SB1062, Hobby Lobs...Religious Exemptions Q: Do Corporations have Religious Beliefs?

[Quantum Windbag]

And WTF? The SCOTUS can just ignore the science around the contraception in question because these nutzoids believe they cause abortion? Seriously?

Is that like you ignoring the science because you think that they don't?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

...said the floozy lying in the hay.

I'm not sure which makes you more laughable: the fact that your post is utterly random and makes no sense, or the fact that you're so ignorant you don't recognize the famous picture I use in my avatar. Do you live under a rock?

Why would a self proclaimed history buff recognize the inspiration for the the most famous bra in history?

 

[Seawytch]

And WTF? The SCOTUS can just ignore the science around the contraception in question because these nutzoids believe they cause abortion? Seriously?

Is the Supreme Court being asked to rule on "the science"? Or are they being asked to rule on whether or not people have the right to act in accordance with their personal beliefs without coercion or punishment by the government?



In other words, fuckstain, do my rights have to coincide with what YOU believe "the science" is in order for me to have those rights?



Yes, I know, you don't believe anyone should have rights except for leftists wanting to get abortions at the drop of a prom dress.

Science isn't a belief system, it's science. The earth is round even if you believe it's flat. The SCOTUS is saying "ignore the roundness of the earth".

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And WTF? The SCOTUS can just ignore the science around the contraception in question because these nutzoids believe they cause abortion? Seriously?

Is the Supreme Court being asked to rule on "the science"? Or are they being asked to rule on whether or not people have the right to act in accordance with their personal beliefs without coercion or punishment by the government?



In other words, fuckstain, do my rights have to coincide with what YOU believe "the science" is in order for me to have those rights?



Yes, I know, you don't believe anyone should have rights except for leftists wanting to get abortions at the drop of a prom dress.

Science isn't a belief system, it's science. The earth is round even if you believe it's flat. The SCOTUS is saying "ignore the roundness of the earth".

Are they really, or are you completely misrepresenting the issues?

Hint, it is the latter.

 

[The Rabbi]

Is the Supreme Court being asked to rule on "the science"? Or are they being asked to rule on whether or not people have the right to act in accordance with their personal beliefs without coercion or punishment by the government?



In other words, fuckstain, do my rights have to coincide with what YOU believe "the science" is in order for me to have those rights?



Yes, I know, you don't believe anyone should have rights except for leftists wanting to get abortions at the drop of a prom dress.

Science isn't a belief system, it's science. The earth is round even if you believe it's flat. The SCOTUS is saying "ignore the roundness of the earth".

Are they really, or are you completely misrepresenting the issues?

Hint, it is the latter.

Of course you are correct. Seabytch seems to think she knows something that the owners of a multibillion dollar business do not know, their advisors do not know, their attorneys do not know, the judges who have heard this case do not know, and the Supreme Court does not know.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Only if you are reading impaired. Which we know you are.

Ironic!

No, ironic is you posting like you have anything of value to add.

Irony squared!

 

[Seawytch]

Science isn't a belief system, it's science. The earth is round even if you believe it's flat. The SCOTUS is saying "ignore the roundness of the earth".

Are they really, or are you completely misrepresenting the issues?



Hint, it is the latter.

Of course you are correct. Seabytch seems to think she knows something that the owners of a multibillion dollar business do not know, their advisors do not know, their attorneys do not know, the judges who have heard this case do not know, and the Supreme Court does not know.

I know that the birth control covered under the ACA does not cause abortions, but because the owners of HL believe they do, the SCOTUS is hearing the case. It's ludicrous.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Are they really, or are you completely misrepresenting the issues?



Hint, it is the latter.

Of course you are correct. Seabytch seems to think she knows something that the owners of a multibillion dollar business do not know, their advisors do not know, their attorneys do not know, the judges who have heard this case do not know, and the Supreme Court does not know.

I know that the birth control covered under the ACA does not cause abortions, but because the owners of HL believe they do, the SCOTUS is hearing the case. It's ludicrous.

You know this because you listen to people you agree with.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Are they really, or are you completely misrepresenting the issues?



Hint, it is the latter.

Of course you are correct. Seabytch seems to think she knows something that the owners of a multibillion dollar business do not know, their advisors do not know, their attorneys do not know, the judges who have heard this case do not know, and the Supreme Court does not know.

I know that the birth control covered under the ACA does not cause abortions, but because the owners of HL believe they do, the SCOTUS is hearing the case. It's ludicrous.

The problem is that if the SCOTUS upholds HL's position they violate the 1st Amendment by endorsing one specific splinter religious cult that "believes" that contraception covered under the ACA causes abortions.

 

[The Rabbi]

Are they really, or are you completely misrepresenting the issues?



Hint, it is the latter.

Of course you are correct. Seabytch seems to think she knows something that the owners of a multibillion dollar business do not know, their advisors do not know, their attorneys do not know, the judges who have heard this case do not know, and the Supreme Court does not know.

I know that the birth control covered under the ACA does not cause abortions, but because the owners of HL believe they do, the SCOTUS is hearing the case. It's ludicrous.

You clearly have not read the Writ for Certiori, page 10, which covers this issue.
As usual you are a low information, low intelligence poster spouting off about things you know nothing about.

 

[The Rabbi]

Of course you are correct. Seabytch seems to think she knows something that the owners of a multibillion dollar business do not know, their advisors do not know, their attorneys do not know, the judges who have heard this case do not know, and the Supreme Court does not know.

I know that the birth control covered under the ACA does not cause abortions, but because the owners of HL believe they do, the SCOTUS is hearing the case. It's ludicrous.

The problem is that if the SCOTUS upholds HL's position they violate the 1st Amendment by endorsing one specific splinter religious cult that "believes" that contraception covered under the ACA causes abortions.

There are so many errors there I wouldn't know where to begin. Suffice it to say you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Of course you are correct. Seabytch seems to think she knows something that the owners of a multibillion dollar business do not know, their advisors do not know, their attorneys do not know, the judges who have heard this case do not know, and the Supreme Court does not know.

I know that the birth control covered under the ACA does not cause abortions, but because the owners of HL believe they do, the SCOTUS is hearing the case. It's ludicrous.

The problem is that if the SCOTUS upholds HL's position they violate the 1st Amendment by endorsing one specific splinter religious cult that "believes" that contraception covered under the ACA causes abortions.

The issue is not the 1st Amendment, it is the RFRA, a law which is binding on the government. If Congress had written the birth control mandate you might be able to argue that this should be decided n the basis of the Constitution, since they didn't this has to be decided on the basis of the law.

 

[The Rabbi]

I know that the birth control covered under the ACA does not cause abortions, but because the owners of HL believe they do, the SCOTUS is hearing the case. It's ludicrous.

The problem is that if the SCOTUS upholds HL's position they violate the 1st Amendment by endorsing one specific splinter religious cult that "believes" that contraception covered under the ACA causes abortions.

The issue is not the 1st Amendment, it is the RFRA, a law which is binding on the government. If Congress had written the birth control mandate you might be able to argue that this should be decided n the basis of the Constitution, since they didn't this has to be decided on the basis of the law.

Forget it. You're talking way above his pay grade. He'll have to ask someone what RFRA means.