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.

(Scotus Blog)   Nuns: We can't complete Form A, even though it exempts us from contraception mandates. SCOTUS: Here, we replaced Form A with Form B - just file it, and you get an exemption. Nuns: Okie-dokie   (scotusblog.com) divider line 148
    More: Stupid, U.S. Supreme Court, individual mandate, Little Sisters of the Poor, group object, contraceptives, lower courts  
•       •       •

3935 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Jan 2014 at 8:13 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-24 06:05:01 PM  
So, they fill out a newly invented, but very similar form, file it with a different office of the government, and they get the exemption that they already qualified for in the first place?

Wow, that'll show those nasty Feds!

/morans
 
2014-01-24 06:09:02 PM  
Assholes...
 
2014-01-24 06:25:28 PM  
Upon a bit of reflection, the Supreme Court of Funk has a ruling as well. I was planning on smacking it to some MILF anal porn tonight; however, in light of the meaningless waste of time and resources that these cluster-farts have cost us, the Funk-court hereby declares January 24, the year of our Holy Fap, to be Nun Whacking day.

By the power vested within us;by the superfluous use of semi-colons (and some nun colons),it is so ordered that January 24 shall be 'Jerk it to a Nun Day.' May the blessings of youporn.com be with you.

Sleep tight,sisters.
 
2014-01-24 06:36:27 PM  
Alright, green. Now it's a MILF/Nun porn thread. Thanks,Drew!
 
2014-01-24 06:39:56 PM  

Doctor Funkenstein: Alright, green. Now it's a MILF/Nun porn thread. Thanks,Drew!


The bigger the headache.. the bigger the pill
 
2014-01-24 06:44:24 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-01-24 06:45:36 PM  

Doktor_Zhivago: Doctor Funkenstein: Alright, green. Now it's a MILF/Nun porn thread. Thanks,Drew!

The bigger the headache.. the bigger the pill


Dude,no pill. They're nuns! Fire your boys with care!
 
2014-01-24 07:00:06 PM  
You mean the group of nuns that had no problem providing contraception coverage before Obamacare? That group?
 
2014-01-24 07:20:01 PM  
I'm totally stunned to discover there was no deep principle at issue here. Stunned!!!
 
2014-01-24 07:22:50 PM  

grumpfuff: You mean the group of nuns that had no problem providing contraception coverage before Obamacare? That group?


You got a story for that?  My aunt is a nun with LSOTP and that really doesn't sound like them.
 
2014-01-24 07:38:12 PM  

Lsherm: grumpfuff: You mean the group of nuns that had no problem providing contraception coverage before Obamacare? That group?

You got a story for that?  My aunt is a nun with LSOTP and that really doesn't sound like them.


It was up on Fark awhile ago iirc. I'll go digging for it later if I remember, it's mom's birthday today and I'm already late in meeting her.
 
2014-01-24 08:01:18 PM  
"Form A" (EBSA Form 700) does more than just exempt them from contraceptive mandates.  It designates a third party administrator to provide the coverage.  Forcing nuns to appoint someone else to violate their religion violates their religion.
 
2014-01-24 08:11:29 PM  

SkinnyHead: "Form A" (EBSA Form 700) does more than just exempt them from contraceptive mandates.  It designates a third party administrator to provide the coverage.  Forcing nuns to appoint someone else to violate their religion violates their religion.


No it doesn't. But then again, your GED in Law probably never covered it.
 
2014-01-24 08:12:43 PM  

SkinnyHead: "Form A" (EBSA Form 700) does more than just exempt them from contraceptive mandates.  It designates a third party administrator to provide the coverage.  Forcing nuns to appoint someone else to violate their religion violates their religion.


Oh, go play in traffic.
 
2014-01-24 08:15:25 PM  

Doctor Funkenstein: Upon a bit of reflection, the Supreme Court of Funk has a ruling as well. I was planning on smacking it to some MILF anal porn tonight; however, in light of the meaningless waste of time and resources that these cluster-farts have cost us, the Funk-court hereby declares January 24, the year of our Holy Fap, to be Nun Whacking day.

By the power vested within us;by the superfluous use of semi-colons (and some nun colons),it is so ordered that January 24 shall be 'Jerk it to a Nun Day.' May the blessings of youporn.com be with you.

Sleep tight,sisters.


Just want to say:
I farking LOVE nun porn.  Just wish there was more made recently at decent resolution.
 
2014-01-24 08:19:21 PM  
My religion tells me that no member of my church has to pay any taxes.
I am the only member.
EXEMPTION PLEASE!
img.pandawhale.com
 
2014-01-24 08:19:43 PM  
This is not a permanent ruling - this only holds until their case is settled. I'm only going to mention this once.
Now I'm just going to watch.
 
2014-01-24 08:27:05 PM  
Activist Judges!!!
 
2014-01-24 08:31:33 PM  

SkinnyHead: "Form A" (EBSA Form 700) does more than just exempt them from contraceptive mandates.  It designates a third party administrator to provide the coverage.  Forcing nuns to appoint someone else to violate their religion violates their religion.


Except that their 'third party', also known as their insurance provider, also does not provide contraception.  Which means that even if they signed it, their employees still couldn't use their health insurance for that particular health-related medicine.
 
2014-01-24 08:34:47 PM  
I'm really quite amazed at the vitriol reserved for anyone with religious beliefs counter to their own.  It seems most people can't separate themselves from thinking that x religious group's beliefs are stupid from their Constitutionally-protected freedom of religion.  Just because most people disagree doesn't mean they lose their Constitutional rights.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

You may disagree with their position (as I do...hell, I think religion is illogical) but I do respect their freedom of religion.  They're not saying that people that work for them can't get birth control, they're saying they want no part in paying for it.  If you work for a Catholic organization, what do you expect?  Remember kids, every sperm is sacred.

twistedphysics.typepad.com
 
2014-01-24 08:38:51 PM  
Religion: Don't try to make sense of it and you'll do fine.
 
2014-01-24 08:39:29 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: SkinnyHead: "Form A" (EBSA Form 700) does more than just exempt them from contraceptive mandates.  It designates a third party administrator to provide the coverage.  Forcing nuns to appoint someone else to violate their religion violates their religion.

No it doesn't. But then again, your GED in Law probably never covered it.


Sure it does, Cameron.  It says so right here:
http://www.irs.gov/irb/2013-31_IRB/ar06.html

Karac: SkinnyHead: "Form A" (EBSA Form 700) does more than just exempt them from contraceptive mandates.  It designates a third party administrator to provide the coverage.  Forcing nuns to appoint someone else to violate their religion violates their religion.

Except that their 'third party', also known as their insurance provider, also does not provide contraception.  Which means that even if they signed it, their employees still couldn't use their health insurance for that particular health-related medicine.


Whether or not the third party administrator actually does it or not is not the point.  Forcing nuns to execute a document that has the legal effect of authorizing others to do something that violates their religion is a violation of their religion.
 
2014-01-24 08:42:11 PM  

slayer199: I'm really quite amazed at the vitriol reserved for anyone with religious beliefs counter to their own.  It seems most people can't separate themselves from thinking that x religious group's beliefs are stupid from their Constitutionally-protected freedom of religion.  Just because most people disagree doesn't mean they lose their Constitutional rights.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

You may disagree with their position (as I do...hell, I think religion is illogical) but I do respect their freedom of religion.  They're not saying that people that work for them can't get birth control, they're saying they want no part in paying for it.  If you work for a Catholic organization, what do you expect?  Remember kids, every sperm is sacred.

[twistedphysics.typepad.com image 500x270]


I don't think anybody here questions the validity of religious liberty, or the provisions for it made in the First Amendment.
The issue here is the extent of it's reach in regard to a fairly narrow set of circumstances. This is what is under debate, and what the court will rule on when it actually hears this case.
Merely acknowledging the existence of religious liberty is not enough  - our courts, in ruling on the law must establish the extent of the reach and scope of those liberties - an abstract cannot be directly applied to the real world without making the transition through actual law.
 
2014-01-24 08:42:46 PM  

Doctor Funkenstein: Assholes...

 
2014-01-24 08:43:52 PM  

slayer199: You may disagree with their position (as I do...hell, I think religion is illogical) but I do respect their freedom of religion.  They're not saying that people that work for them can't get birth control, they're saying they want no part in paying for it.


Their insurance company negotiated group rates on drugs with the drug manufacturers and pharmacies, and they're trying to deny their employees the right to buy drugs at that negotiated price.  They are, quite literally, trying to make sure their employees pay an artificially inflated price for drugs.  They're nasty people.
 
2014-01-24 08:46:52 PM  

SkinnyHead: Whether or not the third party administrator actually does it or not is not the point.  Forcing nuns to execute a document that has the legal effect of authorizing others to do something that violates their religion is a violation of their religion.


Nobody is forcing the nuns to hire people.  If the nuns don't want to follow employment laws, then they should not employ people.
 
2014-01-24 08:48:10 PM  
SkinnyHead:

Whether or not the third party administrator actually does it or not is not the point.  Forcing nuns to execute a document that has the legal effect of authorizing others to do something that violates their religion is a violation of their religion.

It's really not.  If the nuns believe that contraception is against their religion, they don't have to use it, no one is going to force them to.  No one is going to force the nuns to directly provide contraception to someone else.  The argument is only over if the nuns should have the right to prevent others from having access to contraception, and IMO, they shouldn't have that right.  They have the right to follow their religion, but not to impose the restrictions of their religion on anyone else.
 
2014-01-24 08:53:24 PM  
Fark that shiat. Either everyone plays by the same rules or I just joined a religion that says my employer must provide me with weekly BJs from bikini models.
 
2014-01-24 08:55:15 PM  

SkinnyHead: Sure it does, Cameron.  It says so right here:
http://www.irs.gov/irb/2013-31_IRB/ar06.html


Who is their insurer? Can you look that up?
 
2014-01-24 08:55:59 PM  

BMFPitt: Fark that shiat. Either everyone plays by the same rules or I just joined a religion that says my employer must provide me with weekly BJs from bikini models.


Hey, I'm a Rasta, Mon!
Wait'll you see MY medical plan!
 
2014-01-24 08:56:58 PM  

TuteTibiImperes: The argument is only over if the nuns should have the right to prevent others from having access to contraception, and IMO, they shouldn't have that right.  They have the right to follow their religion, but not to impose the restrictions of their religion on anyone else.


Apparently freedom of religion allows you to force other people to follow certain tenets of your religion, even if they are not themselves part of your religion. It's all right there in the GED in Law course.
 
2014-01-24 08:57:08 PM  
Granting people who violate a law that applies to everyone else a right to violate that law for religious reasons is an infringement of the establishment clause.  My religion says I am obligated to walk everywhere nude. My religious right is not violated by decency laws. If my religion says I must stone adulterers to death, my religion still does not override murder statutes. Your religion does not grant you the ability to dictate to the government what laws you will or will not obey.
 
2014-01-24 08:58:45 PM  
Oh, and by the way,  SkinnyHead, take back your GED, because in the regulations that  you yourself have linked,I am correct:

"The proposed regulations provided, in the case of an insured group health plan established or maintained by an eligible organization, that the health insurance issuer providing group coverage in connection with the plan be required to assume sole responsibility, independent of the eligible organization and its plan, for providing separate individual health insurance policies covering contraceptive services for plan participants and beneficiaries without cost sharing, premium, fee, or other charge to plan participants or beneficiaries or to the eligible organization or its plan."

[emphasis mine]
 
2014-01-24 09:01:48 PM  

slayer199: I'm really quite amazed at the vitriol reserved for anyone with religious beliefs counter to their own.  It seems most people can't separate themselves from thinking that x religious group's beliefs are stupid from their Constitutionally-protected freedom of religion.  Just because most people disagree doesn't mean they lose their Constitutional rights.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

You may disagree with their position (as I do...hell, I think religion is illogical) but I do respect their freedom of religion.  They're not saying that people that work for them can't get birth control, they're saying they want no part in paying for it.  If you work for a Catholic organization, what do you expect?  Remember kids, every sperm is sacred.

[twistedphysics.typepad.com image 500x270]


They're not farking paying for it. Health benefits are part of the employee's compensation package and the employee is the only one who should determine how they use their compensation. What their employees do on their own time with their own money - because it IS theirs - can in no possible way infringe on the employer's religious rights. To do otherwise is to, in fact, violate the employee's rights to freedom of religion by allowing the employer to enforce their religion on their employees.

This is not a difficult concept.
 
2014-01-24 09:01:56 PM  
Refusing to fill out Form A was bullshiat.  The court should have told them to file the farking form or pay for the services they don't want.  Their choice.
 
2014-01-24 09:04:09 PM  

slayer199: I'm really quite amazed at the vitriol reserved for anyone with religious beliefs counter to their own.  It seems most people can't separate themselves from thinking that x religious group's beliefs are stupid from their Constitutionally-protected freedom of religion.  Just because most people disagree doesn't mean they lose their Constitutional rights.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

You may disagree with their position (as I do...hell, I think religion is illogical) but I do respect their freedom of religion.  They're not saying that people that work for them can't get birth control, they're saying they want no part in paying for it.  If you work for a Catholic organization, what do you expect?  Remember kids, every sperm is sacred.


Obviously God wanted them to fill out a different form.

/roll eyes
 
2014-01-24 09:05:02 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Oh, and by the way,  SkinnyHead, take back your GED, because in the regulations that  you yourself have linked,I am correct:

"The proposed regulations provided, in the case of an insured group health plan established or maintained by an eligible organization, that the health insurance issuer providing group coverage in connection with the plan be required to assume sole responsibility, independent of the eligible organization and its plan, for providing separate individual health insurance policies covering contraceptive services for plan participants and beneficiaries without cost sharing, premium, fee, or other charge to plan participants or beneficiaries or to the eligible organization or its plan."

[emphasis mine]


It blows my mind that people actually try to make this argument.

Why choose to pretend that they aren't being compelled by law to provide something when it is both more honest and more rational to just say, "Fark you, that's the law, no exceptions for people whose imaginary friend is against it."
 
2014-01-24 09:11:32 PM  

qorkfiend: They're not farking paying for it. Health benefits are part of the employee's compensation package and the employee is the only one who should determine how they use their compensation. What their employees do on their own time with their own money - because it IS theirs - can in no possible way infringe on the employer's religious rights. To do otherwise is to, in fact, violate the employee's rights to freedom of religion by allowing the employer to enforce their religion on their employees.


Uh, not exactly.  Let me carry this out a bit to the extreme.   Let's say the government mandate stipulates that sex changes are covered..or abortion is covered by the government-mandated insurance plans.  You're basically saying that the religious organization must be a party to something they vehemently disagree with.  Nobody is forcing anyone to work for a religious organization that is counter to their beliefs.
 
2014-01-24 09:11:52 PM  

Lsherm: grumpfuff: You mean the group of nuns that had no problem providing contraception coverage before Obamacare? That group?

You got a story for that?  My aunt is a nun with LSOTP and that really doesn't sound like them.


Your aunt is not a nun, you liar. She'd have to excommunicate you or something. Or deny you thrice or whatever it is they do.
 
2014-01-24 09:12:01 PM  
whiny little biatches is more like it
 
2014-01-24 09:12:09 PM  
I'm surprised. I had thought the courts would have nun of their arguments.

/I'll show myself out
 
2014-01-24 09:12:50 PM  

Fart_Machine: Obviously God wanted them to fill out a different form.

/roll eyes


LOL.  Obviously.
 
2014-01-24 09:14:13 PM  
What's the matter with forcing one's employees from following a lifestyle mandated by their employer? I don't see any sort of tractionless slope that might be incurred thereof.
 
2014-01-24 09:15:08 PM  

slayer199: Uh, not exactly.  Let me carry this out a bit to the extreme.   Let's say the government mandate stipulates that sex changes are covered..or abortion is covered by the government-mandated insurance plans.  You're basically saying that the religious organization must be a party to something they vehemently disagree with.  Nobody is forcing anyone to work for a religious organization that is counter to their beliefs.


Insurance is compensation. It is absolutely no different than the money given to employees being used to buy condoms. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. Employees are compensated for work, that compensation is used by the employees in ways beyond the employer's control. Paying the insurance provider is precisely as morally culpable as signing their paychecks.
 
2014-01-24 09:19:06 PM  

slayer199: Fart_Machine: Obviously God wanted them to fill out a different form.

/roll eyes

LOL.  Obviously.


It was asinine for this case even to go forward. Just fill out the old form or STFU.
 
2014-01-24 09:19:27 PM  

Spaced Lion: I'm surprised. I had thought the courts would have nun of their arguments.

/I'll show myself out


They have a habit of doing that.
 
2014-01-24 09:20:46 PM  

SkinnyHead: "Form A" (EBSA Form 700) does more than just exempt them from contraceptive mandates.  It designates a third party administrator to provide the coverage.  Forcing nuns to appoint someone else to violate their religion violates their religion.


I'm not reading whatever you wrote. I'm loaded right now and have decided that you are needed on Fark. From a wrecked libby lib thee ever libbed.

Love you, man.

'SPECTRUM! (I'm still loaded)
 
2014-01-24 09:20:52 PM  

Zeppelininthesky: Spaced Lion: I'm surprised. I had thought the courts would have nun of their arguments.

/I'll show myself out

They have a habit of doing that.


It's conventional.
 
2014-01-24 09:22:37 PM  

Doctor Funkenstein: Assholes...


Well that is one birth control method.  Not sure it is covered under the aca though.
 
2014-01-24 09:23:26 PM  

Bloody William: Insurance is compensation. It is absolutely no different than the money given to employees being used to buy condoms. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE. Employees are compensated for work, that compensation is used by the employees in ways beyond the employer's control. Paying the insurance provider is precisely as morally culpable as signing their paychecks.


Well, they could decline to pay insurance and just pay the employee more to get their own and then the employee could get whatever plan they'd like...but that's no longer an option, is it?  You don't see a Catch-22 there?
 
Displayed 50 of 148 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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