New Precedent: Federal Court Upholds Christians' Rights To Refuse. Kim Davis Has Case.

[NYcarbineer]

lol, Remember the Hobby Lobby debate, when the HL defenders say oh hey this isn't about birth control, this is just about abortifacients.

Yeah right. Now what?

 

[IcebergSlim]

The way they can comply with their so-called religious beliefs is to not use their insurance for birth control.

Why should they or anyone be required to pay for a benefit they will never use?

That's the nature of insurance, Bunky......

Only since the illegal ACA, my 87 yo mother in law and father have to pay for it also, because all policies are required to have it.

Please explain how people on Medicare (even including a supplemental) are paying for contraception.....

The ACA requires it to be included in every policy sold in the country, there are no exceptions in the law for the elderly. This has been discussed at length on this board, I guess you're just not paying attention.

Medicare isn’t part of ObamaCare and that includes supplemental Medigap insurance,

What is Medigap Insurance?

 

[IcebergSlim]

lol, Remember the Hobby Lobby debate, when the HL defenders say oh hey this isn't about birth control, this is just about abortifacients.

Yeah right. Now what?

That was just a Trojan horse.........Trojan........get it?

I slay me.....

 

[NYcarbineer]

lol, Remember the Hobby Lobby debate, when the HL defenders say oh hey this isn't about birth control, this is just about abortifacients.

Yeah right. Now what?

That was just a Trojan horse.........Trojan........get it?

I slay me.....

Put a sock on it.

 

[OKTexas]

Court: Birth control mandate violates religious rights

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — A federal judge has ruled in favor of a Missouri lawmaker who cited religious objections while challenging the inclusion of birth control coverage in his government-provided health insurance....The lawsuit by Wieland and his wife, Teresa, who are Roman Catholics, asserted that it violates their religious beliefs to include contraception coverage in the state health insurance plan that he participates in as a lawmaker....In a ruling Thursday siding with the Wielands, U.S. District Judge Jean Hamilton cited the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says government shall not "substantially burden" a person's exercise of religion..."the only way plaintiffs can comply with their religious conscience is by dropping their insurance altogether, which would result in them foregoing a valuable job benefit

Kim Davis, you listening? The only way Kim Davis could keep her job would be to violate her religious conscience. Remember, Kim Davis took her job BEFORE Obergefell's illegal Ruling (two justices were mandated to have recused themselves from Obergefell, for performing gay marriages as representatives of the fed while deciding "should the fed preside over states on gay marriage?").

I found this part utterly hilarious...as if a precedent only applies on a case by case basis...as if all Americans don't enjoy interpretation of law equally... What a jokester that Senator was saying this:

State Sen. Paul Wieland said Friday that the ruling , while applying only to his family, could serve as a guide for others seeking to challenge the application of a section of President Barack Obama's health care law that requires insurers to include coverage of contraceptives

As if laws protecting religious freedoms ONLY apply to one person and ONLY in certain specific violations of religious conscience...you know...but not others... !

Jonathan Turley needs to get a hold of Kim Davis. They have a case to file..

The way they can comply with their so-called religious beliefs is to not use their insurance for birth control.

Why should they or anyone be required to pay for a benefit they will never use?

Do they give you your fire insurance payments back if your house doesn't burn down?

I don't have to buy fire insurance if I don't have a house or if I own it. That's not the case with the illegal ACA.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Court: Birth control mandate violates religious rights

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — A federal judge has ruled in favor of a Missouri lawmaker who cited religious objections while challenging the inclusion of birth control coverage in his government-provided health insurance....The lawsuit by Wieland and his wife, Teresa, who are Roman Catholics, asserted that it violates their religious beliefs to include contraception coverage in the state health insurance plan that he participates in as a lawmaker....In a ruling Thursday siding with the Wielands, U.S. District Judge Jean Hamilton cited the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says government shall not "substantially burden" a person's exercise of religion..."the only way plaintiffs can comply with their religious conscience is by dropping their insurance altogether, which would result in them foregoing a valuable job benefit

Kim Davis, you listening? The only way Kim Davis could keep her job would be to violate her religious conscience. Remember, Kim Davis took her job BEFORE Obergefell's illegal Ruling (two justices were mandated to have recused themselves from Obergefell, for performing gay marriages as representatives of the fed while deciding "should the fed preside over states on gay marriage?").

I found this part utterly hilarious...as if a precedent only applies on a case by case basis...as if all Americans don't enjoy interpretation of law equally... What a jokester that Senator was saying this:

State Sen. Paul Wieland said Friday that the ruling , while applying only to his family, could serve as a guide for others seeking to challenge the application of a section of President Barack Obama's health care law that requires insurers to include coverage of contraceptives

As if laws protecting religious freedoms ONLY apply to one person and ONLY in certain specific violations of religious conscience...you know...but not others... !

Jonathan Turley needs to get a hold of Kim Davis. They have a case to file..

The way they can comply with their so-called religious beliefs is to not use their insurance for birth control.

Why should they or anyone be required to pay for a benefit they will never use?

Do they give you your fire insurance payments back if your house doesn't burn down?

I don't have to buy fire insurance if I don't have a house or if I own it. That's not the case with the illegal ACA.

The ACA is the law, by definition it can't be illegal.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Court: Birth control mandate violates religious rights

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — A federal judge has ruled in favor of a Missouri lawmaker who cited religious objections while challenging the inclusion of birth control coverage in his government-provided health insurance....The lawsuit by Wieland and his wife, Teresa, who are Roman Catholics, asserted that it violates their religious beliefs to include contraception coverage in the state health insurance plan that he participates in as a lawmaker....In a ruling Thursday siding with the Wielands, U.S. District Judge Jean Hamilton cited the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says government shall not "substantially burden" a person's exercise of religion..."the only way plaintiffs can comply with their religious conscience is by dropping their insurance altogether, which would result in them foregoing a valuable job benefit

Kim Davis, you listening? The only way Kim Davis could keep her job would be to violate her religious conscience. Remember, Kim Davis took her job BEFORE Obergefell's illegal Ruling (two justices were mandated to have recused themselves from Obergefell, for performing gay marriages as representatives of the fed while deciding "should the fed preside over states on gay marriage?").

I found this part utterly hilarious...as if a precedent only applies on a case by case basis...as if all Americans don't enjoy interpretation of law equally... What a jokester that Senator was saying this:

State Sen. Paul Wieland said Friday that the ruling , while applying only to his family, could serve as a guide for others seeking to challenge the application of a section of President Barack Obama's health care law that requires insurers to include coverage of contraceptives

As if laws protecting religious freedoms ONLY apply to one person and ONLY in certain specific violations of religious conscience...you know...but not others... !

Jonathan Turley needs to get a hold of Kim Davis. They have a case to file..

The way they can comply with their so-called religious beliefs is to not use their insurance for birth control.

Why should they or anyone be required to pay for a benefit they will never use?

Do they give you your fire insurance payments back if your house doesn't burn down?

I don't have to buy fire insurance if I don't have a house or if I own it. That's not the case with the illegal ACA.

I thought ACA was still standing after numerous challenges........did you read about this at the same blog where you learned that your grandparents were paying for contraceptive coverage?

 

[OKTexas]

Why should they or anyone be required to pay for a benefit they will never use?

That's the nature of insurance, Bunky......

Only since the illegal ACA, my 87 yo mother in law and father have to pay for it also, because all policies are required to have it.

Please explain how people on Medicare (even including a supplemental) are paying for contraception.....

The ACA requires it to be included in every policy sold in the country, there are no exceptions in the law for the elderly. This has been discussed at length on this board, I guess you're just not paying attention.

Medicare isn’t part of ObamaCare and that includes supplemental Medigap insurance,

What is Medigap Insurance?

Nothing you posted say contraceptives aren't included.

 

[OKTexas]

Court: Birth control mandate violates religious rights

Kim Davis, you listening? The only way Kim Davis could keep her job would be to violate her religious conscience. Remember, Kim Davis took her job BEFORE Obergefell's illegal Ruling (two justices were mandated to have recused themselves from Obergefell, for performing gay marriages as representatives of the fed while deciding "should the fed preside over states on gay marriage?").

I found this part utterly hilarious...as if a precedent only applies on a case by case basis...as if all Americans don't enjoy interpretation of law equally... What a jokester that Senator was saying this:
As if laws protecting religious freedoms ONLY apply to one person and ONLY in certain specific violations of religious conscience...you know...but not others... !

Jonathan Turley needs to get a hold of Kim Davis. They have a case to file..

The way they can comply with their so-called religious beliefs is to not use their insurance for birth control.

Why should they or anyone be required to pay for a benefit they will never use?

Do they give you your fire insurance payments back if your house doesn't burn down?

I don't have to buy fire insurance if I don't have a house or if I own it. That's not the case with the illegal ACA.

The ACA is the law, by definition it can't be illegal.

Damn, using your logic the TX voter ID law should be good to go as is right, it is after all, the law.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The way they can comply with their so-called religious beliefs is to not use their insurance for birth control.

Why should they or anyone be required to pay for a benefit they will never use?

Do they give you your fire insurance payments back if your house doesn't burn down?

I don't have to buy fire insurance if I don't have a house or if I own it. That's not the case with the illegal ACA.

The ACA is the law, by definition it can't be illegal.

Damn, using your logic the TX voter ID law should be good to go as is right, it is after all, the law.

It is the law unless it's overturned, duh.

 

[OKTexas]

Court: Birth control mandate violates religious rights

Kim Davis, you listening? The only way Kim Davis could keep her job would be to violate her religious conscience. Remember, Kim Davis took her job BEFORE Obergefell's illegal Ruling (two justices were mandated to have recused themselves from Obergefell, for performing gay marriages as representatives of the fed while deciding "should the fed preside over states on gay marriage?").

I found this part utterly hilarious...as if a precedent only applies on a case by case basis...as if all Americans don't enjoy interpretation of law equally... What a jokester that Senator was saying this:
As if laws protecting religious freedoms ONLY apply to one person and ONLY in certain specific violations of religious conscience...you know...but not others... !

Jonathan Turley needs to get a hold of Kim Davis. They have a case to file..

The way they can comply with their so-called religious beliefs is to not use their insurance for birth control.

Why should they or anyone be required to pay for a benefit they will never use?

Do they give you your fire insurance payments back if your house doesn't burn down?

I don't have to buy fire insurance if I don't have a house or if I own it. That's not the case with the illegal ACA.

I thought ACA was still standing after numerous challenges........did you read about this at the same blog where you learned that your grandparents were paying for contraceptive coverage?

Sure, and it only took SCOTUS ignoring the Constitution and black letter law to do it. Every one that voted for it should be impeached, but we all know you commies will never allow that.

 

[OKTexas]

Why should they or anyone be required to pay for a benefit they will never use?

Do they give you your fire insurance payments back if your house doesn't burn down?

I don't have to buy fire insurance if I don't have a house or if I own it. That's not the case with the illegal ACA.

The ACA is the law, by definition it can't be illegal.

Damn, using your logic the TX voter ID law should be good to go as is right, it is after all, the law.

It is the law unless it's overturned, duh.

It hasn't been, it was returned to a lower court to be tweaked. Guess what hero, the Constitution doesn't give any court the authority to tweak any law, that's the job of the legislature that passed it. That applies to the TX law or the ACA.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The way they can comply with their so-called religious beliefs is to not use their insurance for birth control.

Why should they or anyone be required to pay for a benefit they will never use?

Do they give you your fire insurance payments back if your house doesn't burn down?

I don't have to buy fire insurance if I don't have a house or if I own it. That's not the case with the illegal ACA.

I thought ACA was still standing after numerous challenges........did you read about this at the same blog where you learned that your grandparents were paying for contraceptive coverage?

Sure, and it only took SCOTUS ignoring the Constitution and black letter law to do it. Every one that voted for it should be impeached, but we all know you commies will never allow that.

That kind of talk is typical rightwing rubbish.

 

[OKTexas]

Why should they or anyone be required to pay for a benefit they will never use?

Do they give you your fire insurance payments back if your house doesn't burn down?

I don't have to buy fire insurance if I don't have a house or if I own it. That's not the case with the illegal ACA.

I thought ACA was still standing after numerous challenges........did you read about this at the same blog where you learned that your grandparents were paying for contraceptive coverage?

Sure, and it only took SCOTUS ignoring the Constitution and black letter law to do it. Every one that voted for it should be impeached, but we all know you commies will never allow that.

That kind of talk is typical rightwing rubbish.

Stop with the ad hom attacks and prove me wrong using the Constitution. Are you not up to the task?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Do they give you your fire insurance payments back if your house doesn't burn down?

I don't have to buy fire insurance if I don't have a house or if I own it. That's not the case with the illegal ACA.

I thought ACA was still standing after numerous challenges........did you read about this at the same blog where you learned that your grandparents were paying for contraceptive coverage?

Sure, and it only took SCOTUS ignoring the Constitution and black letter law to do it. Every one that voted for it should be impeached, but we all know you commies will never allow that.

That kind of talk is typical rightwing rubbish.

Stop with the ad hom attacks and prove me wrong using the Constitution. Are you not up to the task?

You can't and don't impeach SCOTUS judges for making rulings you don't like.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Court: Birth control mandate violates religious rights

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — A federal judge has ruled in favor of a Missouri lawmaker who cited religious objections while challenging the inclusion of birth control coverage in his government-provided health insurance....The lawsuit by Wieland and his wife, Teresa, who are Roman Catholics, asserted that it violates their religious beliefs to include contraception coverage in the state health insurance plan that he participates in as a lawmaker....In a ruling Thursday siding with the Wielands, U.S. District Judge Jean Hamilton cited the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says government shall not "substantially burden" a person's exercise of religion..."the only way plaintiffs can comply with their religious conscience is by dropping their insurance altogether, which would result in them foregoing a valuable job benefit

Kim Davis, you listening? The only way Kim Davis could keep her job would be to violate her religious conscience. Remember, Kim Davis took her job BEFORE Obergefell's illegal Ruling (two justices were mandated to have recused themselves from Obergefell, for performing gay marriages as representatives of the fed while deciding "should the fed preside over states on gay marriage?").

I found this part utterly hilarious...as if a precedent only applies on a case by case basis...as if all Americans don't enjoy interpretation of law equally... What a jokester that Senator was saying this:

State Sen. Paul Wieland said Friday that the ruling , while applying only to his family, could serve as a guide for others seeking to challenge the application of a section of President Barack Obama's health care law that requires insurers to include coverage of contraceptives

As if laws protecting religious freedoms ONLY apply to one person and ONLY in certain specific violations of religious conscience...you know...but not others... !

Jonathan Turley needs to get a hold of Kim Davis. They have a case to file..

This is not a new precedent.

 

[OKTexas]

I don't have to buy fire insurance if I don't have a house or if I own it. That's not the case with the illegal ACA.

I thought ACA was still standing after numerous challenges........did you read about this at the same blog where you learned that your grandparents were paying for contraceptive coverage?

Sure, and it only took SCOTUS ignoring the Constitution and black letter law to do it. Every one that voted for it should be impeached, but we all know you commies will never allow that.

That kind of talk is typical rightwing rubbish.

Stop with the ad hom attacks and prove me wrong using the Constitution. Are you not up to the task?

You can't and don't impeach SCOTUS judges for making rulings you don't like.

You can for making rulings contrary to the Constitution. That's part of the checks and balances in our government. But instead of making the generalized ignorant statements, how about you prove their actions were in accordance with the Constitution using the Constitution itself. I can easily prove it wasn't and provide previous decisions to back it up.

I'll even ask you one question that will give you a hint about one part of what I'm talking about, ya ready?

Why did the supreme court rule the presidential line item veto unconstitutional?

BTW don't try to tell me that decision doesn't apply because I can prove otherwise.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I thought ACA was still standing after numerous challenges........did you read about this at the same blog where you learned that your grandparents were paying for contraceptive coverage?

Sure, and it only took SCOTUS ignoring the Constitution and black letter law to do it. Every one that voted for it should be impeached, but we all know you commies will never allow that.

That kind of talk is typical rightwing rubbish.

Stop with the ad hom attacks and prove me wrong using the Constitution. Are you not up to the task?

You can't and don't impeach SCOTUS judges for making rulings you don't like.

You can for making rulings contrary to the Constitution. That's part of the checks and balances in our government. But instead of making the generalized ignorant statements, how about you prove their actions were in accordance with the Constitution using the Constitution itself. I can easily prove it wasn't and provide previous decisions to back it up.

I'll even ask you one question that will give you a hint about one part of what I'm talking about, ya ready?

Why did the supreme court rule the presidential line item veto unconstitutional?

BTW don't try to tell me that decision doesn't apply because I can prove otherwise.

List all the judges impeached for their votes on cases.

 

[OKTexas]

Sure, and it only took SCOTUS ignoring the Constitution and black letter law to do it. Every one that voted for it should be impeached, but we all know you commies will never allow that.

That kind of talk is typical rightwing rubbish.

Stop with the ad hom attacks and prove me wrong using the Constitution. Are you not up to the task?

You can't and don't impeach SCOTUS judges for making rulings you don't like.

You can for making rulings contrary to the Constitution. That's part of the checks and balances in our government. But instead of making the generalized ignorant statements, how about you prove their actions were in accordance with the Constitution using the Constitution itself. I can easily prove it wasn't and provide previous decisions to back it up.

I'll even ask you one question that will give you a hint about one part of what I'm talking about, ya ready?

Why did the supreme court rule the presidential line item veto unconstitutional?

BTW don't try to tell me that decision doesn't apply because I can prove otherwise.

List all the judges impeached for their votes on cases.

Stop deflecting. Prove me wrong or STFU. Better yet, I done arguing with ignorance.

 

[IcebergSlim]

That's the nature of insurance, Bunky......

Only since the illegal ACA, my 87 yo mother in law and father have to pay for it also, because all policies are required to have it.

Please explain how people on Medicare (even including a supplemental) are paying for contraception.....

The ACA requires it to be included in every policy sold in the country, there are no exceptions in the law for the elderly. This has been discussed at length on this board, I guess you're just not paying attention.

Medicare isn’t part of ObamaCare and that includes supplemental Medigap insurance,

What is Medigap Insurance?

Nothing you posted say contraceptives aren't included.

They are not subject to ACA....

But you go ahead and show me where the contraceptive mandate applies to Medicare and Medigap....