGBT movement what they want. .



"But Pence said he opposes the fix that many critics of the law have demanded: A statewide ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation.

"I've never supported that," Pence said. "It's not on my agenda. But I think it's a completely separate question.

I mean, we are talking about the religious freedom restoration act, which is about restoring the highest level of scrutiny in our state courts in matters of government action that intrude upon the religious liberty of Hoosiers. That's where I want to stay focused".

Gov. Mike Pence Change RFRA law to make it clear discrimination won t be allowed

Oh? It's a separate question whether GLBT should have to suffer discrimination? This guy can't get out of his own way.
If you win the argument, you drop the mic and leave the stage. You aren't forced to have press conferences and demand a fix to a law that you were proud of 48 hours earlier.

If the players take the court this weekend wearing shirts supporting the GLBT....the firestorm starts all over again.

As for Hobby Lobby...enjoy your "victory" I suppose.....

 

[JakeStarkey]

Well, the toons of the far right are melting down.

Yes, Pence caved.

Yes, the great majority of America will no longer tolerate such legislation even if passed.

The law will be changed. The LGBT community will not be treated unequally at the insistence of a small far right social con minority anymore without the social cons getting kicked in the face legally and publicly.

Get over it, toons, the world has changed on this issue and will not be going back.

 

[candycorn]

You do know that Hobby Lobby is required to provide coverage fot 11 types of contraception under the ACA.

Nope. Where did you get that idea? Care to point that out in the opinion? Or do I need to whip that out? I have tons of case law on this PC, don't make me use them on you.

Prove your case.

This from The National Review:

Imagine that a woman starts work at Hobby Lobby tomorrow morning — July 1. She joins Hobby Lobby’s health care plan. It includes access, copay-free, to the following categories of FDA-approved birth-control: Male condoms Female condoms Diaphragms with spermicide Sponges with spermicide Cervical caps with spermicide Spermicide alone Birth-control pills with estrogen and progestin (“Combined Pill) Birth-control pills with progestin alone (“The Mini Pill) Birth control pills (extended/continuous use) Contraceptive patches Contraceptive rings Progestin injections Implantable rods Vasectomies Female sterilization surgeries Female sterilization implants (This new woman at Hobby Lobby cannot use male condoms or a vasectomy, at least not directly. However, if she chose either contraceptive method, in conjunction with her husband, she would have access to it.) Further, not only would she have access to these medicines and devices, but Hobby Lobby would fund them. That’s right: while White House press secretary Josh Earnest claims that it “jeopardizes the health of women,” Hobby Lobby’s health plan pays for 16 different kinds of contraceptives for its female employees!

Read more at: National Review​

This from USA Today:

Hobby Lobby case: What birth control is affected?

The Supreme Court decision in the Hobby Lobby case doesn't affect the birth control methods that are most commonly used, such as birth control pills, condoms or sponges.

Check out this story on USATODAY.com: Hobby Lobby case What birth control is affected ​

Some "victory"

The only question is whether the 11-16 different types of contraception still have to be offered. I'm sure that the right wing is hoping they do not since the idea of women having sex for pleasure is abhorrent to them.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

The law will be changed. The LGBT community will not be treated unequally at the insistence of a small far right social con minority anymore without the social cons getting kicked in the face legally and publicly.

Get over it, toons, the world has changed on this issue and will not be going back.

The law would stand if idiot conservatives would argue their case correctly. They need to emphasize that.

1. most pervos are child molesters and businesses have a right to ban such horrible criminals.

2. The prevalence of affirmative action shows that discrimination against groups (in this case straight white males") is allowed.

 

[Mad Scientist]

He can "ask" all he wants. Unless the Legislature passes something, he's out of the picture.

 

[JakeStarkey]

How does marriage and LGBT equality discriminate against white males?

 

[ShootSpeeders]

How does marriage and LGBT equality discriminate against white males?

Hey einstein. The board is talking about afffirmative action. That's what discriminates against white males. And it's everywhere and you liberals applaud it.

 

[bendog]

Wait, we're gonna have to hire the queers? I thought this was all about firing them! Hey Pense, I think you're messing this up!