If Hobby Lobby wins...

[Uncensored2008]

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

Sorry Comrade, we are speaking of the American Constitution, which has a first amendment prohibiting congress from infringing freedom of religion. I know you only are familiar with the North Korean constitution - which has one word "Obey."

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.

I realize that you seek a dictatorship, but HL will prevail, because the law of the land is on their side, and 5 or 6 justices will rule in favor of the 1st, and against dictatorship.

 

[paperview]

So...it only took 225 years for Americans to realize Corporations, fictional entities, they too should be afforded religious recognition, as if they were living, breathing, sentient hoomans.

Well whaddaya say.

 

[TemplarKormac]

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?

Let's stop you at the first line.

You, a liberal, want Obama prosecuted for war crimes? Weren't you cheering when he killed Bin Laden? I mean, he doesn't mind killing children overseas with drones, but gives not the slightest care in the world if women stateside slaughter hundreds of thousands of them yearly for the sake of a choice. This makes me sick to my stomach.

Abortion isn't murder because a fertilized egg is not a human being.

First it was the fetus that wasn't a human being. Now you pro choicers move the goalposts to the egg itself. Caught red handed. Funny, if this egg happened to be inside of a dog, you would say "that's gonna be a dog!" But I guess human eggs are nothing compared to that. It's funny how you treat animals with more reverence then the child forming inside of the womb.

"Be fruitful and multiply" goes against your Conservative dream of ending welfare and "entitlements" for poor people.

Yanno, I get real tired of hearing this one. Being fruitful and multiplying doesn't mean subsidizing a poor person into perpetual... how shall I put it... poorness. Since when is being perpetually poor akin to being fruitful, or multiplying? Oh, and before I forget, if you want us to "multiply" then stop advocating abortion. Abortion is the direct antithesis of "multiplying." Please try to keep up.

Especially when you defend the greed of the job creators who only create jobs in China.

We do? Care to provide a direct link to this? And when has Obama done anything to correct it? And what does job creation anywhere have to do with abortion, mayhap?

You don't know what you are arguing for.

Ha! A colossal ad baculum statement. I do believe you haven't the slightest clue yourself.

If you outlaw abortion, more poor people will have babies.

What? And who said anything about "outlawing" anything?

With more and more wealth being hoarded by the international money class, more poor people will need more government assistance to raise their children.

Once again, what does class warfare have to do with abortion? Your whole statement thus far is nothing but an amalgamation of liberal talking points. Strawmen.

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.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum. You've managed to a) trash the rich b) talk about war crimes c) accuse us of wanting to "outlaw abortion," all in one statement. Just what are you trying to get at?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

You are right, it is an RFRA issue, which is why the only people mentioning the 1st Amendment are the idiots that claim Hobby Lobby wants to shove their religion down people's throats.

Yes, you are one of those idiots.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So...it only took 225 years for Americans to realize Corporations, fictional entities, they too should be afforded religious recognition, as if they were living, breathing, sentient hoomans.

Well whaddaya say.

It actually took that long before some idiot tried to argue that groups of people don't have rights, unless they do.

 

[Little-Acorn]

So...it only took 225 years for Americans to realize Corporations, fictional entities, they too should be afforded religious recognition, as if they were living, breathing, sentient hoomans.

Well whaddaya say.

It actually took that long before some idiot tried to argue that groups of people don't have rights, unless they do.

And it took just a fraction of a second longer for another idiot to argue that when people joined a corporation, they lost all claim to any religious beliefs they might have.

They were no longer people, they were property. Of the corporation. (Where have we heard that phrase before?)

Sorry, lefties. If the corporation does not have any claim to religious beliefes or standards, then the people IN the corporation must have such claims... and must be respected and obeyed, as required by the 1st amendment.

 

[NYcarbineer]

there is no discrimination here, all employees are treated equally. HL's insurance covers all kinds of birth control. Their only objection is to abortion causing drugs after the birth control has either failed or not been used.

Its really a shame that not one of you lib/dems even understands what this suit is about.

The issue is not abortion. The federal government can't fund abortion. The federal government can already pay for IUD's.

That is exactly the issue, HL does not want their company provided insurance to cover abortion causing drugs------------that is the ONLY issue.

That might be the case here but it's not the issue. Hobby Lobby or some other religious business owners could be objecting to all sorts of medical procedures on religious grounds.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

No, they should not have the right to not hire someone on the basis of sexual preferences. Every one of your attempts an moral equivalency suck.

this case is about HL no wanting to provide abortion causing drugs as part of the insurance that they provide to their employees. That is all it is about.

But they can refuse service to them? As in the AZ bill that failed? lol

btw, these contraceptive methods are covered by insurance on the exchanges:

Covered contraceptive methods

All Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods prescribed by a woman’s doctor are covered, including:

•Barrier methods (used during intercourse), like diaphragms and sponges
•Hormonal methods, like birth control pills and vaginal rings
•Implanted devices, like intrauterine devices (IUDs)
•Emergency contraception, like Plan B® and ella®

If any of those were abortions, they couldn't be in the exchange plans, because the exchange plans get federal subsidies,

and the Hyde Amendment prohibits federal money going for abortions.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The issue is not abortion. The federal government can't fund abortion. The federal government can already pay for IUD's.

That is exactly the issue, HL does not want their company provided insurance to cover abortion causing drugs------------that is the ONLY issue.

That might be the case here but it's not the issue. Hobby Lobby or some other religious business owners could be objecting to all sorts of medical procedures on religious grounds.

Funny how you love slippery slopes when they might come down you r way, but are totally contemptuous of them when they fall on top of you, isn't it?

Just to show you how stupid you are, according to the government, anyone that has a religious objection to health insurance can opt out and amply pay the $2000 per employee fine. That means that they can already opt out, so you can relax and stop predicting the end of the universe if people actually have rights.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

No, they should not have the right to not hire someone on the basis of sexual preferences. Every one of your attempts an moral equivalency suck.

this case is about HL no wanting to provide abortion causing drugs as part of the insurance that they provide to their employees. That is all it is about.

But they can refuse service to them? As in the AZ bill that failed? lol

btw, these contraceptive methods are covered by insurance on the exchanges:

Covered contraceptive methods

All Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods prescribed by a woman’s doctor are covered, including:

•Barrier methods (used during intercourse), like diaphragms and sponges
•Hormonal methods, like birth control pills and vaginal rings
•Implanted devices, like intrauterine devices (IUDs)
•Emergency contraception, like Plan B® and ella®

If any of those were abortions, they couldn't be in the exchange plans, because the exchange plans get federal subsidies,

and the Hyde Amendment prohibits federal money going for abortions.

By the way, the fact that they are covered does not prove they are not abortifacient drugs, it just proves they are covered.

Unless, that is, you can prove that Obama has never in his life told a lie.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The issue is not abortion. The federal government can't fund abortion. The federal government can already pay for IUD's.

That is exactly the issue, HL does not want their company provided insurance to cover abortion causing drugs------------that is the ONLY issue.

That might be the case here but it's not the issue. Hobby Lobby or some other religious business owners could be objecting to all sorts of medical procedures on religious grounds.

I have a nice list going if it happens, starting with pregnancy. There are too many kids in the world already. Let the games begin.

 

[RandallFlagg]

That is exactly the issue, HL does not want their company provided insurance to cover abortion causing drugs------------that is the ONLY issue.

That might be the case here but it's not the issue. Hobby Lobby or some other religious business owners could be objecting to all sorts of medical procedures on religious grounds.

I have a nice list going if it happens, starting with pregnancy. There are too many kids in the world already. Let the games begin.

I don't condone abortion, but there ARE circumstances, for example, where it might be necessary - YOU for example, would have been a perfect case for the life of the Mother...

 

[JoeB131]

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

Sorry Comrade, we are speaking of the American Constitution, which has a first amendment prohibiting congress from infringing freedom of religion. I know you only are familiar with the North Korean constitution - which has one word "Obey."

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.

I realize that you seek a dictatorship, but HL will prevail, because the law of the land is on their side, and 5 or 6 justices will rule in favor of the 1st, and against dictatorship.

Actually, I suspect a 5-4 ruling against HObby Lobby, because Corporate Personhood is such a thicket of messed up, no one would want to go there.

 

[Ame®icano]

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

Sorry Comrade, we are speaking of the American Constitution, which has a first amendment prohibiting congress from infringing freedom of religion. I know you only are familiar with the North Korean constitution - which has one word "Obey."

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.

I realize that you seek a dictatorship, but HL will prevail, because the law of the land is on their side, and 5 or 6 justices will rule in favor of the 1st, and against dictatorship.

Actually, I suspect a 5-4 ruling against HObby Lobby, because Corporate Personhood is such a thicket of messed up, no one would want to go there.

How about no ruling with explanation that this coverage was not part of ACA, but added by executive order?

 

[JoeB131]

[q

Actually, I suspect a 5-4 ruling against HObby Lobby, because Corporate Personhood is such a thicket of messed up, no one would want to go there.

How about no ruling with explanation that this coverage was not part of ACA, but added by executive order?

Not the reasoning that they were suing under in this case.

They weren't suing that the Executive Branch lacked authority under the ACA to create mandates.

They were arguing that an imaginary entity (Hobby Lobby) believes in an imaginary being (God) who says that certain kinds of birth control are equivlent to abortion (which is disputed by the entire medical community.)

THis would be laughed out of court, normally, but now we've got people like Scalia and Uncle Tom on there who can twist all sorts of logic to suit their agenda.

In this case, though, they might open a can of worms the GOP's Corporate Masters don't want opened- that corporations are the people who own and run them, and they can be sued for the actions of said corporation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

That is exactly the issue, HL does not want their company provided insurance to cover abortion causing drugs------------that is the ONLY issue.

That might be the case here but it's not the issue. Hobby Lobby or some other religious business owners could be objecting to all sorts of medical procedures on religious grounds.

Funny how you love slippery slopes when they might come down you r way, but are totally contemptuous of them when they fall on top of you, isn't it?

Just to show you how stupid you are, according to the government, anyone that has a religious objection to health insurance can opt out and amply pay the $2000 per employee fine. That means that they can already opt out, so you can relax and stop predicting the end of the universe if people actually have rights.

Equivalents are not a slippery slope. Hobby Lobby is objecting to medical treatments, in this case certain forms of birth control.

Catholicism opposes all artificial birth control. There is no 'slippery slope' to the prospect that a business run by a Catholic could demand to be exempted from all birth control coverage in the insurance.

 

[Redfish]

That might be the case here but it's not the issue. Hobby Lobby or some other religious business owners could be objecting to all sorts of medical procedures on religious grounds.

Funny how you love slippery slopes when they might come down you r way, but are totally contemptuous of them when they fall on top of you, isn't it?

Just to show you how stupid you are, according to the government, anyone that has a religious objection to health insurance can opt out and amply pay the $2000 per employee fine. That means that they can already opt out, so you can relax and stop predicting the end of the universe if people actually have rights.

Equivalents are not a slippery slope. Hobby Lobby is objecting to medical treatments, in this case certain forms of birth control.

Catholicism opposes all artificial birth control. There is no 'slippery slope' to the prospect that a business run by a Catholic could demand to be exempted from all birth control coverage in the insurance.

pay attention---HL is not objecting to any form of birth control, they are objecting to abortion causing drugs, nothing else. abortion is NOT birth control.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Funny how you love slippery slopes when they might come down you r way, but are totally contemptuous of them when they fall on top of you, isn't it?

Just to show you how stupid you are, according to the government, anyone that has a religious objection to health insurance can opt out and amply pay the $2000 per employee fine. That means that they can already opt out, so you can relax and stop predicting the end of the universe if people actually have rights.

Equivalents are not a slippery slope. Hobby Lobby is objecting to medical treatments, in this case certain forms of birth control.

Catholicism opposes all artificial birth control. There is no 'slippery slope' to the prospect that a business run by a Catholic could demand to be exempted from all birth control coverage in the insurance.

[SIZE="7"pay attention---HL is not objecting to any form of birth control, they are objecting to abortion causing drugs, nothing else. abortion is NOT birth control.[/SIZE]

Are you denying that Catholicism objects to ALL birth control? Are you denying that that is a core religious belief of a major branch of the Christian faith?

 

[NYcarbineer]

No, they should not have the right to not hire someone on the basis of sexual preferences. Every one of your attempts an moral equivalency suck.

this case is about HL no wanting to provide abortion causing drugs as part of the insurance that they provide to their employees. That is all it is about.

But they can refuse service to them? As in the AZ bill that failed? lol

btw, these contraceptive methods are covered by insurance on the exchanges:

Covered contraceptive methods

All Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods prescribed by a woman’s doctor are covered, including:

•Barrier methods (used during intercourse), like diaphragms and sponges
•Hormonal methods, like birth control pills and vaginal rings
•Implanted devices, like intrauterine devices (IUDs)
•Emergency contraception, like Plan B® and ella®

If any of those were abortions, they couldn't be in the exchange plans, because the exchange plans get federal subsidies,

and the Hyde Amendment prohibits federal money going for abortions.

By the way, the fact that they are covered does not prove they are not abortifacient drugs, it just proves they are covered.

Unless, that is, you can prove that Obama has never in his life told a lie.

If they're abortion drugs, under the law, the Hyde amendment would prohibit them from being offered in the exchanges.

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

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....

.... If you outlaw abortion, more poor people will have babies....

?

So tell me, these "unwanted" children, what are we to do with them?? Will you send them home with a parent who not only does not want their new albatross but sees them as a burden / hindrance. A baby who will neither be wanted or loved in life by it's biological parents.

So will you put these children in an over burdened system and make them a responsibility of the government?? What type of life will they have? How many will be sexually / mentally / physically abused as they travel through a system fraught with sexual / financial predators who have little to no regard for human life.

Is this the life you would choose for these poor souls, aren't you the compassionate one ...

Will you sleep better at night knowing that some poor defenseless child is being victimized and that you were an integral part of it. No you did not participate but had you let the mother make a choice only SHE is capable of all that misery could be avoided. It is easy for you to sit in your ivory towers and envision a perfect world but at the end of the day it an an evil world full of evil people. You can claim you were unaware just as the Democraps do on a regular basis, but really would you rather come off as just plain wrong or totally ignorant.

I would have left this thread alone but your flippant attitude struck a nerve...