Dot Com
Nullius in verba
rdean starts a thread & the wing-nuts, predictably, come a runnin' just like Pavlov's dogs
yawn
Its *yawn*
Glad to help
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
rdean starts a thread & the wing-nuts, predictably, come a runnin' just like Pavlov's dogs
yawn
rdean starts a thread & the wing-nuts, predictably, come a runnin' just like Pavlov's dogs
I've come to the conclusion, Don'tbeStupid is one of the Obama's (truth squad goons).
Notice how he come into every thread about him and disrupts it every time with the same BS over and over..
If by "BS" you mean asking you to explain your position on an issue, then yes, that's what I do. I do it to everyone.
It's amazing how many people, like you, can't explain their own positions.
Forcing a Church to pay for something which is in violation of its doctrines is a violation of the free exercise of its religion, and therefore a violation of the First Amendment.
This board is replete with them.I've come to the conclusion, Don'tbeStupid is one of the Obama's (truth squad goons).
Notice how he come into every thread about him and disrupts it every time with the same BS over and over..
Forcing a Church to pay for something which is in violation of its doctrines is a violation of the free exercise of its religion, and therefore a violation of the First Amendment.
You
Are
Wrong
Show me any court case, ever, where this has been the interpretation of the First Amendment.
I've come to the conclusion, Don'tbeStupid is one of the Obama's (truth squad goons).
Notice how he come into every thread about him and disrupts it every time with the same BS over and over..
If by "BS" you mean asking you to explain your position on an issue, then yes, that's what I do. I do it to everyone.
It's amazing how many people, like you, can't explain their own positions.
oh dear gawd, this is like the 6th thread that has been posted on this and you still haven't seen the people EXPLAIN their positions?
you just like to ARGUE because you think you are always RIGHT. you are actually boring because you just REPEAT the same shit over and over.
This board is replete with them.I've come to the conclusion, Don'tbeStupid is one of the Obama's (truth squad goons).
Notice how he come into every thread about him and disrupts it every time with the same BS over and over..
Forcing a Church to pay for something which is in violation of its doctrines is a violation of the free exercise of its religion, and therefore a violation of the First Amendment.
You
Are
Wrong
Show me any court case, ever, where this has been the interpretation of the First Amendment.
Show me a case, ever, where the government has ever forced a church to pay for something against its religion.
If by "BS" you mean asking you to explain your position on an issue, then yes, that's what I do. I do it to everyone.
It's amazing how many people, like you, can't explain their own positions.
oh dear gawd, this is like the 6th thread that has been posted on this and you still haven't seen the people EXPLAIN their positions?
you just like to ARGUE because you think you are always RIGHT. you are actually boring because you just REPEAT the same shit over and over.
I'm not always right. I've been wrong and been corrected. It happens.
In this case though, I'm correct in the interpretation of the Constitution and you are not. But again, show me a court case validating your interpretation and I will freely admit I'm wrong and will change my mind on this issue.
I'm not always right. I've been wrong and been corrected. It happens.
In this case though, I'm correct in the interpretation of the Constitution and you are not. But again, show me a court case validating your interpretation and I will freely admit I'm wrong and will change my mind on this issue.
I'm not always right. I've been wrong and been corrected. It happens.
In this case though, I'm correct in the interpretation of the Constitution and you are not. But again, show me a court case validating your interpretation and I will freely admit I'm wrong and will change my mind on this issue.
January 17, 2012
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously voted last week that churches are not bound by some workplace discrimination laws. It's being called the most significant ruling on religious freedom in decades.
SCOTUS Issues Landmark Religious Freedom Ruling : NPR
Sounds like a good basis for challenging this law huh?
You
Are
Wrong
Show me any court case, ever, where this has been the interpretation of the First Amendment.
Show me a case, ever, where the government has ever forced a church to pay for something against its religion.
Ok. Here you go.
http://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs/ccs_amicus.pdf
"Californias Contraception Equity Act is a protective health measure
that promotes important workers rights. No constitutional principle
prohibits Catholic Charities employees from receiving the protection this
law affords to millions of workers throughout the state"
So like I was saying. You guys are wrong.
You
Are
Wrong
Show me any court case, ever, where this has been the interpretation of the First Amendment.
Show me a case, ever, where the government has ever forced a church to pay for something against its religion.
Ok. Here you go.
http://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs/ccs_amicus.pdf
"Californias Contraception Equity Act is a protective health measure
that promotes important workers rights. No constitutional principle
prohibits Catholic Charities employees from receiving the protection this
law affords to millions of workers throughout the state"
So like I was saying. You guys are wrong.
Show me a case, ever, where the government has ever forced a church to pay for something against its religion.
Ok. Here you go.
http://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs/ccs_amicus.pdf
"California’s Contraception Equity Act is a protective health measure
that promotes important workers’ rights. No constitutional principle
prohibits Catholic Charities’ employees from receiving the protection this
law affords to millions of workers throughout the state"
So like I was saying. You guys are wrong.
The case was not against the Catholic church, but Catholic Charities- who conceded that it does not provide a religious service, that 74 percent of its employees are not Catholic, and that it serves the public at large. Catholic Charities does not discriminate in hiring, proselytize those it serves, or serve primarily Catholic clients. Thus, it is ineligible for this statutory exemption.
Try again?
I will read it, if and when you post it....Ok. Here you go.
http://www.aclu.org/files/FilesPDFs/ccs_amicus.pdf
"Californias Contraception Equity Act is a protective health measure
that promotes important workers rights. No constitutional principle
prohibits Catholic Charities employees from receiving the protection this
law affords to millions of workers throughout the state"
So like I was saying. You guys are wrong.
The case was not against the Catholic church, but Catholic Charities- who conceded that it does not provide a religious service, that 74 percent of its employees are not Catholic, and that it serves the public at large. Catholic Charities does not discriminate in hiring, proselytize those it serves, or serve primarily Catholic clients. Thus, it is ineligible for this statutory exemption.
Try again?
It's better than the cases I've seen in favour of the opposite. Plus, I know no matter what I provide you won't accept it. But okay ... I'll look for more. I got some time