Democrats Fast-Track Bill To Override Hobby Lobby Decision

[AmericanFirst]

[

What the **** does Romney being Mormon have to do with his political views? Does your brain actually work, or do you just type randomly on the keyboard on the hope that it makes sense?

I couldn't tell you what Romney's political views were. Were we getting Moderate Mitt from Massachusetts or Conservative Mitt from 2008 or Business MItt from 2012? You never knew what you were going to get with that guy politically.

But being a member of the fucked up, misogynistic, racist, homophobic Mormon Cult. Well, that's an easy one.

Better than being a satan worshiping muslim.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That wasn't what I asked. Do you think that's right? Is that good government?

Of course not. The question is whether people with religious convictions should be treated differently than people with non-religious convictions. I'm asking whether you believe in equal rights, or whether you endorse class-based rights.

Freedom is a general concept. When rights are granted only to some, it's privilege. The First has been twisted into an excuse to violate the law, rather than a protection of freedom. It's meant to prohibit laws that violate the listed freedoms (speech, religion, etc..), not as a loophole for specific people or circumstances. The Hobby Lobby case was, indeed, a first amendment violation, but it still is - the only proper cure is to overrule the law, not create ad-hoc exemptions.

You keep missing the point here.

Some individuals object things other people have no problem with. A great example of this is conscientious objectors to war. The law allows anyone, for any reason, to except themselves from military service if they have a sincere objection to war. According to you, this is giving special privileges to a few people, it isn't. Anyone can invoke the right to refuse to go to war. The fact that most people do not is not indicative that this is available only to a few people, despite your stubborn insistence that it is.

No, it's privilege, offered only to certain people for certain reasons. Rights and freedoms are universal principles. They apply to everyone all the time, and they can only be limited by the state with just cause and extenuating circumstances. What you're defending is the opposite, special exemptions offered only for "just cause or extenuating circumstances".

Seriously? Privilege?

How the **** is it privilege when literally anyone in the country can invoke it? Does the fact that not everyone votes, even though they can, make voting a privilege? Does the fact that not everyone says silent when there is a cop asking questions make it a privilege for those that do?

The mere fact that you keep insisting you are right, without actually defining how the fact that someone not using their freedoms somehow means that the people that do are getting a special benefit, does not prove you are right. You need to define to me what special benefit is ascertained just because you don't do something that you have the power to do. I challenge you to read the RFRA and explain to me, in detail, where it says that you have to a member of a religious order, or even a church, in order to invoke it in defense of our right to refuse to do something.

(a) In general Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
(b) Exception Government may substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person—
(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

(c) Judicial relief A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution.

Under US law and court precedents, you get to define your religious beliefs. You don't have to porve that your religion even exists outside your head. all you have to do is claim that it is real to you. In other words, you are free to make a claim based in the RFRA just like the owners of Hobby Lobby.

This is why you keep missing the point, you think you have to prove something before you can claim you have an objection to a law. You don't, all you have to do is object, and then the federal government has to prove that your objection is not justified by proving that, even though the law is infringing on your rights, the government really has a good reason for the law, and that they really have no other way of accomplishing the real need that the law covers.

The government totally failed at that with the contraception mandate. If you own a company, feel free to invoke the same thing for yourself, you will win just as easily as Hobby Lobby did. Your insistence that this is an exception to the law is absurd because it isn't, it is the law. Anyone can make the same claim, and win. That is why the contraception mandate is going to be rewritten to pretend that insurance companies are paying for the contraception, exclude everyone, because it will fall otherwise.

Your refusal to open your mind to the actual facts will not change the facts.

You really need to get over your blind spot about religion here, this is about freedom. Feel free to step up and exercise your freedom instead of complaining about the people that exercise theirs.

You always fall back on that, but I think you know by now it's bullshit. My objection to this policy has nothing at all to do with religion, and everything to do with corporatism. Our legal code is thoroughly undermined by the practice of giving everyone a 'different deal' depending how much political clout their special interest group can muster. The growth of this kind of government is what's killing freedom.

Our legal code is not based on clout. If it were Hobby Lobby would have lost the case because all the clout was on the other side of the issue.

Nice scurry into conspiracy theories though.

 

[g5000]

Let me explain the difference to the tards in very simple terms they can understand.


Scenario A: Boss pays Employee money. Employee spends money, buys what they want or need as they see fit. What Employee buys is none of Boss's business.


Scenario B: Boss buys stuff for Employee. What Boss buys is Boss's business.



The Tards chose Scenario B and are completely mystified they aren't getting the outcome of Scenario A. Gosh, the boss and the government aren't giving me what I would have chosen for myself! We must need MOAR GOVERNMENT!

 

[g5000]

It drives liberals batshit insane to think an employer should be allowed a choice as to what perqs will be provided to employees other than cash.

They just can't have that. They want the employer to be forced to buy them whatever they demand.

Employer-sponsored insurance is a labor boondoggle. Since they could not get what they wanted in the free market, they got their man Obama to force it upon every employer in the country.

But that wasn't good enough. They don't want employers to have so much as a scintilla of decision-making power as to the elements they will sponsor for their employees' insurance. Oh hell no!


In the wild topsy-turvy minds of takers, they don't see this as an intrusion in any way. Nope. Because they aren't the ones having to pay the price. They are the takers, not the forcibly raped givers. They don't mind robbery of other people if it benefits themselves.


The incredible ignorant mindset is along the lines of, "If I am getting free stuff, how is that an intrusion?"

They think this shower of stuff is free because they never think about how it is paid for. They never think about the cost coming out of someone else's pocket. "I dropped out of high school, give me free insurance!"


If you dare interrupt their flow of "free" goods, THEN it suddenly becomes an intrusion! Then it is a war on (fill in the blank).


Batshit insanity.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Doesn't change the fact that it leaves people dying in hallways, just like the VA, does it?

Actually, the British live longer and have a lower infant mortality rate than we do and they spend less.

I have been through this with you before, so I won't bother to repeat the factual evidence that points out why you are wrong. I will, however, point out that you are wrong.

You can claim that all day, but it still doesn't make it true. Our own CIA admits as much.

 

[JoeB131]

It drives liberals batshit insane to think an employer should be allowed a choice as to what perqs will be provided to employees other than cash.

They just can't have that. They want the employer to be forced to buy them whatever they demand.

Employer-sponsored insurance is a labor boondoggle. Since they could not get what they wanted in the free market, they got their man Obama to force it upon every employer in the country.

But that wasn't good enough. They don't want employers to have so much as a scintilla of decision-making power as to the elements they will sponsor for their employees' insurance. Oh hell no!

In the wild topsy-turvy minds of takers, they don't see this as an intrusion in any way. Nope. Because they aren't the ones having to pay the price. They are the takers, not the forcibly raped givers. They don't mind robbery of other people if it benefits themselves.

The incredible ignorant mindset is along the lines of, "If I am getting free stuff, how is that an intrusion?"

They think this shower of stuff is free because they never think about how it is paid for. They never think about the cost coming out of someone else's pocket. "I dropped out of high school, give me free insurance!"

If you dare interrupt their flow of "free" goods, THEN it suddenly becomes an intrusion! Then it is a war on (fill in the blank).

Batshit insanity.

Except that they are not "Free Goods". They are earned by the labor of the employee doing tasks the employer cannot do for himself.

The employer is not going to hire anyone who isn't making in exccess of what it costs to employ him or her.

Of course, if we had a truly empowered workforce, employees would negotiate these issues.

 

[dblack]

It drives liberals batshit insane to think an employer should be allowed a choice as to what perqs will be provided to employees other than cash.

They just can't have that. They want the employer to be forced to buy them whatever they demand.

Employer-sponsored insurance is a labor boondoggle. Since they could not get what they wanted in the free market, they got their man Obama to force it upon every employer in the country.

But that wasn't good enough. They don't want employers to have so much as a scintilla of decision-making power as to the elements they will sponsor for their employees' insurance. Oh hell no!

In the wild topsy-turvy minds of takers, they don't see this as an intrusion in any way. Nope. Because they aren't the ones having to pay the price. They are the takers, not the forcibly raped givers. They don't mind robbery of other people if it benefits themselves.

The incredible ignorant mindset is along the lines of, "If I am getting free stuff, how is that an intrusion?"

They think this shower of stuff is free because they never think about how it is paid for. They never think about the cost coming out of someone else's pocket. "I dropped out of high school, give me free insurance!"

If you dare interrupt their flow of "free" goods, THEN it suddenly becomes an intrusion! Then it is a war on (fill in the blank).

Batshit insanity.

Except that they are not "Free Goods". They are earned by the labor of the employee doing tasks the employer cannot do for himself.

The employer is not going to hire anyone who isn't making in exccess of what it costs to employ him or her.

Of course, if we had a truly empowered workforce, employees would negotiate these issues.

Empowered? You mean if they could use violence?

 

[Darkwind]

You keep missing the point here.

Some individuals object things other people have no problem with. A great example of this is conscientious objectors to war. The law allows anyone, for any reason, to except themselves from military service if they have a sincere objection to war. According to you, this is giving special privileges to a few people, it isn't. Anyone can invoke the right to refuse to go to war. The fact that most people do not is not indicative that this is available only to a few people, despite your stubborn insistence that it is.

No, it's privilege, offered only to certain people for certain reasons. Rights and freedoms are universal principles. They apply to everyone all the time, and they can only be limited by the state with just cause and extenuating circumstances. What you're defending is the opposite, special exemptions offered only for "just cause or extenuating circumstances".

Seriously? Privilege?

How the **** is it privilege when literally anyone in the country can invoke it? Does the fact that not everyone votes, even though they can, make voting a privilege? Does the fact that not everyone says silent when there is a cop asking questions make it a privilege for those that do?

The mere fact that you keep insisting you are right, without actually defining how the fact that someone not using their freedoms somehow means that the people that do are getting a special benefit, does not prove you are right. You need to define to me what special benefit is ascertained just because you don't do something that you have the power to do. I challenge you to read the RFRA and explain to me, in detail, where it says that you have to a member of a religious order, or even a church, in order to invoke it in defense of our right to refuse to do something.



Under US law and court precedents, you get to define your religious beliefs. You don't have to porve that your religion even exists outside your head. all you have to do is claim that it is real to you. In other words, you are free to make a claim based in the RFRA just like the owners of Hobby Lobby.

This is why you keep missing the point, you think you have to prove something before you can claim you have an objection to a law. You don't, all you have to do is object, and then the federal government has to prove that your objection is not justified by proving that, even though the law is infringing on your rights, the government really has a good reason for the law, and that they really have no other way of accomplishing the real need that the law covers.

The government totally failed at that with the contraception mandate. If you own a company, feel free to invoke the same thing for yourself, you will win just as easily as Hobby Lobby did. Your insistence that this is an exception to the law is absurd because it isn't, it is the law. Anyone can make the same claim, and win. That is why the contraception mandate is going to be rewritten to pretend that insurance companies are paying for the contraception, exclude everyone, because it will fall otherwise.

Your refusal to open your mind to the actual facts will not change the facts.

You really need to get over your blind spot about religion here, this is about freedom. Feel free to step up and exercise your freedom instead of complaining about the people that exercise theirs.

You always fall back on that, but I think you know by now it's bullshit. My objection to this policy has nothing at all to do with religion, and everything to do with corporatism. Our legal code is thoroughly undermined by the practice of giving everyone a 'different deal' depending how much political clout their special interest group can muster. The growth of this kind of government is what's killing freedom.

Our legal code is not based on clout. If it were Hobby Lobby would have lost the case because all the clout was on the other side of the issue.

Nice scurry into conspiracy theories though.

That law needs to be amended to remove section b(1).

Government has no rights, therefore no compelling interest in anything.

 

[Bush92]

Jan. 2015 the payback for Senate Dem's will begin.

 

[JoeB131]

[

What the **** does Romney being Mormon have to do with his political views? Does your brain actually work, or do you just type randomly on the keyboard on the hope that it makes sense?

I couldn't tell you what Romney's political views were. Were we getting Moderate Mitt from Massachusetts or Conservative Mitt from 2008 or Business MItt from 2012? You never knew what you were going to get with that guy politically.

But being a member of the fucked up, misogynistic, racist, homophobic Mormon Cult. Well, that's an easy one.

Better than being a satan worshiping muslim.

Muslims worship the same misogynistic, homophobic, racist, sadistic Sky Pixie you worship.

The only difference is, they take him more seriously, as opposed to you ignoring most of his "Laws" if they interfere in your "Lifestyle".

Bacon, anyone?

 

[JoeB131]

Empowered? You mean if they could use violence?

The biggest reason why the Labor Movement is failing is that it forgot how to use violence to achieve its ends.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Are you so completely unaware of the employer mandate? Really? Have you been living in a cave?

I was not referring to the employer mandate portion of your post, but rather the "[the employer mandate] is an intrusion into our lives" claim. I would like you to prove this statement to be correct, or at least pretend to have something to back it up.

Wow. You really do have seven pounds of brain damage.

Please explain how the government forcing one party to buy insurance for another party is NOT an intrusion into our lives.

Hooooooooly ****! I can't believe you don't see that.

This is positively Orwellian.

And not just that, these stooges have never grasped the fact that works like 1984, Brave New World, Logan's Run, The Invasion of the Body Snatchers is all about them. . . .

This is who they are:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mq6Gctxe81E]Political Correctness: The Control of Thought and Speech - YouTube[/ame]

Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is Strength. War is Peace.


The Betas of Brave New World:

The happy, mindless conformists of Logan's Run:

Lefty is that grating screech and accusing finger . . . singling out the non-conformists:

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I am actually shaken by the kind of mentality that would believe such a statement.

As any sane person would be. Hence, my scathing posts, my utter contempt for these savages . . . for that's what they are.

 

[dblack]

Empowered? You mean if they could use violence?

The biggest reason why the Labor Movement is failing is that it forgot how to use violence to achieve its ends.

Own it. Brutality is the core of it.

 

[Stephanie]

notice how lakhota like that FAST TRACKING of stepping all over us people in the country?

he be a proud independent indian who stands on principle, honor and care for the RULE OF LAW


OK that was a joke...sorry

 

[Avatar4321]

Empowered? You mean if they could use violence?

The biggest reason why the Labor Movement is failing is that it forgot how to use violence to achieve its ends.

And that is precisely why we should disregard people such as yourself and keep you out of power. Because you want to abuse it for your own purposes.

 

[Stephanie]

You libs/left/progressives made our live MISERABLE ALL during the Bush administaion...protesting, marches, invading Senate hearing rushing Sec. of States, etc etc


and you are ten times worse with this man and the Democrat party in power

snakes in the grass folks...learn a lesson from all this at least

 

[dblack]

You libs/left/progressives made our live MISERABLE ALL during the Bush administaion...protesting, marches, invading Senate hearing rushing Sec. of States, etc etc


and you are ten times worse with this man and the Democrat party in power

snakes in the grass folks...learn a lesson from all this at least

Karl Rove and Dick Cheney aren't generally thought of as "libs/left/progressives". Huh.

 

[Plasmaball]

DIPSHIT: Force my employer to buy me stuff.

UNCLE SAM: Here you go. I will fine them if they don't buy you this stuff.

EMPLOYER: I should not be forced to buy someone else stuff.

DIPSHIT: He's intruding into my life!!! WAAAAAAH!

well thats not really how insurance works now does it.
Rare you find a company that pays fully for insurance. Typically you pay into it weekly via your paycheck.

I know of one company that doesnt make you pay for your health insurance. Thats mine.

 

[Plasmaball]

You libs/left/progressives made our live MISERABLE ALL during the Bush administaion...protesting, marches, invading Senate hearing rushing Sec. of States, etc etc


and you are ten times worse with this man and the Democrat party in power

snakes in the grass folks...learn a lesson from all this at least

yawn..more same ole same ole from steph