Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   SCOTUS: I have altered the Obamacare lawsuit, pray I don't alter it further   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 266
    More: Stupid, obamacare, U.S. Supreme Court, supreme courts, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Christian Colleges, Lee University, Liberty University, Anti-Injunction Act  
•       •       •

6278 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Nov 2012 at 8:30 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



266 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-27 07:57:05 AM  
Subs, the first suit IIRC was about the individual mandate. This suit is about religious freedom concerning contraception
 
2012-11-27 08:14:14 AM  
So, if they uphold the claim, presumably businesses run by Jehovah's witnesses wouldn't be forced to cover blood transfusions for their staff?
 
2012-11-27 08:25:22 AM  
Um yeah religious grounds:
Numbers 5:12-28 prescibes an abortive mixture if a man's wife "goes astray and is unfaithful to him"
 
2012-11-27 08:29:53 AM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Um yeah religious grounds:
Numbers 5:12-28 prescibes an abortive mixture if a man's wife "goes astray and is unfaithful to him"


Barley and dirt? Would that even do anything?
 
2012-11-27 08:33:00 AM  

nekom: Because People in power are Stupid: Um yeah religious grounds:
Numbers 5:12-28 prescibes an abortive mixture if a man's wife "goes astray and is unfaithful to him"

Barley and dirt? Would that even do anything?


If it's shoved int he right hole it would
 
2012-11-27 08:34:41 AM  

nekom: Because People in power are Stupid: Um yeah religious grounds:
Numbers 5:12-28 prescibes an abortive mixture if a man's wife "goes astray and is unfaithful to him"

Barley and dirt? Would that even do anything?


Since when has the bible been about solutions that work?
 
2012-11-27 08:35:28 AM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Um yeah religious grounds:
Numbers 5:12-28 prescibes an abortive mixture if a man's wife "goes astray and is unfaithful to him"


Would that include the abortifacient plant that the Romans liked so much it went extinct?
 
2012-11-27 08:35:45 AM  

Lost Thought 00: nekom: Because People in power are Stupid: Um yeah religious grounds:
Numbers 5:12-28 prescibes an abortive mixture if a man's wife "goes astray and is unfaithful to him"

Barley and dirt? Would that even do anything?

If it's shoved int he right hole it would


How do you know this...?
 
2012-11-27 08:36:52 AM  
The next lawsuit will be because Obama didn't say "Simon says" when he signed the bill into law.
 
2012-11-27 08:37:25 AM  
this will not end well for the fundies.
 
2012-11-27 08:38:06 AM  

somedude210: Lost Thought 00: nekom: Because People in power are Stupid: Um yeah religious grounds:
Numbers 5:12-28 prescibes an abortive mixture if a man's wife "goes astray and is unfaithful to him"

Barley and dirt? Would that even do anything?

If it's shoved int he right hole it would

How do you know this...?


scientific process
 
2012-11-27 08:38:44 AM  
Good, more false hope for Republicans. You have to build them up before you can knock them down.
 
2012-11-27 08:40:00 AM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Um yeah religious grounds:
Numbers 5:12-28 prescibes an abortive mixture if a man's wife "goes astray and is unfaithful to him"


That's the primitive, ridiculous part of the book we're supposed to ignore and pretend doesn't exist, as opposed to the primitive, ridiculous parts of the book we're supposed to follow to the exact letter as personally delivered instructions from the creator of the universe.
 
2012-11-27 08:40:26 AM  

DammitIForgotMyLogin: So, if they uphold the claim, presumably businesses run by Jehovah's witnesses wouldn't be forced to cover blood transfusions for their staff?


Since there is really no limit to religious belief, an employer can say they are against meal breaks or paying employees at all.
 
2012-11-27 08:41:04 AM  
Do the religious freedoms of the corporations trump the religious freedoms of their employees?
 
2012-11-27 08:41:08 AM  

DammitIForgotMyLogin: So, if they uphold the claim, presumably businesses run by Jehovah's witnesses wouldn't be forced to cover blood transfusions for their staff?


This.

ANybody who doesn't want to have to pay for any health insurance can just claim to be of a religion that doesn't practice medicine.
 
2012-11-27 08:41:20 AM  
More arguments for single payer.
 
2012-11-27 08:42:08 AM  

Xythero: DammitIForgotMyLogin: So, if they uphold the claim, presumably businesses run by Jehovah's witnesses wouldn't be forced to cover blood transfusions for their staff?

Since there is really no limit to religious belief, an employer can say they are against meal breaks or paying employees at all.


Bingo.

/Isn't slavery in the Bible?
 
2012-11-27 08:42:14 AM  

Wyalt Derp: Do the religious freedoms of the corporations trump the religious freedoms of their employees?


abovethelaw.com

It says so right in the Constitution!
 
2012-11-27 08:42:23 AM  
Do they or any of their students get a single taxpayer cent under any guise for any reason?

Really. Does anyone know?
 
2012-11-27 08:42:36 AM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Um yeah religious grounds:
Numbers 5:12-28 prescibes an abortive mixture if a man's wife "goes astray and is unfaithful to him"


Technically, it was a permanent contraceptive measure, if it the thing I think you're talking about.
 
2012-11-27 08:43:08 AM  
I like how the administration wants the suit to go forward. They know they're going to win, so they want the religion question answered once and for all.
 
2012-11-27 08:48:03 AM  

hershy799: Xythero: DammitIForgotMyLogin: So, if they uphold the claim, presumably businesses run by Jehovah's witnesses wouldn't be forced to cover blood transfusions for their staff?

Since there is really no limit to religious belief, an employer can say they are against meal breaks or paying employees at all.

Bingo.

/Isn't slavery in the Bible?



"And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has betrothed her to himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He shall have no right to sell her to a foreign people, since he has dealt deceitfully with her. And if he has betrothed her to his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. If he takes another wife, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, and her marriage rights."
-Exodus 21 7-11

/womyns rights in the workplace
 
2012-11-27 08:48:08 AM  
Seriously, why do "Christians" hate health care so much. I remember Jesus was quite fond of healing the sick.

/No, don't laugh, really, he was
 
2012-11-27 08:48:19 AM  
Christian Scientists may have a large influx of worshipers.
 
2012-11-27 08:48:19 AM  

Rev. Creflo Baller: I like how the administration wants the suit to go forward. They know they're going to win, so they want the religion question answered once and for all.


Pretty much. Which is exactly what the SCOTUS I think wants as well.
 
2012-11-27 08:48:28 AM  

DammitIForgotMyLogin: So, if they uphold the claim, presumably businesses run by Jehovah's witnesses wouldn't be forced to cover blood transfusions for their staff?


Jehovah's Witnesses would just be the start. Christian Scientist's employees wouldn't be eligible for anything other than a few prayers. If you work for a Scientologist then when you come down with cancer the only thing insurance would pay for would be an engram screening and credit check.

Don't think this would be a problem? Then ask yourself this: how sure are you about where the owner of your company goes to church?
 
2012-11-27 08:48:44 AM  

DammitIForgotMyLogin: So, if they uphold the claim, presumably businesses run by Jehovah's witnesses wouldn't be forced to cover blood transfusions for their staff?


Bingo. I'll start a business and make it my religion that women should have protected sex as often as possible. :-)
 
2012-11-27 08:49:29 AM  

DammitIForgotMyLogin: So, if they uphold the claim, presumably businesses run by Jehovah's witnesses wouldn't be forced to cover blood transfusions for their staff?


Christian Scientist can just pay for prayer insurance.
 
2012-11-27 08:50:24 AM  

LouDobbsAwaaaay: The next lawsuit will be because Obama didn't say "Simon says" when he signed the bill into law.


I thought that's what the Benghazi thing was about

/I'm confused
//it's too early for this crap
 
2012-11-27 08:50:45 AM  

Karac: Don't think this would be a problem? Then ask yourself this: how sure are you about where the owner of your company goes to church?


Answer: The bank.

And if your employer can save a substantial amount of money by pretending to be a Christian "Scientist" or a Scientologist or a voodoo practitioner, he will.
 
2012-11-27 08:50:59 AM  

markfara: Do they or any of their students get a single taxpayer cent under any guise for any reason?

Really. Does anyone know?


You're asking if a christian college gets taxpayer assistance? I'm not going to look anything up, but I will declare with supreme confidence they are rolling in taxpayer cash.
 
2012-11-27 08:51:32 AM  
So when will I get the refund for the wars I was forced to pay for against my beliefs?
 
2012-11-27 08:51:39 AM  
In unrelated news, official corporate religions favors faith healing.

Sweet, but eating at a chain restaurant may be or shopping at megamart may involve getting your shots up to date first if you interact with any of the purposely untreated employees.  Glovesand masks are mandatory.
 
2012-11-27 08:55:01 AM  

OwnerJFA: DammitIForgotMyLogin: So, if they uphold the claim, presumably businesses run by Jehovah's witnesses wouldn't be forced to cover blood transfusions for their staff?

Bingo. I'll start a business and make it my religion that women should have protected sex as often as possible. :-)


You religious reformers make me sick. In my faith, women must have unprotected sex as often as possible.
 
2012-11-27 08:56:13 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: markfara: Do they or any of their students get a single taxpayer cent under any guise for any reason?

Really. Does anyone know?

You're asking if a christian college gets taxpayer assistance? I'm not going to look anything up, but I will declare with supreme confidence they are rolling in taxpayer cash.


OK. Well. . . F*ck them, then.
 
2012-11-27 08:56:34 AM  
Why do Christians get a different set of rules? If I started a religion where rape and murder were tenets it would not make me exempt.
 
2012-11-27 08:57:14 AM  

OwnerJFA: DammitIForgotMyLogin: So, if they uphold the claim, presumably businesses run by Jehovah's witnesses wouldn't be forced to cover blood transfusions for their staff?

Bingo. I'll start a business and make it my religion that women should have protected sex as often as possible. :-)


Well, it will need to be part of a medicinal cure. But that is not really a problem. The Dr. Gottenwood treatment for hysteria, headaches, backache, upset stomach, calluses, and hangnails is lots of sex. So if they have any of those problems, just have them come in for the cure.
 
2012-11-27 08:57:23 AM  
I guess every thread can be a religion bashing thread.
 
2012-11-27 08:57:57 AM  

Citrate1007: Why do Christians get a different set of rules? If I started a religion where rape and murder were tenets it would not make me exempt.


Raping little boys appears to be a tenent of the Roman Catholic Church. They also seem to be pretty well exempt from punishment for it.
 
2012-11-27 08:59:36 AM  

Kurmudgeon: I guess every thread can be a religion bashing thread.


If you don't want to be bashed, don't be such jerks.
 
2012-11-27 09:00:11 AM  

InmanRoshi: Because People in power are Stupid: Um yeah religious grounds:
Numbers 5:12-28 prescibes an abortive mixture if a man's wife "goes astray and is unfaithful to him"

That's the primitive, ridiculous part of the book we're supposed to ignore and pretend doesn't exist, as opposed to the primitive, ridiculous parts of the book we're supposed to follow to the exact letter as personally delivered instructions from the creator of the universe.


Do you know personally any hard-core fundies? They will tell you (stridently) that every single word and punctuation mark in both the Old and New Testaments was dictated in ringing tones by God Himself to the editors of the King James Version. And that includes the fact that their copy of the Book is in English, and it includes the type of cloth in the binding and the glue in the spine. If you doubt one iota of anything the Bible says, you open the way to doubt all of it.

Southern Baptists, especially, are masters of intellectual compartmentalization.
 
2012-11-27 09:01:27 AM  

Kurmudgeon: I guess every thread can be a religion bashing thread.


We used to feed them to lions.
 
2012-11-27 09:03:13 AM  
FTA: the law's individual and employer mandates violate the institution's religious freedom.

This is the really stupid part. Institutions don't have "religious freedom" for the simple reason that they don't have "religious beliefs" -- only individual people do.

I don't care whether the institution is a university, a corporation, the Catholic church, a golf club, or your poker circle. Until they can show me the actual person whose religious freedom is being infringed by the mandate, I'm not interested.

(As an aside: if the indivdual mandate part of the law required people to buy insurance that covered abortions or contraception, they might have a point.)
 
2012-11-27 09:03:23 AM  
You know, it wouldn't surprise me if certain right-wing members of the Court had been having very quiet meetings with the plaintiffs in this new suit, to help them find ways of killing the ACA without it being too obvious. The days when Justices approached a case with careful political neutrality are loooooooooong gone.
 
2012-11-27 09:05:07 AM  

Kurmudgeon: I guess every thread can be a religion bashing thread.


How is your religion being bashed?
 
2012-11-27 09:06:42 AM  
This is no more "forced funding for abortions" than the requirement to pay your employees for their work.
 
2012-11-27 09:07:00 AM  
Man those Christians really hate helping sick people don't they??
 
2012-11-27 09:07:05 AM  
I don't think a religious institution should be forced to fund abortions or birth control (despite the fact I personally disagree with those religious beliefs). If you don't like those concepts, don't work there.
 
2012-11-27 09:07:12 AM  

mksmith: You know, it wouldn't surprise me if certain right-wing members of the Court had been having very quiet meetings with the plaintiffs in this new suit, to help them find ways of killing the ACA without it being too obvious. The days when Justices approached a case with careful political neutrality are loooooooooong gone.


I don't think they give two shiats about being obvious.
 
Displayed 50 of 266 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report