What Is Wrong With Liberals??

[frigidweirdo]

You have a better name for the extreme left justices? Would you prefer marxists? Perhaps pinkos? What do you call a judge that rules based on feelings instead of logic? If not a form of mental retardation what is it? I thought I was being nice to excuse their blatant views as a libtardation. But, hey if you have a better name for it I'm all ears. I libertarian. As for whether I'm primary school or not, no I'm not a primary school.

Yes, probably a lot of better names. But then I don't know of any "extreme left justices" in the US Supreme Court.

You're making a lot of claims, and nothing to back yourself up. It's all "blah blah communists blah blah i'm really childish blah blah" that i'm getting right now.

You're a libertarian huh? Does it matter if you don't have the ability to come up with anything other than "libtard"?

You're not primary school (as opposed to A primary school, i didn't say you were A primary school at all) huh? Well stop bloody acting like it.

Ah well, if your gonna bloody violent about it....

Let's talk about Ginsgberg for one.

In her dissent re Hobby Lobby, Ginsburg wrote (bolded for your convenience):

In the Court’s view, RFRA demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation’s religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on third parties who do not share the corporation owners’ religious faith—in these cases, thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga or dependents of persons those corporations employ. Persuaded that Congress enacted RFRA to serve a far less radical purpose, and mindful of the havoc the Court’s judgment can introduce, I dissent.

Translation: To hell with the first amendment in the constitution. To hell with religious beliefs of owners of for-profit corporations. Ginsburg's "radical purpose" is to force for people who profit from investments and labor through ownership of a corporation, into accommodating legislation who's "radical purpose" is to force people, said owners, to go against their religious beliefs even to the point of funding actions that are in direct conflict with their religion, for example, funding abortions.

If you can find any logic whatsoever in her statement. ANY I'll stop calling people like this BITCH, a libtard.

But she continues:

The distinction between a community made up of believers in the same religion and one embracing persons of diverse beliefs, clear as it is, constantly escapes the Court’s attention. One can only wonder why the Court shuts this key difference from sight.

Here the bitch is stating that the other judges are blind to her desire to and I quote, "embrace persons of diverse beliefs." So no only is this bitch admitting her radical purpose, she's begging the other judges to forgo the Constitution and "embrace persons of diverse beliefs" even if that means establishing as constitutional laws that restrict religious beliefs by forcing those with religious beliefs to embrace, monetarily, persons of diverse beliefs. She is saying public accommodation should extend to the spending patterns of the people, not just limited as they are to not refusing to serve people of diverse beliefs. She wants to force people to fund abortions. This is brutally clear. As if people who abort children are a special class of people that we have to accommodate.

So now there's two points I have to make.

The first is, has no right wing justice made a decision which could be considered as extreme as this?
The second, is this actually extreme?

The first I'll leave to you, seeing as this is your point you are trying to make. I'll deal with the second part. Whether it's extreme or not.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/25/u...have-reach-far-beyond-womens-rights.html?_r=1

"“We would be entering a new world in which, for the first time, commercial enterprises could successfully claim religious exemptions from laws that govern everyone else,” Mr. Dellinger said. “A win for Hobby Lobby could turn out to be a significant setback for gay rights.”"

This was part of the argument against Hobby Lobby.

Basically the issue appears to be one of when two rights collide, which has precedent, or what logic is used to separate the two?

To be honest, having looked at the case, I don't see how you can claim this is extreme, unless of course you haven't read the case. The issues there are quite common, like I said, a clash of rights, which one wins. You can harp on about the right of freedom to religion, but you must remember that no right is absolute, many religious things are banned, such as ritual killings.

Is it extreme be against ritual killings because it goes against the right of freedom of religion?

Also, using language like "bitch" kind of makes it look like your vocabulary level is extremely low, or you have anger management problems, or mental problems.

I have far more respect for this woman than I have for the rubbish you're coming out with. GROW UP, you claim to be an adult, act like it.

 

[saveliberty]

They applied the Constitution more broadly. The Supreme Court did not contain the same people did it? That is what I meant by a different court.

Clearly amendments can alter other parts of the Constitution. The Constitution must never be subject to interpretation. Once that happens, the public can never fully know what it means, unless the Court say was it means. This transfers power from the People to the Supreme Court.

It doesn't matter whether it contained the same people or not. The fact is, if the court says one thing one year, then the complete opposite the next year and nothing has has changed with the constitution, then they're interpreting the constitution differently, aren't they?

If they are interpreting at all it is judicial activism, which should not be happening.

 

[saveliberty]

It is without a shred of Constitutional backing that Ginsberg makes her case. It FORCES one party to abandon their beliefs in favor of another. These are the owners of the company, who's rights should be foremost considered. Clearly they have a vested interest in the business and cannot just walk away to another job, as the employee can. Ever been to a Hobby Lobby? Very evident the owners have a religious outlook. Her opinion defies logic as well as the right of religious freedom. It has also been well established that employees are at will. This further reinforces the rights of owners.

 

[RKMBrown]

You have a better name for the extreme left justices? Would you prefer marxists? Perhaps pinkos? What do you call a judge that rules based on feelings instead of logic? If not a form of mental retardation what is it? I thought I was being nice to excuse their blatant views as a libtardation. But, hey if you have a better name for it I'm all ears. I libertarian. As for whether I'm primary school or not, no I'm not a primary school.

Yes, probably a lot of better names. But then I don't know of any "extreme left justices" in the US Supreme Court.

You're making a lot of claims, and nothing to back yourself up. It's all "blah blah communists blah blah i'm really childish blah blah" that i'm getting right now.

You're a libertarian huh? Does it matter if you don't have the ability to come up with anything other than "libtard"?

You're not primary school (as opposed to A primary school, i didn't say you were A primary school at all) huh? Well stop bloody acting like it.

Ah well, if your gonna bloody violent about it....

Let's talk about Ginsgberg for one.

In her dissent re Hobby Lobby, Ginsburg wrote (bolded for your convenience):

In the Court’s view, RFRA demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation’s religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on third parties who do not share the corporation owners’ religious faith—in these cases, thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga or dependents of persons those corporations employ. Persuaded that Congress enacted RFRA to serve a far less radical purpose, and mindful of the havoc the Court’s judgment can introduce, I dissent.

Translation: To hell with the first amendment in the constitution. To hell with religious beliefs of owners of for-profit corporations. Ginsburg's "radical purpose" is to force for people who profit from investments and labor through ownership of a corporation, into accommodating legislation who's "radical purpose" is to force people, said owners, to go against their religious beliefs even to the point of funding actions that are in direct conflict with their religion, for example, funding abortions.

If you can find any logic whatsoever in her statement. ANY I'll stop calling people like this BITCH, a libtard.

But she continues:

The distinction between a community made up of believers in the same religion and one embracing persons of diverse beliefs, clear as it is, constantly escapes the Court’s attention. One can only wonder why the Court shuts this key difference from sight.

Here the bitch is stating that the other judges are blind to her desire to and I quote, "embrace persons of diverse beliefs." So no only is this bitch admitting her radical purpose, she's begging the other judges to forgo the Constitution and "embrace persons of diverse beliefs" even if that means establishing as constitutional laws that restrict religious beliefs by forcing those with religious beliefs to embrace, monetarily, persons of diverse beliefs. She is saying public accommodation should extend to the spending patterns of the people, not just limited as they are to not refusing to serve people of diverse beliefs. She wants to force people to fund abortions. This is brutally clear. As if people who abort children are a special class of people that we have to accommodate.

So now there's two points I have to make.

The first is, has no right wing justice made a decision which could be considered as extreme as this?
The second, is this actually extreme?

The first I'll leave to you, seeing as this is your point you are trying to make. I'll deal with the second part. Whether it's extreme or not.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/25/u...have-reach-far-beyond-womens-rights.html?_r=1

"“We would be entering a new world in which, for the first time, commercial enterprises could successfully claim religious exemptions from laws that govern everyone else,” Mr. Dellinger said. “A win for Hobby Lobby could turn out to be a significant setback for gay rights.”"

This was part of the argument against Hobby Lobby.

Basically the issue appears to be one of when two rights collide, which has precedent, or what logic is used to separate the two?

To be honest, having looked at the case, I don't see how you can claim this is extreme, unless of course you haven't read the case. The issues there are quite common, like I said, a clash of rights, which one wins. You can harp on about the right of freedom to religion, but you must remember that no right is absolute, many religious things are banned, such as ritual killings.

Is it extreme be against ritual killings because it goes against the right of freedom of religion?

Also, using language like "bitch" kind of makes it look like your vocabulary level is extremely low, or you have anger management problems, or mental problems.

I have far more respect for this woman than I have for the rubbish you're coming out with. GROW UP, you claim to be an adult, act like it.

Firstly, yes conservative justices have also made such decisions siding not with the constitution, but rather injecting personal desires for radical change.

Secondly, as far as what may happen based on religious freedom... WTF as if religious freedom is new? WTF are you talking about. The new change was made by the legislature that wrote the NEW unconstitutional law. All this ruling does is side once more as the SCOTUS has done numerous times with the decision that the federal and state governments "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It was previously well established that the taxpayers were not to be forced into funding abortions, this just extends that to company owners, who BTW are taxpayers, people, citizens. You can't just run around calling corporations evil and use that as an excuse to punish corporations by forcing them to fund abortions, while pretending that change does not affect the owners. The argument she made is complete and utter bullshit, and you know it.

As for your accusation that not funding abortions is the same as funding ritual killings, WTF ARE YOU ON?

Yes, I read the case. And yes I'm quite familiar with reading and drafting responses and appeals.

As for the terms I pick from time to time... it's all in fun for now, but quite frankly I'm getting ready to fight these so called progressive liberals to the death, so I see calling them names as a different and somewhat less severe way to vent my anger out at them.

 

[frigidweirdo]

If they are interpreting at all it is judicial activism, which should not be happening.

I disagree.

Interpretation doesn't always mean re-interpretation. To interpret they will look at lots of different sources, historical, contemporary etc. Then they decide what the meaning of the that particular part of the Constitution means.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It is without a shred of Constitutional backing that Ginsberg makes her case. It FORCES one party to abandon their beliefs in favor of another. These are the owners of the company, who's rights should be foremost considered. Clearly they have a vested interest in the business and cannot just walk away to another job, as the employee can. Ever been to a Hobby Lobby? Very evident the owners have a religious outlook. Her opinion defies logic as well as the right of religious freedom. It has also been well established that employees are at will. This further reinforces the rights of owners.

No, I disagree. The freedom of religion is not absolute, never has been. For example ritual slaughter, as an extreme case, is simply not allowed, not matter the religious nature. Polygamy is another contentious issue.
These force one party to abandon their beliefs in favor of another. Right?

No, they can't walk away from their business, but they can't walk away from their country and the laws either.

The point Ginsburg was making was that the decision of the court allows any business owner to claim exemption from a law, merely because their religious beliefs go against it.

So, clearly Mormon businessmen and women can claim exemption from polygamy laws based on their religious beliefs. All of sudden her decision seems a little different.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Firstly, yes conservative justices have also made such decisions siding not with the constitution, but rather injecting personal desires for radical change.

Are they "bitches" too? Do you go around disrespecting people who are, more than likely more intelligent than you, and certainly more successful than you?

Secondly, as far as what may happen based on religious freedom... WTF as if religious freedom is new? WTF are you talking about. The new change was made by the legislature that wrote the NEW unconstitutional law. All this ruling does is side once more as the SCOTUS has done numerous times with the decision that the federal and state governments "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It was previously well established that the taxpayers were not to be forced into funding abortions, this just extends that to company owners, who BTW are taxpayers, people, citizens. You can't just run around calling corporations evil and use that as an excuse to punish corporations by forcing them to fund abortions, while pretending that change does not affect the owners. The argument she made is complete and utter bullshit, and you know it.

The funny thing is, the Supreme Court decision in this case did NOT address the free exercise clause of the first amendment. Oppsie. So it clearly did not do what you not only said but decided to highlight. This is what happens when you don't read the case.

What they used was the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. Also it amounts to not showing that this is the least restrictive way of doing things. The not showing part is the most important, it might be the least restrictive, but they just didn't show it. So the court rejected this.

Also this isn't about abortions, it's about contraception.

"In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs. "

This is why she rejected the court's decision.

"the Court holds that Congress, in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 42 U. S. C. §2000bb et seq., dictated the extraordinary religion-based exemptions today’s decision endorses. "

"In the Court’s view, RFRA demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation’s religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on third parties who do not share the corporation owners’ religious faith—in these cases, thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga or dependents of persons those corporations employ."

So, it's basically saying that if a company organised healthcare insurance for its employees, it gets to pick and choose what the employees can get, regardless of the religious persuasion of the employee. It basically suggests that a boss has the right to impose their religious beliefs upon the work force, even in such matters as health insurance, without regard to personal privacy in such matters.
I'm wondering how an employee using an insurance policy to get contraception impacts the owner of the company in the first place.

Now, I'm wondering which bit of this you find extreme, except of course for my last comment which, to me, seem a little bit extreme.

As for your accusation that not funding abortions is the same as funding ritual killings, WTF ARE YOU ON?

Logic is what I'm on. Also, I didn't say funding ritual killings either. So.... this is kind of you commenting on something I didn't say, so it's a bit redundant to continue.

Yes, I read the case. And yes I'm quite familiar with reading and drafting responses and appeals.

As for the terms I pick from time to time... it's all in fun for now, but quite frankly I'm getting ready to fight these so called progressive liberals to the death, so I see calling them names as a different and somewhat less severe way to vent my anger out at them.

Well you didn't read it well seeing as you think that A) the decision of the court was based on the First Amendment and B) the dissent opinion was also based on the First Amendment.

It's all fun now is it to just call people names as if you were in primary school. Personally I see it as something quite different.
You want to fight progressive liberals to death, yet you don't know what they're saying. You're fighting shadows. You're fighting Ginsburg over something she didn't say, because you took one part, took it majorly out of context, failed to understand what she's saying, then you get the sword out and start chopping like a blind knight with Parkinson's.

Well if your way of venting you anger, at something they didn't say, is name calling, then all I can say is.... grow up.

 

[RKMBrown]

Firstly, yes conservative justices have also made such decisions siding not with the constitution, but rather injecting personal desires for radical change.

Are they "bitches" too? No. I keep that name for the women that abort children.

Do you go around disrespecting people who are, more than likely more intelligent than you, and certainly more successful than you? I doubt seriously that the ones I've rightfully denigrated, are more intelligent than I, nor more successful.

Secondly, as far as what may happen based on religious freedom... WTF as if religious freedom is new? WTF are you talking about. The new change was made by the legislature that wrote the NEW unconstitutional law. All this ruling does is side once more as the SCOTUS has done numerous times with the decision that the federal and state governments "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It was previously well established that the taxpayers were not to be forced into funding abortions, this just extends that to company owners, who BTW are taxpayers, people, citizens. You can't just run around calling corporations evil and use that as an excuse to punish corporations by forcing them to fund abortions, while pretending that change does not affect the owners. The argument she made is complete and utter bullshit, and you know it.

The funny thing is, the Supreme Court decision in this case did NOT address the free exercise clause of the first amendment. Oppsie. So it clearly did not do what you not only said but decided to highlight. This is what happens when you don't read the case.

What they used was the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. Also it amounts to not showing that this is the least restrictive way of doing things. The not showing part is the most important, it might be the least restrictive, but they just didn't show it. So the court rejected this. Make up your mind DUMB ASS WAS IT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OR NOT.

Also this isn't about abortions, it's about contraception. Wrong dumb ass, it was about abortifacents, the morning after pill.

"In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs. " Make up your mind DUMB ASS WAS IT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OR NOT.

This is why she rejected the court's decision.

"the Court holds that Congress, in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 42 U. S. C. §2000bb et seq., dictated the extraordinary religion-based exemptions today’s decision endorses. " Make up your mind DUMB ASS WAS IT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OR NOT.

"In the Court’s view, RFRA demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation’s religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on third parties who do not share the corporation owners’ religious faith—in these cases, thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga or dependents of persons those corporations employ." Make up your mind DUMB ASS WAS IT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OR NOT.

So, it's basically saying that if a company organised healthcare insurance for its employees, it gets to pick and choose what the employees can get, regardless of the religious persuasion of the employee. It basically suggests that a boss has the right to impose their religious beliefs upon the work force, even in such matters as health insurance, without regard to personal privacy in such matters.

Wrong DUMB ASS THEY CAN GET WHATEVER THEY WANT. THIS WAS ABOUT WHETHER THE EMPLOYER HAS TO PAY FOR IT, DUMB ASS.


I'm wondering how an employee using an insurance policy to get contraception impacts the owner of the company in the first place. Employees can do whatever the fuck they want.

Now, I'm wondering which bit of this you find extreme, except of course for my last comment which, to me, seem a little bit extreme.

Make up your mind DUMB ASS WAS IT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OR NOT.

As for your accusation that not funding abortions is the same as funding ritual killings, WTF ARE YOU ON?

Logic is what I'm on. Also, I didn't say funding ritual killings either. So.... this is kind of you commenting on something I didn't say, so it's a bit redundant to continue.

It's not about what the employees want to buy it's about what the employers are forced to buy, dumb ass.

Yes, I read the case. And yes I'm quite familiar with reading and drafting responses and appeals.

As for the terms I pick from time to time... it's all in fun for now, but quite frankly I'm getting ready to fight these so called progressive liberals to the death, so I see calling them names as a different and somewhat less severe way to vent my anger out at them.

Well you didn't read it well seeing as you think that A) the decision of the court was based on the First Amendment and B) the dissent opinion was also based on the First Amendment.

Make up your mind DUMB ASS WAS IT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OR NOT. You might want to read the first amendment, dumb ass.

It's all fun now is it to just call people names as if you were in primary school. Personally I see it as something quite different.

Make up your mind DUMB ASS WAS IT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OR NOT.

You want to fight progressive liberals to death, yet you don't know what they're saying. You're fighting shadows. You're fighting Ginsburg over something she didn't say, because you took one part, took it majorly out of context, failed to understand what she's saying, then you get the sword out and start chopping like a blind knight with Parkinson's.

Make up your mind DUMB ASS WAS IT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OR NOT.

Well if your way of venting you anger, at something they didn't say, is name calling, then all I can say is.... grow up.

Make up your mind DUMB ASS WAS IT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OR NOT.

blue

I see a lot of insulting going on here. Come back when you've grown up.

Stop making dumb ass comments like the first amendment has nothing to do with religious freedom and I'll stop calling you a dumb ass. But yes, I accept your white flag retreat.

 

[Antares]

Firstly, yes conservative justices have also made such decisions siding not with the constitution, but rather injecting personal desires for radical change.

Are they "bitches" too? No. I keep that name for the women that abort children.

Do you go around disrespecting people who are, more than likely more intelligent than you, and certainly more successful than you? I doubt seriously that the ones I've rightfully denigrated, are more intelligent than I, nor more successful.

Secondly, as far as what may happen based on religious freedom... WTF as if religious freedom is new? WTF are you talking about. The new change was made by the legislature that wrote the NEW unconstitutional law. All this ruling does is side once more as the SCOTUS has done numerous times with the decision that the federal and state governments "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It was previously well established that the taxpayers were not to be forced into funding abortions, this just extends that to company owners, who BTW are taxpayers, people, citizens. You can't just run around calling corporations evil and use that as an excuse to punish corporations by forcing them to fund abortions, while pretending that change does not affect the owners. The argument she made is complete and utter bullshit, and you know it.

The funny thing is, the Supreme Court decision in this case did NOT address the free exercise clause of the first amendment. Oppsie. So it clearly did not do what you not only said but decided to highlight. This is what happens when you don't read the case.

What they used was the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. Also it amounts to not showing that this is the least restrictive way of doing things. The not showing part is the most important, it might be the least restrictive, but they just didn't show it. So the court rejected this. Make up your mind DUMB ASS WAS IT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OR NOT.

Also this isn't about abortions, it's about contraception. Wrong dumb ass, it was about abortifacents, the morning after pill.

"In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs. " Make up your mind DUMB ASS WAS IT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OR NOT.

This is why she rejected the court's decision.

"the Court holds that Congress, in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 42 U. S. C. §2000bb et seq., dictated the extraordinary religion-based exemptions today’s decision endorses. " Make up your mind DUMB ASS WAS IT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OR NOT.

"In the Court’s view, RFRA demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation’s religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on third parties who do not share the corporation owners’ religious faith—in these cases, thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga or dependents of persons those corporations employ." Make up your mind DUMB ASS WAS IT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OR NOT.

So, it's basically saying that if a company organised healthcare insurance for its employees, it gets to pick and choose what the employees can get, regardless of the religious persuasion of the employee. It basically suggests that a boss has the right to impose their religious beliefs upon the work force, even in such matters as health insurance, without regard to personal privacy in such matters.

Wrong DUMB ASS THEY CAN GET WHATEVER THEY WANT. THIS WAS ABOUT WHETHER THE EMPLOYER HAS TO PAY FOR IT, DUMB ASS.


I'm wondering how an employee using an insurance policy to get contraception impacts the owner of the company in the first place. Employees can do whatever the fuck they want.

Now, I'm wondering which bit of this you find extreme, except of course for my last comment which, to me, seem a little bit extreme.

Make up your mind DUMB ASS WAS IT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OR NOT.

As for your accusation that not funding abortions is the same as funding ritual killings, WTF ARE YOU ON?

Logic is what I'm on. Also, I didn't say funding ritual killings either. So.... this is kind of you commenting on something I didn't say, so it's a bit redundant to continue.

It's not about what the employees want to buy it's about what the employers are forced to buy, dumb ass.

Yes, I read the case. And yes I'm quite familiar with reading and drafting responses and appeals.

As for the terms I pick from time to time... it's all in fun for now, but quite frankly I'm getting ready to fight these so called progressive liberals to the death, so I see calling them names as a different and somewhat less severe way to vent my anger out at them.

Well you didn't read it well seeing as you think that A) the decision of the court was based on the First Amendment and B) the dissent opinion was also based on the First Amendment.

Make up your mind DUMB ASS WAS IT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OR NOT. You might want to read the first amendment, dumb ass.

It's all fun now is it to just call people names as if you were in primary school. Personally I see it as something quite different.

Make up your mind DUMB ASS WAS IT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OR NOT.

You want to fight progressive liberals to death, yet you don't know what they're saying. You're fighting shadows. You're fighting Ginsburg over something she didn't say, because you took one part, took it majorly out of context, failed to understand what she's saying, then you get the sword out and start chopping like a blind knight with Parkinson's.

Make up your mind DUMB ASS WAS IT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OR NOT.

Well if your way of venting you anger, at something they didn't say, is name calling, then all I can say is.... grow up.

Make up your mind DUMB ASS WAS IT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OR NOT.

blue

I see a lot of insulting going on here. Come back when you've grown up.

Stop making dumb ass comments like the first amendment has nothing to do with religious freedom and I'll stop calling you a dumb ass. But yes, I accept your white flag retreat.

Wait,the First Amendment has nothing to with Religious Freedom?

Did someone really say that?

 

[RKMBrown]

Firstly, yes conservative justices have also made such decisions siding not with the constitution, but rather injecting personal desires for radical change.

Are they "bitches" too? No. I keep that name for the women that abort children.

Do you go around disrespecting people who are, more than likely more intelligent than you, and certainly more successful than you? I doubt seriously that the ones I've rightfully denigrated, are more intelligent than I, nor more successful.

Secondly, as far as what may happen based on religious freedom... WTF as if religious freedom is new? WTF are you talking about. The new change was made by the legislature that wrote the NEW unconstitutional law. All this ruling does is side once more as the SCOTUS has done numerous times with the decision that the federal and state governments "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It was previously well established that the taxpayers were not to be forced into funding abortions, this just extends that to company owners, who BTW are taxpayers, people, citizens. You can't just run around calling corporations evil and use that as an excuse to punish corporations by forcing them to fund abortions, while pretending that change does not affect the owners. The argument she made is complete and utter bullshit, and you know it.

The funny thing is, the Supreme Court decision in this case did NOT address the free exercise clause of the first amendment. Oppsie. So it clearly did not do what you not only said but decided to highlight. This is what happens when you don't read the case.

What they used was the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. Also it amounts to not showing that this is the least restrictive way of doing things. The not showing part is the most important, it might be the least restrictive, but they just didn't show it. So the court rejected this. Make up your mind DUMB ASS WAS IT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OR NOT.

Also this isn't about abortions, it's about contraception. Wrong dumb ass, it was about abortifacents, the morning after pill.

"In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs. " Make up your mind DUMB ASS WAS IT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OR NOT.

This is why she rejected the court's decision.

"the Court holds that Congress, in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 42 U. S. C. §2000bb et seq., dictated the extraordinary religion-based exemptions today’s decision endorses. " Make up your mind DUMB ASS WAS IT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OR NOT.

"In the Court’s view, RFRA demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation’s religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on third parties who do not share the corporation owners’ religious faith—in these cases, thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga or dependents of persons those corporations employ." Make up your mind DUMB ASS WAS IT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OR NOT.

So, it's basically saying that if a company organised healthcare insurance for its employees, it gets to pick and choose what the employees can get, regardless of the religious persuasion of the employee. It basically suggests that a boss has the right to impose their religious beliefs upon the work force, even in such matters as health insurance, without regard to personal privacy in such matters.

Wrong DUMB ASS THEY CAN GET WHATEVER THEY WANT. THIS WAS ABOUT WHETHER THE EMPLOYER HAS TO PAY FOR IT, DUMB ASS.


I'm wondering how an employee using an insurance policy to get contraception impacts the owner of the company in the first place. Employees can do whatever the fuck they want.

Now, I'm wondering which bit of this you find extreme, except of course for my last comment which, to me, seem a little bit extreme.

Make up your mind DUMB ASS WAS IT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OR NOT.

As for your accusation that not funding abortions is the same as funding ritual killings, WTF ARE YOU ON?

Logic is what I'm on. Also, I didn't say funding ritual killings either. So.... this is kind of you commenting on something I didn't say, so it's a bit redundant to continue.

It's not about what the employees want to buy it's about what the employers are forced to buy, dumb ass.

Yes, I read the case. And yes I'm quite familiar with reading and drafting responses and appeals.

As for the terms I pick from time to time... it's all in fun for now, but quite frankly I'm getting ready to fight these so called progressive liberals to the death, so I see calling them names as a different and somewhat less severe way to vent my anger out at them.

Well you didn't read it well seeing as you think that A) the decision of the court was based on the First Amendment and B) the dissent opinion was also based on the First Amendment.

Make up your mind DUMB ASS WAS IT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OR NOT. You might want to read the first amendment, dumb ass.

It's all fun now is it to just call people names as if you were in primary school. Personally I see it as something quite different.

Make up your mind DUMB ASS WAS IT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OR NOT.

You want to fight progressive liberals to death, yet you don't know what they're saying. You're fighting shadows. You're fighting Ginsburg over something she didn't say, because you took one part, took it majorly out of context, failed to understand what she's saying, then you get the sword out and start chopping like a blind knight with Parkinson's.

Make up your mind DUMB ASS WAS IT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OR NOT.

Well if your way of venting you anger, at something they didn't say, is name calling, then all I can say is.... grow up.

Make up your mind DUMB ASS WAS IT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OR NOT.

blue

I see a lot of insulting going on here. Come back when you've grown up.

Stop making dumb ass comments like the first amendment has nothing to do with religious freedom and I'll stop calling you a dumb ass. But yes, I accept your white flag retreat.

Wait,the First Amendment has nothing to with Religious Freedom?

Did someone really say that?

Frigging Weirdo did just before raising the white flag.

 

[Antares]

Are they "bitches" too? No. I keep that name for the women that abort children.

Do you go around disrespecting people who are, more than likely more intelligent than you, and certainly more successful than you? I doubt seriously that the ones I've rightfully denigrated, are more intelligent than I, nor more successful.

The funny thing is, the Supreme Court decision in this case did NOT address the free exercise clause of the first amendment. Oppsie. So it clearly did not do what you not only said but decided to highlight. This is what happens when you don't read the case.

What they used was the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. Also it amounts to not showing that this is the least restrictive way of doing things. The not showing part is the most important, it might be the least restrictive, but they just didn't show it. So the court rejected this. Make up your mind DUMB ASS WAS IT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OR NOT.

Also this isn't about abortions, it's about contraception. Wrong dumb ass, it was about abortifacents, the morning after pill.

"In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs. " Make up your mind DUMB ASS WAS IT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OR NOT.

This is why she rejected the court's decision.

"the Court holds that Congress, in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 42 U. S. C. §2000bb et seq., dictated the extraordinary religion-based exemptions today’s decision endorses. " Make up your mind DUMB ASS WAS IT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OR NOT.

"In the Court’s view, RFRA demands accommodation of a for-profit corporation’s religious beliefs no matter the impact that accommodation may have on third parties who do not share the corporation owners’ religious faith—in these cases, thousands of women employed by Hobby Lobby and Conestoga or dependents of persons those corporations employ." Make up your mind DUMB ASS WAS IT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OR NOT.

So, it's basically saying that if a company organised healthcare insurance for its employees, it gets to pick and choose what the employees can get, regardless of the religious persuasion of the employee. It basically suggests that a boss has the right to impose their religious beliefs upon the work force, even in such matters as health insurance, without regard to personal privacy in such matters.

Wrong DUMB ASS THEY CAN GET WHATEVER THEY WANT. THIS WAS ABOUT WHETHER THE EMPLOYER HAS TO PAY FOR IT, DUMB ASS.


I'm wondering how an employee using an insurance policy to get contraception impacts the owner of the company in the first place. Employees can do whatever the fuck they want.

Now, I'm wondering which bit of this you find extreme, except of course for my last comment which, to me, seem a little bit extreme.

Make up your mind DUMB ASS WAS IT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OR NOT.


Logic is what I'm on. Also, I didn't say funding ritual killings either. So.... this is kind of you commenting on something I didn't say, so it's a bit redundant to continue.

It's not about what the employees want to buy it's about what the employers are forced to buy, dumb ass.

Well you didn't read it well seeing as you think that A) the decision of the court was based on the First Amendment and B) the dissent opinion was also based on the First Amendment.

Make up your mind DUMB ASS WAS IT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OR NOT. You might want to read the first amendment, dumb ass.

It's all fun now is it to just call people names as if you were in primary school. Personally I see it as something quite different.

Make up your mind DUMB ASS WAS IT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OR NOT.

You want to fight progressive liberals to death, yet you don't know what they're saying. You're fighting shadows. You're fighting Ginsburg over something she didn't say, because you took one part, took it majorly out of context, failed to understand what she's saying, then you get the sword out and start chopping like a blind knight with Parkinson's.

Make up your mind DUMB ASS WAS IT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OR NOT.

Well if your way of venting you anger, at something they didn't say, is name calling, then all I can say is.... grow up.

Make up your mind DUMB ASS WAS IT ABOUT RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OR NOT.

blue

I see a lot of insulting going on here. Come back when you've grown up.

Stop making dumb ass comments like the first amendment has nothing to do with religious freedom and I'll stop calling you a dumb ass. But yes, I accept your white flag retreat.

Wait,the First Amendment has nothing to with Religious Freedom?

Did someone really say that?

Frigging Weirdo did just before raising the white flag.

Good lord our Educational System truly sucks.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Stop making dumb ass comments like the first amendment has nothing to do with religious freedom and I'll stop calling you a dumb ass. But yes, I accept your white flag retreat.

Only I didn't say that, you clearly didn't read what I wrote as well as not reading the court case, and you trying to tell people to stop making dumbass comments, well......

But hey, I'm not going down to your level. Bye.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Wait,the First Amendment has nothing to with Religious Freedom?

Did someone really say that?

No. Well someone said it, but only because they didn't read what was said and tried to be smart.

Basically the court case being discussed was about religious freedom. However the Supreme Court didn't use the First Amendment, they used a law from 1993 called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. So when someone made a claim "All this ruling does is side once more as the SCOTUS has done numerous times with the decision that the federal and state governments "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." " I pointed out that the Supreme Court had clearly not used this part of the constitution at all but this act, they took this to mean that religious freedom has nothing to do with the 1A.

If only this guy would read (and stop insulting).

 

[frigidweirdo]

Good lord our Educational System truly sucks.

Yes, if only they'd teach people to A) read and B) not believe everything they do read, it's would be better.

 

[RKMBrown]

Wait,the First Amendment has nothing to with Religious Freedom?

Did someone really say that?

No. Well someone said it, but only because they didn't read what was said and tried to be smart.

Basically the court case being discussed was about religious freedom. However the Supreme Court didn't use the First Amendment, they used a law from 1993 called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. So when someone made a claim "All this ruling does is side once more as the SCOTUS has done numerous times with the decision that the federal and state governments "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." " I pointed out that the Supreme Court had clearly not used this part of the constitution at all but this act, they took this to mean that religious freedom has nothing to do with the 1A.

If only this guy would read (and stop insulting).

See you did it again.. now you are claiming that the SCOTUS believes "religious freedom has nothing to do with the 1A." You are so fucking dumb so as to be unbelievable.