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.

(Salon)   As the Supreme Court prepares to hear the Obamacare/birth control case tomorrow, its conservative justices are faced with a dilemma: support the religious right, or support laws which shield corporations from liability?   (salon.com) divider line 256
    More: Fail, Supreme Court, U.S. Supreme Court, obamacare, moral dilemma, religious values, racial identity, hypocrisy, conservatisms  
•       •       •

2462 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Mar 2014 at 6:07 PM (30 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-25 12:17:20 AM  

vernonFL: The Amish have to put reflectors on their buggies, they objected but they lost their case.

If the Amish can be forced to put reflectors on their buggies, then I dont see how Hobby Lobby and these other religios people can win.


That's cause an amish person dying in a buggy isn't a fetus
 
2014-03-25 12:35:44 AM  

Bith Set Me Up: They could take a third option and overturn Citizens United, but nobody's optimistic about that happening.


Especially since the holding in CU is completely irrelevant to this case.
 
2014-03-25 01:01:06 AM  

hubiestubert: Teiritzamna: hubiestubert: The central argument, again and again, is that these employers don't want to pay for these procedures. Which they don't. They might as well argue that they don't want any of the money that they pay their employees with EVER goes to porn, birth control, or alcohol, and to insure that is the case, that they want to monitor their employees' behavior to prevent such things, as it is in their "interests" so that their religious beliefs aren't violated...

Frankly i think this is the best argument the government has, that the law will not substantially burden the companies because they are not directly buying birth control (or what have you).  The problem is this abuts directly with the principle that a court cannot address the substance of an argued belief - that if a person can profess that the buying of insurance that buys birth control that someone else uses offends his religion, it's not for a court to say that this belief is unreasonable.  A court can only ascertain if the belief is sincerely held.

It is the only, to me, logical way to look at the issue.

Then again, I have these kooky ideas that we need to bring marriage equality to the Supreme Court, arguing religious freedom, equality under the law, and the right to privacy being primary over "local custom" and states passing bans to not offend a sect of not entirely unified People of the Book...


I am not sure that's true.

First, Hobby Lobby has 21,000 employees. So, I think there's a good chance they are self-insured.

When I have worked for large companies in the past (50,000 - 100,000) they would self-insure. Sure, our plans were managed by AETNA (or other large insurance companies) but our plans were self-insured. So if our costs exceeded what was in our pool, it wasn't AETNA on the hook, it was BigCo who I worked for.

AETNA took management fees because they have the infrastructure to deal with billing, negotiation, etc.

Second, Hobby Lobby probably does chip into the pool as well. That is, a Hobby Lobby's employee total wages are his or her $15 per hour PLUS $100 - $6,000 per year per employee from Hobby Lobby for health care for that employee.

The Health care pool for Hobby Lobby is probably $X per employee deducted from that employee's wages PLUS the $6,000 from Hobby Lobby contribution.

At least that's how it works at many large companies that respect their employees and don't force all the health care costs onto their employees, but provide them with health care as a benefit.

For either of these two reasons, Hobby Lobby can reasonably claim they are paying for procedures they feel are against their religious beliefs, if corporations are treated as dna people who can have religious beliefs.

I think.
 
2014-03-25 01:34:04 AM  
Insurance (required or otherwise) is simply part of the remuneration package of employees. For anyone other than actual churches to start getting exemptions to laws protecting employees from interference in what they do with their remuneration is incredibly insidious and dangerous.
 
2014-03-25 02:05:24 AM  

serial_crusher: officeday: serial_crusher: Wouldn't it be nice if we had single payer healthcare and didn't have to deal with this argument?

Not trying to be a smart aleck, I swear. It is a fact that a certain percentage of the U.S. populace does not pay any federal income tax, and admitedly I do not understand what a "single payer" system entails, but would assume that the cost of insuring all Americans would be dependant upon federal taxes collected. Not asking if it is moral, ethical, or fair, but is it even POSSIBLE for the tax base to pay for this? I just get the feeling that the "middle class" will end up paying a disproportiniate (sp?) share compard to the "poor" and to the "rich". We can't afford much more. Just not certain if we need to kill the poor or kill the rich.....

The underemployed are getting subsidies from Obamacare as it is now.  Would that necessarily be any different?  Some changes to the tax code would probably have to be implemented, but cutting insurance companies out as middle men would only help things right, not make them worse?


Nonprofit single payer for direct patient care would, at the very least, slow the growth of the long term debt (over 100 trillion).  Dallas Fed. estimated that Medicare D (prescription drug program - with none of the discounts that the military/VA receive from pharma) makes up 17 trillion of that amount.  Over the same time period (75yr) the unfunded portion of Social Security will be 3 trillion less (14 trillion).  The rest of the long term debt is owing to the remainder of the Medicare program.  It is important to note that, with medicare D, alone, the fact that Pharma doesn't discount  prices to Uncle Sam's `pool' of `clients', means that the discounts that other Nation's leverage with their `pools' of the `socialized' doesn't impact pharma's bottom line (more corporate welfare).  Pretty much taxpayer's subsidizing Canadian discounts and then crossing the border into Canada to pick up those meds.
 
2014-03-25 02:16:52 AM  

DamnYankees: RoyBatty: Good point, but I guess that's what this case is about, isn't it? Is Hobby Lobby breaking the law or not?

Well, sort of. There are 2 distinct issues here:

1) Is a corporation entitled to claim religious rights protections.

2) If so, is this particular case a violation of those rights.

The court could certainly decide that corporations do have religious protections, but that in this case they don't apply since its a law of general applicability.


You get a choice.  You can be a religious organization and get your religious rights, or you can be a for-profit organization but don't get to use religion to force employees to conform to your beliefs.  One or the other.
 
2014-03-25 02:23:27 AM  

RoyBatty: But Hartmann points to European nations in which in law, it says that corporations have a responsibility to the nation. And there, Friedman's argument is wrong. They as a society have chosen differently.


The problem with that is the government gets to decide what is considered running a business in a manner responsible to the nation.  Get a majority of twatwaffles running the nation and things could turn ugly.  Also, that is one of the primary pillars of the fascist system.
 
2014-03-25 02:25:14 AM  

k1j2b3: I find it incredibly silly that Obama will allow certain companies and groups of people to be excluded from the mandate


And that isn't even legal under his own damn law.  When you grant exclusions to the law for a select few, you create a privileged class.  This is not a direction we, as a nation, want to go.
 
2014-03-25 02:28:17 AM  
stare decisis not john yoo
 
2014-03-25 02:35:51 AM  

RoyBatty: For either of these two reasons, Hobby Lobby can reasonably claim they are paying for procedures they feel are against their religious beliefs, if corporations are treated as dna people who can have religious beliefs.


Then they will pollute, extort, lobby (heh), & legislate on behalf of the lower-case t to WIN. GO legislation from the bench GO!
 
2014-03-25 04:07:19 AM  
This isn't about whether corporations are people. It's about whether it is right or wrong for the government to force companies to provide free services and handouts, in particular those that are morally objectionable, under the guise of things like health care. People can choose not to work for a company based on it's benefits.

/there's no distinction ultimately between this and requiring everyone to pay for abortions.
 
2014-03-25 04:11:34 AM  
Even the best ghouls on the supreme court are pretty vile

I'm overwhelmed by my conscience and the most I influence society is by jaywalking. Scalia is hopefully going to burn forever and ever and ever in hell, but the rest aren't much better.

The fact that this is even an issue is hilarious because it's so far removed from what 'America' is theorized romantically to be about and what it's supposed to be about.

Hypocritical farkers
 
2014-03-25 04:19:15 AM  
Matthew 6:24: "No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon."
 
2014-03-25 04:19:29 AM  

Animatronik: It's about whether it is right or wrong for the government to force companies to provide free services and handouts


Yet the government provides free services and handouts to companies to prevent economic failure without much resistance on their part. Funny that.
 
2014-03-25 04:20:48 AM  

Teiritzamna: Xetal: Teiritzamna: Likely no - compelling government interest and a narrowly tailored law trumps RFRA

Well there is a compelling government interest here and a pretty broadly tailored law.  That was the entire point of my post, that your religion typically does not excuse you from following the law and the ACA is the law.

Actually, although I think it is, there is a question over whether mandating health care is a compelling government interest.  Here the government shot itself in the foot because they already exempt non-profit religious corporations from complying with the law.  By doing so, the government is basically saying, ":well the goal of mandated insurance isn't so important that we would want to inconvenience religious folks, or small businesses, or a whole bunch of other exempt entities."  That is not helpful.

But that's not where the trouble is.  The trouble is that the law is definitely not narrowly tailored and the least restrictive means the government could use to get to its goal.  If the government wanted everyone to have health insurance, it could either command people to do so over their religious objections, or it could just buy the insurance itself.  Under Single Payer the government would be the provider and the religious views of your employer wouldn't matter.  But it didn't do that.   Thus there is a known more narrow law that could have been written that wouldn't impact rights.  

compare to honor killings.  Stopping murder is kinda one of the fundamental roles of government, so easy win on compelling interest.  And narrowly tailored/least restrictive?  The law criminalizes murders. I don't know of any way to criminalize murder except to criminalize murder.  Done.


What this is about is "What constitutes health care?". not "who should pay for health care".

You like single payer because it is one more step towards socialism and greater ability of the government to deal with individual objections by simply defining whar health care is. Right now, single payer is not the answer to this or any other objections to the law.
 
2014-03-25 04:22:09 AM  

Animatronik: You like single payer because it is one more step towards zOMG SOOOOOOCIALISM


Four legs good, two legs baaaaaaaad!
 
2014-03-25 04:25:59 AM  

Fista-Phobia: Animatronik: It's about whether it is right or wrong for the government to force companies to provide free services and handouts

Yet the government provides free services and handouts to companies to prevent economic failure without much resistance on their part. Funny that.


This is a silly comparison much like some of Putins justification for annexing Crimea.

Because the government chooses to spend money on things that have benefited you, you are now it's lapdog.
 
2014-03-25 04:30:40 AM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Animatronik: You like single payer because it is one more step towards zOMG SOOOOOOCIALISM

Four legs good, two legs baaaaaaaad!


Yeah there are lots of pigs and cows in this thread.

You like single payer because you think it eliminates the inconvenience of having to deal with small groups of people that have am actual opinion on something you want.

The reality is that this is not about one or two companies it is about a set of requirements for paying for contraception as a health care benefit that are RIDICULOUS and should be thrown out.

Contraception us not health care, period.
 
2014-03-25 04:38:12 AM  

Animatronik: Fista-Phobia: Animatronik: It's about whether it is right or wrong for the government to force companies to provide free services and handouts

Yet the government provides free services and handouts to companies to prevent economic failure without much resistance on their part. Funny that.

This is a silly comparison much like some of Putins justification for annexing Crimea.

Because the government chooses to spend money on things that have benefited you, you are now it's lapdog.


No. It's a valid comparison. You decry government intrusion yet reap it's benefits in order to be mad about something on the internet without even realizing it. That is, unless, you're off the grid in the woods poaching someone's w-fi for manifesto distribution purposes.
 
2014-03-25 04:52:06 AM  

Animatronik: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Animatronik: You like single payer because it is one more step towards zOMG SOOOOOOCIALISM

Four legs good, two legs baaaaaaaad!

Yeah there are lots of pigs and cows in this thread.

You like single payer because you think it eliminates the inconvenience of having to deal with small groups of people that have am actual opinion on something you want.

The reality is that this is not about one or two companies it is about a set of requirements for paying for contraception as a health care benefit that are RIDICULOUS and should be thrown out.

Contraception us not health care, period.


you are horribly deluded and I hope you aren't influential on others' worldviews.
J
A) the fact that your country not only doesn't have but fears socialized medicine is fodder for the Twilight Zone. The fact that people like you are proud of that is sickening.
 
2014-03-25 05:49:05 AM  

inclemency: Animatronik: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Animatronik: You like single payer because it is one more step towards zOMG SOOOOOOCIALISM

Four legs good, two legs baaaaaaaad!

Yeah there are lots of pigs and cows in this thread.

You like single payer because you think it eliminates the inconvenience of having to deal with small groups of people that have am actual opinion on something you want.

The reality is that this is not about one or two companies it is about a set of requirements for paying for contraception as a health care benefit that are RIDICULOUS and should be thrown out.

Contraception us not health care, period.

you are horribly deluded and I hope you aren't influential on others' worldviews.
J
A) the fact that your country not only doesn't have but fears socialized medicine is fodder for the Twilight Zone. The fact that people like you are proud of that is sickening.


Anything that comes after the Rx in a doc's prescription should be treated as healthcare. How hard is this?

// Do doc's in the US still give written prescriptions?
// Been sometime since my last visit.
 
2014-03-25 06:10:17 AM  
When Johnny come marching
Home again
Hurrah.. Trala
He's coming by bus or hoverround
Hurrah.. Trala

It's just
Round
The corner in
The GOP Civil War.
 
2014-03-25 06:10:19 AM  

justaguy516: inclemency: Animatronik: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Animatronik: You like single payer because it is one more step towards zOMG SOOOOOOCIALISM

Four legs good, two legs baaaaaaaad!

Yeah there are lots of pigs and cows in this thread.

You like single payer because you think it eliminates the inconvenience of having to deal with small groups of people that have am actual opinion on something you want.

The reality is that this is not about one or two companies it is about a set of requirements for paying for contraception as a health care benefit that are RIDICULOUS and should be thrown out.

Contraception us not health care, period.

you are horribly deluded and I hope you aren't influential on others' worldviews.
J
A) the fact that your country not only doesn't have but fears socialized medicine is fodder for the Twilight Zone. The fact that people like you are proud of that is sickening.

Anything that comes after the Rx in a doc's prescription should be treated as healthcare. How hard is this?

// Do doc's in the US still give written prescriptions?
// Been sometime since my last visit.


Yes, in fact, I just took Mrs. Samurai's prescription for birth control over to Target yesterday.

And for dipshiats like Animatrollik, it's medically necessary because of a severe case of endometriosis. So go fark yourself with a rusty grapefruit spoon. You only encourage the people that actually think like that.
 
2014-03-25 06:22:51 AM  

Animatronik: . It's about whether it is right or wrong for the government to force companies to provide free services and handouts,


It's not free or a handout. The employees have to work for them.

Animatronik: in particular those that are morally objectionable, under the guise of things like health care.


How can something be morally objectionable to a nonperson?

Animatronik: People can choose not to work for a company based on it's benefits.


people can choose to not go into business if it will force them to provide benefits they find morally objectionable.

Animatronik: /there's no distinction ultimately between this and requiring everyone to pay for abortions.


there is no distinction between a company providing a benefit that could be used for something they find morally objectionable, and a company providing pay that could be used for something they find morally objectionable. company provided insurance providing birth control pills, is no different than company provided pay being used to get birth control pills.
 
2014-03-25 06:26:15 AM  

Teiritzamna: whidbey: If shiatholes like Hobby Lobby discriminate, they are violating the 14th Amendment

I personally would not like private companies being considered a government, and since the 14th amendment only applies to governments, I must disagree.


That is not completely true. the legal concept of freedom of contract is based a reading of the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment. interestingly enough the concept of right to privacy is also based on the Due Process Clause. Unless of course you believe that the freedom of contract, or right to privacy doesn't apply to corporations or individuals, then i guess you have a point there
 
2014-03-25 06:28:20 AM  

Satanic_Hamster: If spending money is political speech protected for corps., shouldn't it be required that all political spending be approved by the share holders?


The same reason we don't hold a national referendum to approve of every bill Congress passes?
 
2014-03-25 06:32:10 AM  

OgreMagi: RoyBatty: But Hartmann points to European nations in which in law, it says that corporations have a responsibility to the nation. And there, Friedman's argument is wrong. They as a society have chosen differently.

The problem with that is the government gets to decide what is considered running a business in a manner responsible to the nation.  Get a majority of twatwaffles running the nation and things could turn ugly.  Also, that is one of the primary pillars of the fascist system.


I think that a majority of me would run things just fine, thank you. Single payer healthcare, GMI, heavily subsidized vocational training and/or postsecondary education, a minimum wage that is actually a living wage, paid maternity/paternity leave, jobs programs for the unemployed, prisons that focus on rehabilitation, corporations being held to account in most unpleasant ways for breaking the law, stuff like that...
 
2014-03-25 06:50:04 AM  

Animatronik: Contraception us not health care, period.


Wow... Did you read that before you typed it?

You're either incredibly ignorant and lead a sheltered life or you're a disingenuous, partisan twat.
 
2014-03-25 06:59:30 AM  

Teiritzamna: Mikey1969: Does anyone have the link to the story(or stories) about how Hobby Lobby's company insurance plan actually provided contraception and such, before it became politically expedient for them to be "offended"?

I know the stories are out there, I just can't find them, and this is a case of where Google doesn't help because there's too many current stories that have the same search terms.

I dont know, i have only seen people assert that here on Fark.  Seems like it could be true.


Unfortunately the government waived any arguments regarding the sincerity of Hobby Lobby's claimed belief, so it alas doesnt much matter to this case.


I wonder if that is just to avoid knocking out the Hobby Lobby case on those grounds, only to have to fight an almost identical case soon after from another similar corporation that doesn't have such a history to undermine it?
 
2014-03-25 07:06:22 AM  

keylock71: Animatronik: Contraception us not health care, period.

Wow... Did you read that before you typed it?

You're either incredibly ignorant and lead a sheltered life or you're a disingenuous, partisan twat.


I don't think that he's ever had a conversation with a woman in real life. He also probably thinks that the female orgasm is a myth, too.
 
2014-03-25 07:32:43 AM  

Teiritzamna: Gawdzila: I guess we will find out if Scalia is actually a judge who takes his job seriously, or if he is just a partisan hack out to promote his own personal wishes at the cost of the integrity of the judicial branch of our government.

What i find so hilarious about the pre-emptive fark Scalia hate is that Scalia is the author of the opinion (Employment Division v. Smith) that would have precluded this suit in a heartbeat, but for the knee-jerk response by the congress to overturn his holding that a law of general applicability trumps most religious expression claims.


HE WAS ON YOUR SIDE!!

Now that the law, RFRA exists however, he would likely be a "partisan hack" if he didn't hold that Hobby Lobby can excersise religion, because to find otherwise would require him to ignore and refuse to apply  a law specifically written about his own opinion.

[biatcheatingcrackers.jpg]


Yeah, your fancy law-talkin' is no match for the all-purpose legal trump card -- Amish buggie reflectors.

In fact, when the SCOTUS opinion in this case comes out, it will probably be even shorter than vernonFL's scintillating analysis, and just consist of three words. "Amish buggy reflectors."

No further explanation or legal citation needed.
 
2014-03-25 07:34:50 AM  

twat_waffle: OgreMagi: RoyBatty: But Hartmann points to European nations in which in law, it says that corporations have a responsibility to the nation. And there, Friedman's argument is wrong. They as a society have chosen differently.

The problem with that is the government gets to decide what is considered running a business in a manner responsible to the nation.  Get a majority of twatwaffles running the nation and things could turn ugly.  Also, that is one of the primary pillars of the fascist system.

I think that a majority of me would run things just fine, thank you. Single payer healthcare, GMI, heavily subsidized vocational training and/or postsecondary education, a minimum wage that is actually a living wage, paid maternity/paternity leave, jobs programs for the unemployed, prisons that focus on rehabilitation, corporations being held to account in most unpleasant ways for breaking the law, stuff like that...


Masturbate in private next time, please.
 
2014-03-25 07:37:19 AM  

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: vernonFL: If they rule in favor of "religious freedom" , would't that open up the USA to "Sharia Law" which everyone is so against?

This. Boss is a JW? Got cancer? Sorry, no transfusions for you.


That's exactly why a ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby is, long term, the best outcome for the healthcare system in this country. It creates the need for the government to get involved to make up the shortfall in coverage with a 'religion-free' public option. That's how Obamacare moves us to single layer - it has to fall to pieces in such a way as to bring down the concept of employer-provided health insurance in the collapse.
 
2014-03-25 07:40:30 AM  

Phinn: twat_waffle: OgreMagi: RoyBatty: But Hartmann points to European nations in which in law, it says that corporations have a responsibility to the nation. And there, Friedman's argument is wrong. They as a society have chosen differently.

The problem with that is the government gets to decide what is considered running a business in a manner responsible to the nation.  Get a majority of twatwaffles running the nation and things could turn ugly.  Also, that is one of the primary pillars of the fascist system.

I think that a majority of me would run things just fine, thank you. Single payer healthcare, GMI, heavily subsidized vocational training and/or postsecondary education, a minimum wage that is actually a living wage, paid maternity/paternity leave, jobs programs for the unemployed, prisons that focus on rehabilitation, corporations being held to account in most unpleasant ways for breaking the law, stuff like that...

Masturbate in private next time, please.


It was a joke based on my name. Why so serious?
 
2014-03-25 07:47:08 AM  
Toady it is Religious Freedom by corporations to not follow a law.

and if Hobby Lobby wins the case,

Tomorrow it will be Religious Freedom by corporations to not pay taxes.

A tax is just another law, we all must pay unless the tax code has rules that allow you to pay less or none at all.  What is to stop a corporation to claim that it is against their religion to kill.  And by paying taxes to fund the military (whose primary function is to kill)  violates their beliefs and they demand that they do not pay the taxes to support the military.
 
2014-03-25 07:59:36 AM  

twat_waffle: I don't think that he's ever had a conversation with a woman in real life.


Heh.... Perhaps.

It's just a ridiculously ignorant statement.
 
2014-03-25 08:21:27 AM  
If they side with the Company, then I can choose which laws I obey and which ones I don't, based on my Religious Principals.

Ex. My Religious Principals says I can grope anyone anytime anywhere. Your laws don't apply, see the SC ruling in the HL case.

If they side with the Gov't, then Law applies to everyone regardless of Religious Principals.

Ex. I can't just grope folks when I want, all laws apply to everyone.

It appears to be pretty straightforward.
/It won't be.
 
2014-03-25 08:22:49 AM  
Here's a thought about religion v.s. the People's court.

STFU, assholes.

We already have laws. We don't need Sharia laws.
Lick your dead-guy-on-a-stick in private, you creepy bastards.
Bow down and pray to your kiddy-diddling profits (sic) and worship your bloody hearts with thorns and swords stuck in them on your own Aztec time. Stop attempting to enforce the laws of centuries old defeated cultures upon people who figured out how to control electricity, move to where the water is, and practice hygiene and preventative medicine. Tell you kids about virgin birth and let them figure out you lied to them on their own. Just don't be an asshole to the general public or your employees. try to be a better person.
 
2014-03-25 08:49:19 AM  
Since Alito was nominated to SCOTUS, 5-4 has spent years shaping the rules that big business can skirt to fark over consumers, small businesses and employees. This case threatens those skirting abilities not because it farks over employees but because it threatens commerce between huge corporations. They won't rule in favor of Hobby Lobby.
 
2014-03-25 08:56:52 AM  

vudukungfu: Here's a thought about religion v.s. the People's court.

STFU, assholes.

We already have laws. We don't need Sharia laws.
Lick your dead-guy-on-a-stick in private, you creepy bastards.
Bow down and pray to your kiddy-diddling profits (sic) and worship your bloody hearts with thorns and swords stuck in them on your own Aztec time. Stop attempting to enforce the laws of centuries old defeated cultures upon people who figured out how to control electricity, move to where the water is, and practice hygiene and preventative medicine. Tell you kids about virgin birth and let them figure out you lied to them on their own. Just don't be an asshole to the general public or your employees. try to be a better person.


I like the cut of your jib.

And as to about 99% of what you say, I agree. I like the part about microorganisms especially (which, along with biogenesis and evolution, rank as three of, say, the top five ideas in the history of human thought).

I've still always been intrigued by the idea of religious freedom, particularly since there's no such thing as divinity or deities or supernatural nonsense. The enshrinement of religious freedom has always seemed strange. Watching people defend it is like watching them take to the streets to defend their adoration of unicorns and leprechauns.

Even the non-religious seem to defend that type of freedom, even though there's nothing real there to defend. So, since religion is nonsense, what does religious freedom really mean? Why do we respect the Freedom of Nonsense?

I think it points to a broader idea of the importance of leaving people alone. Religious freedom is only one application of the more general principle that the government can't legitimately control people who aren't harming others. If religious freedom means anything at all, it must be an expression of the idea that State power is inherently limited, regardless of the size of the majority who might think that another legislated act of governmental control constitutes progress.
 
2014-03-25 09:01:36 AM  

vernonFL: The Amish have to put reflectors on their buggies, they objected but they lost their case.

If the Amish can be forced to put reflectors on their buggies, then I dont see how Hobby Lobby and these other religios people can win.


IANAL but I would guess that the public good of preventing buggy-car crashes overrode the Amish religious need of eschewing shiny objects.   Some people don't consider birth control to be an overwhelming public good because (in their narrow minds) it seems to benefit only the wimmenfolk.
 
2014-03-25 09:06:50 AM  

Graffito: IANAL but I would guess that the public good of preventing buggy-car crashes overrode the Amish religious need of eschewing shiny objects.   Some people don't consider birth control to be an overwhelming public good because (in their narrow minds) it seems to benefit only the wimmenfolk


Additionally, and more complexly, the statute at issue in this case is the RFRA.  Although it was meant to overturn Employment Division and its dictate that a law of general applicability trumps religious exercise claims, a subsequent decision,  City of Boerne v. Flores, held that RFRA only applies to the Federal Government.  Thus, if the buggy reflector law is a DoT reg, RFRA applies and the old school strict scrutiny test is used (i think the government would pass that test as because buggy reflectors are likely a minimal, not substantial, burden, and as you noted the government probably has a compelling interest in uniform road rules).  However, if the buggy reflector law is a state one, then all the state would need to prove to satisfy the first amendment is that the reflector law was one of general applicability.

See, isnt law simple?!
 
2014-03-25 09:08:12 AM  

Phinn: And as to about 99% of what you say, [tldr] State power is inherently limited, regardless of the size of the majority who might think that another legislated act of governmental control constitutes progress.


That being said, this is the politics tab, not the give Jesus a Beege tab.
Priests graduated Clown college.
It's like Magic school for the "gifted"

Learn sleight of hand, and poor logic in order to shake down the gullible rubes out there.
It's con-college. It's a racket.

And when racketeers start pushing around judges, it's time to stop being nice.
 
2014-03-25 09:30:11 AM  

vudukungfu: Phinn: And as to about 99% of what you say, [tldr] State power is inherently limited, regardless of the size of the majority who might think that another legislated act of governmental control constitutes progress.

That being said, this is the politics tab, not the give Jesus a Beege tab.
Priests graduated Clown college.
It's like Magic school for the "gifted"

Learn sleight of hand, and poor logic in order to shake down the gullible rubes out there.
It's con-college. It's a racket.

And when racketeers start pushing around judges, it's time to stop being nice.


But that's the whole point of religious freedom -- to resist political, government action. Religious practice certainly isn't doing anything real.

It's like defining a bedrock principle of government as the Right to Pretend You're a Wizard. Why would such a right exist at all? Magic is complete bollocks. The purpose of such a right can't be to advance wizardry, because there's no such thing. Magic is "That Which Is Not Real."

The point of protecting Professional Nonsense is to establish that there are some places that government cannot go, some things it cannot do. The fact that we have to respect Nonsense makes that limitation on government power even more rigorous, since Nonsense isn't debatable.
 
2014-03-25 09:34:45 AM  

Animatronik: Contraception us not health care, period.


This is why you're stupid and no one take you seriously, you sad little troll.

Oral contraception isn't only used for contraception purposes.  Fark off.
 
2014-03-25 09:38:47 AM  

Phinn: Nonsense isn't debatable.


precisely why the SCOTUS needs to laughingly toss every single suit brought to them out on their self-righteous asses.
 
2014-03-25 09:59:32 AM  

NIXON YOU DOLT!!!!!: vernonFL: If they rule in favor of "religious freedom" , would't that open up the USA to "Sharia Law" which everyone is so against?

This. Boss is a JW? Got cancer? Sorry, no transfusions for you.


"All female employee report for genital mutilation."
 
2014-03-25 11:25:03 AM  

Animatronik: Contraception us not health care, period.



i232.photobucket.com
 
2014-03-25 12:05:38 PM  
TheShavingofOccam123:
...
As another entry on that pages states, money is PROPERTY not SPEECH.
...


Chung Mee: Speed is important in business. Time is money.
Lawrence Bourne III: You said opium was money.
Chung Mee: Money is Money.
Lawrence Bourne III: Well then, what is time again?
 
2014-03-25 12:49:31 PM  

Animatronik: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Animatronik: You like single payer because it is one more step towards zOMG SOOOOOOCIALISM

Four legs good, two legs baaaaaaaad!

Yeah there are lots of pigs and cows in this thread.

You like single payer because you think it eliminates the inconvenience of having to deal with small groups of people that have am actual opinion on something you want.

The reality is that this is not about one or two companies it is about a set of requirements for paying for contraception as a health care benefit that are RIDICULOUS and should be thrown out.

Contraception us not health care, period.


i75.photobucket.com

But hey, understanding medicine is for suckers, only letters I need to know are U, S, and A.  Right?
 
Displayed 50 of 256 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report