Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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.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....
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?
Abortion isn't murder because a fertilized egg is not a human being.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 womans 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.
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.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.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.
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.
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;8864926 said:[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?
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.
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.
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]
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 womans 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 you outlaw abortion, more poor people will have babies....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....
?
