If Hobby Lobby wins...

[Uncensored2008]

Uncle Tom?

Fucking scumbag

He's a racist, like all leftists are.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes I would, it is a violation of the 1st amendment, it is not allowing the freedom of religion.

It is sad that to be a citizen in a country that forces you to buy product to remain a citizen in good standing, no other industrialized country forces that burden on its people. We have lost a huge freedom.

BD thinks that everyone is just as bigoted as she is, but simply hold contrasting prejudices. She cannot conceive of principle on it's own merit, of doing right because it is right. The left has not only purged all integrity, they have lost any grasp of the CONCEPT of integrity.

 

[Uncensored2008]

are you prepping for a debut of a fresh 'women should decide to kill or not kill' commentary...?

does rape justify homicide....?

Ignoring your lame attempt to prejudice the statement with language,

of course it does. Only a demented person out of touch with the most core and common principles of civilized humanity would force a woman to have a child conceived by rape.

then i take it you support the death penalty for the rapist as well.....?

No, but he supports counseling to help the rapist get in touch with his feelings...

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Ignoring your lame attempt to prejudice the statement with language,

of course it does. Only a demented person out of touch with the most core and common principles of civilized humanity would force a woman to have a child conceived by rape.

then i take it you support the death penalty for the rapist as well.....?

No, but he support counseling to help the rapist get in tough with his feelings...

NY won't answer when the questions get tough...maybe he's gotta get in touch with his feeeeeelings first....

libs are all about killing helpless innocent new life.....but suddenly get all 'concerned' when it comes to dealing with the one responsible for the heinous act....

 

[KNB]

then i take it you support the death penalty for the rapist as well.....?

No, but he support counseling to help the rapist get in tough with his feelings...

NY won't answer when the questions get tough...maybe he's gotta get in touch with his feeeeeelings first....

libs are all about killing helpless innocent new life.....but suddenly get all 'concerned' when it comes to dealing with the one responsible for the heinous act....

Progressives want Bush and Obama to be charged for war crimes as an example to the world that We the People don't tolerate torture, lies, and indiscriminate aerial assassinations via remote-controlled flying death robots.

Rape isn't worthy of the death penalty. Repeat offenders should face chemical castration or life in prison, but not the death penalty unless they actually end a life. Bush, Obama, Clinton, Bush Sr., and Carter are still alive and each of them aided our enemies and ended thousands of innocent lives.

Abortion isn't murder because a fertilized egg is not a human being. Why can't you Christians understand that? "Be fruitful and multiply" goes against your Conservative dream of ending welfare and "entitlements" for poor people. Especially when you defend the greed of the job creators who only create jobs in China. You don't know what you are arguing for. If you outlaw abortion, more poor people will have babies. With more and more wealth being hoarded by the international money class, more poor people will need more government assistance to raise their children. Working three shitty minimum wage service jobs to barely make end's meet still won't be enough when the price of food, medicine and energy keep going up while wages don't.

Do you really want to get responsible in America? It involves charging Bush and Obama for war crimes. Start from the top. Do you know what will happen to your system then?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

No, but he support counseling to help the rapist get in tough with his feelings...

NY won't answer when the questions get tough...maybe he's gotta get in touch with his feeeeeelings first....

libs are all about killing helpless innocent new life.....but suddenly get all 'concerned' when it comes to dealing with the one responsible for the heinous act....

Progressives want Bush and Obama to be charged for war crimes as an example to the world that We the People don't tolerate torture, lies, and indiscriminate aerial assassinations via remote-controlled flying death robots.

Rape isn't worthy of the death penalty. Repeat offenders should face chemical castration or life in prison, but not the death penalty unless they actually end a life. Bush, Obama, Clinton, Bush Sr., and Carter are still alive and each of them aided our enemies and ended thousands of innocent lives.

Abortion isn't murder because a fertilized egg is not a human being. Why can't you Christians understand that? "Be fruitful and multiply" goes against your Conservative dream of ending welfare and "entitlements" for poor people. Especially when you defend the greed of the job creators who only create jobs in China. You don't know what you are arguing for. If you outlaw abortion, more poor people will have babies. With more and more wealth being hoarded by the international money class, more poor people will need more government assistance to raise their children. Working three shitty minimum wage service jobs to barely make end's meet still won't be enough when the price of food, medicine and energy keep going up while wages don't.

Do you really want to get responsible in America? It involves charging Bush and Obama for war crimes. Start from the top. Do you know what will happen to your system then?

stop rattling your liberal cage and answer this:

how can you justify the execution/abortion of an innocent child and not justify the execution of the man responsible.....?

 

[BDBoop]

Cold hard fact.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

No one can force beliefs on employees because no one is obligated to become the employee of someone else.

Heres the rub tho. What if more employers start imposing more "beliefs"? And a few turn to hundreds? The rule still applies that no one HAS to work there but many will have to work somewhere which means some will be exposed to it.

Does the worker lose their right to the CEO's belief?

Then open your own business and become the boss/employer yourself.

 

[eflatminor]

Cold hard fact.

Then there are those of us that are not arguing for or against either. We just don't want to pay for either. Deal?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Cold hard fact.

Cold hard fact, Hobby Lobby is not opposed to contraception.

 

[paperview]

Cold hard fact.

Cold hard fact, Hobby Lobby is not opposed to contraception.

They are opposed to IUD's: Contraception.

They are opposed to Emergency Contraception, which has the same medical effects as regular BC -- just variance in dosage and frequency.

BDBoop's statement stands.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Cold hard fact.

Cold hard fact, Hobby Lobby is not opposed to contraception.

They are opposed to IUD's: Contraception.

They are opposed to Emergency Contraception, which has the same medical effects as regular BC -- just variance in dosage and frequency.

BDBoop's statement stands.

IUDs - Abortion

Morning after pill - Abortion

YOU may not agree but that's of no importance. THEY believe that way and the court will uphold their beliefs. Don't like it? tough.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Cold hard fact.

Wow, you post some stupid shit, but that takes the fucking cake.

 

[emilynghiem]

This does not apply to Hobby Lobby, because that is not their issue.

Perhaps if the federal govt passed a law requiring all companies to hire pedophiles with criminal backgrounds, but their craft stores serve children who cannot be around such people, then they might sue to be exempt from this requirement, so they are not forced to violate the law and pay fines by refusing to hire sex offenders. Would that be similar?

Fornication is certainly a sin according to the Bible;

shouldn't a Christian employer have the right to refuse to hire 'fornicators'? Or fire them if their sins are discovered?

Ever hear of a morality clause in a professional contract?

Yes and that's irrelevant.

I'm asking if Hobby Lobby should have the right, for example, not to hire gays, on the grounds they are 'fornicators' -

on those grounds ALONE, with Hobby Lobby claiming religious freedom as their constitutional justification?

Your question reminds me more of the lawsuit in Texas against a Baptist School that would not hire a woman instructor for a particular position, because they did not believe in placing women in a role over teaching men, which they claimed violated their religious beliefs. The Court ruled in favor of the school.

In such cases, I would recommend resolving the conflicts in other ways, such as offering other jobs or positions that meet the same terms of payment. For the woman suing the school, they could create a parallel position of equal pay and status, but where she did not teach men but serve in some other capacity they all agreed to. (If the school did not have finances to do so, they could seek grants, community or church support to raise funds, and so the position would be contingent on raising the money to offer equal employment.)

Similar to lawsuits over wedding cakes or photography. Why not set up a network to contract out business to others who can provide these services so nobody is turned away.

Why not resolve these conflicts directly, with respect to people's beliefs, to avoid suing? I hope that creative conflict resolution is where our country is heading -- not more lawsuits!

 

[BDBoop]

Cold hard fact.

Cold hard fact, Hobby Lobby is not opposed to contraception.

They are opposed to IUD's: Contraception.

They are opposed to Emergency Contraception, which has the same medical effects as regular BC -- just variance in dosage and frequency.

BDBoop's statement stands.

Absolutely.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Absolutely.

Right;

And if you argue FOR gun control, you argue FOR rape.


Spewing retarded slogans is easy.

 

[emilynghiem]

What if you prefer to address sick abusive, or addictive behavior to PREVENT crime,
and are against using deadly force to stop crimes
or against using the death penalty AFTER a crime is already committed.

Does that mean you are for "increased crimes and murders"?

Just because you prefer to PREVENT the cause of crime BEFORE IT HAPPENS
instead of paying the costs of capital crime and punishment after the fact?

Cold hard fact.

What if you prefer diplomatic solutions instead of war,
does that mean we have to get rid of ALL military and defense
that if used properly would prevent war?

Why do we keep polarizing these issues as "either/or"?
Where one has to be right and the other has to be wrong?

Can't we focus on the best solutions and resolve objections from both sides,
and quit insulting or competing with people of different approaches?

 

[emilynghiem]

stop rattling your liberal cage and answer this:

how can you justify the execution/abortion of an innocent child and not justify the execution of the man responsible.....?

If liberals truly believed in "separation of church and state"
the govt would have no say at all in any of these issues.

Sad to say, that is why they seem to rely on party politics
to push their agenda. If they relied on Constitutional arguments,
both sides would deadlock over these issues, even 50/50 where both views are equally
protected by law from discrimination or exclusion, and no laws would ever be made.

We would achieve limited govt by Constitutional principles
if we kept all these religious and political agenda out of govt.

The liberals call this "freedom of choice" and "separation of church and state."
Too bad they don't follow it consistently.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Cold hard fact.

Cold hard fact, Hobby Lobby is not opposed to contraception.

They are opposed to IUD's: Contraception.

They are opposed to Emergency Contraception, which has the same medical effects as regular BC -- just variance in dosage and frequency.

BDBoop's statement stands.

They have no objection to contraceptives.

 

[JoeB131]

I think it's very probable that they will.

Obviously, the three female justices will vote against them, and Breyer.

Alito, Scalia, Uncle Tom and Roberts will vote for them.

And that leaves Kennedy. Mr. Swing vote.

Sonja Sotomayor was put on the court because she is dumb, and pliable. Obama viewed her as a mindless drone who would follow the orders of Ginsburg. But twice now, Sotomayor has bucked the yoke of the party and ruled against party directives. In both those cases, the issue was religious freedom. It appears that Sotomayor is a dedicated Catholic and will not aid in the censorship of the church.

I know the party views the 4 women on the court as a lock, but I think there is a solid chance that even Sotomayor will vote in favor of the 1st Amendment, leaving only Ginsburg, Kagan, and Breyer to hold up the party war on liberty.

Standard Disclamer: Breyer is gay enough to count as one of the gals, right?

Well, it isn't a "First Amendment" issue.

The first Amendment applies to people, not corporations.

As others have pointed out, the main reason why you don't see any other corporations filing Amicus briefs here is because if Hobby Lobby prevails, it would eliminate the concept of the "Corporate Veil" that separates Corporations from the people who run them. Pretty much makes it possible to sue the CEO and shareholders personally.