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)   The women on the US Supreme Court give Hobby Lobby a three way pounding. Now you're thinking about Ginsburg in a sexual way   (salon.com) divider line 251
    More: Cool, Hobby Lobby, Ginsberg, Sonia Sotomayor, emergency contraception, Paul Clement, Supreme Court  
•       •       •

11452 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Mar 2014 at 10:31 PM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-03-26 07:30:55 AM

Richard C Stanford: We really need to reform the Supreme Court. A bunch of old guys who are put in a position of power for life with no input from the public and stay there way past the point of dementia? That seems undemocratic. Of course, reforming SCOTUS would involve major changes to the constitution, and I don't think that's ever happened before.
Can anyone think of a better way for the Supreme Court to be run?


Yes. Don't elect sh*tpieces President. Then more sh*tpieces don't get nominated to the court.
 
2014-03-26 07:49:38 AM
Cool that people are forced to violate their religious beliefs, because they are christian?

How low liberals have sunk.
 
2014-03-26 07:52:05 AM

NickelP: Elvis Presleys Death Throne: Whodathunkit, a left slanted opinion piece getting greenlit on fark and touted as fact.

The math here is simple: YOU use birth control; they disagree with birth control. YOU pay for the birth control YOU freely choose to use. Not force someone else to violate their beliefs.

I think the SCOTUS is going to get this one right. What's too bad is that it's being fought on the grounds of religious freedom, and not general 1st amendment freedom of expression like it should be.

And hooey to the feminists for showing their true colors. Not satisfied to have the freedom to prevent and abort pregnancies, they also feel the need to force others to pay for their decisions, or lack thereof. And I really dug their cause when they were seeking equality too.

The debate on if the government can set, and compel, employers to offer insurance covering a set amount of services and products has already been concluded, legally speaking.  If you want to go back to that debate feel free to vote for like minded people who will change the law to not require things that you don't want to be covered to be covered.  What we are debating now is under what circumstances a company's owners can disregard the law.  Their argument isn't even particularly limited to health care.  There is no reason their argument and this ruling couldn't be applied to many other things such as worker's safety laws and anti-discrimination laws just to name a few.  Quit confusing the issue.


I'm completely with you that this case is a result of determining that Obamacare should be able to force employers to provide certain services, and that the last SCOTUS case lead to this one. Forcing people(because yes, Hobby Lobby IS owned by a family, much like any mom and pop organic fruitstand) to violate their personal beliefs is an unforseen(by many) and forawwb(by a devious) few side effect of Obamacare. I'm also with you that this could and should be applied to many other issues as well, but in this particular context the freedom to use contraception should be paired with the freedom to pay for it yourself
 
2014-03-26 07:55:26 AM

Dwight_Yeast: Animatronik: There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.

I can't believe even you are so stupid as to keep bringing up that talking point.

Preventing pregnancy (which is a dangerous medical condition) would be an excellent example of preventive medical care.

Never mind the other medical uses for birth control, like preventing ovarian cysts, lessening the symptoms of MPS, etc.


So would preventing people from being fat. Are we to legislate that? Preventing people from being born out of wedlock, going to legislate that? Guess who would have a problem with those little laws?
 
2014-03-26 07:59:13 AM

verbaltoxin: Hobby Lobby isn't a person. I repeat, Hobby Lobby isn't a person. It does not have a religion. It is a thing.


The SCOTUS has already ruled that there is such a thing as corporate personhood and that they have real 14th amendment protections. Take it up with them. This particular case is in front of the SCOTUS because a lower federal court (10th circuit) has already deemed them as such and had extended them protection using corporate personhood under the religious freedom act of 1993.
 
2014-03-26 07:59:50 AM

jaybeezey: physt: So tired of special rights for religion...

So tired of people thinking day after pills are a right...


They are available over the counter, so not the issue here.
 
2014-03-26 08:07:36 AM
Someone point out to me the exact passage or passages in the Bible that says anything along the lines of "thou shalt not prevent the birth of a child" and I'll say Hobby Lobby *may* have a case. Furthermore, point it out in the Quran or should it be any different than the Old Testament, the Torah.

This boils down to "can a business exercise the freedom of religion?" The answer to this question is no. And furthermore, they aren't people; at best it is a collection of people, but a business exists to make money, not spread "The Word."

/Seriously, leave your worship where it belongs; in a place of worship. When you're done with your sky-wizard delusion, join the rest of the real world, where we have real problems that require real answers.
 
2014-03-26 08:13:01 AM

karmaceutical: Animatronik: TofuTheAlmighty: DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.

Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.

That is a really stupid argument.

That's what you get when your whole life is geared around hating "libs." Not helping America, not the Constitution, not the will of the People, not reason; just Hating Libs.
 
2014-03-26 08:14:07 AM

John Buck 41: I hope Hobby Lobby wins. There, I said it.


Hobby Lobby winning means that your employer can force their religious views on you. Why would you want that?
 
2014-03-26 08:18:13 AM

Callous: PastryChef: Because he doesn't think contraception is good, this asshat wants to control the religious expression of all of his employees instead. Because if he doesn't want you to have contraception, then dang nab it, you shouldn't have access to it!
And family planning is an important part of women's health issues.

THIS!!

Because if your employer doesn't pay for your birth control there is absolutely no other way to get it.


Because if your employer doesn't pay for your cancer treatment there is absolutely no other way to get it.
Because if your employer doesn't pay for your blood transfusion there is absolutely no other way to get it.
 
2014-03-26 08:27:19 AM

kronicfeld: Sweet. Can't wait to found my Sharia-based law firm.



I'm going to convert my corporation/person  to Christian Scientist. We don't believe in most medicine, not even blood transfusions. I am gonna save a bundle!
 
2014-03-26 08:28:30 AM

DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in  Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?


I see where you are confused. You appear to be overlooking the fact that Scalia is an asshole and doesn't care.
 
2014-03-26 08:30:14 AM

Animatronik: Here's how it works:

There is no compelling interest for the government in forcing companies to pay for contraception, because it isn't health care or a medical treatment, and it's not related to any kind of traditional concept of health insurance, which is supposed to cover emergency and preventative care, not contraception.


Except that oral contraceptives ARE used for medical reasons other than contraception like ovarian cysts and regulation periods.
 
2014-03-26 08:32:19 AM

Tyrone Slothrop: Hobby Lobby winning means that your employer can force their religious views on you. Why would you want that?


No, it does not. They wouldn't be "Forcing" anyone to do anything. If they required their employees to wear a Cross, or a Burka for that matter, then they would be "Forcing" their religious views on their employees. If they required that their employees tithe every week then they would be "Forcing" their religious views on them. If they required regular church attendance as a condition of employment then they would be "Forcing" their religious views on them.

This case is not anywhere close to those examples. They are saying that they shouldn't be forced by the government under penalty of law to violate their own religious tenets by being forced to pay for contraceptives for their employees under the ACA. They are not (and have not) argued that they can fire or otherwise punish any employee for using contraceptives on their own dime. That would be forcing their religion on them and is already illegal.
 
2014-03-26 08:41:25 AM

SpectroBoy: Except that oral contraceptives ARE used for medical reasons other than contraception like ovarian cysts and regulation periods.


Except that the ACA specifically says that it must be provided explicitly for contraceptive purposes. I don't think that anyone (sane at least) is arguing that if any drug (not just the pill) was provided for other valid medical reasons and that one of the side effects was preventing a woman from getting pregnant that the pill should still not be allowed to be covered under their health care plan. If that were the case then chemotherapy (for example, there are plenty of other medicines that can render a woman temporarily infertile) would also be being contested.
 
2014-03-26 08:53:43 AM

Thunderpipes: Cool that people are forced to violate their religious beliefs, because they are christian?


Domestic battery laws violate the religious beliefs of those who practice Sharia.
 
2014-03-26 08:54:24 AM
I'll support people getting health coverage for contraceptives when it becomes mandatory to cover fertility treatments.  Till then, I'll stay out of these discussions.

My bro had the misfortune of having kids only through medical assistance and insurance didn't cover a single penny, but for a vasectomy, they pay the full amount.  Cover both, or stay out of it.
 
2014-03-26 08:55:53 AM
All this could be settled very quickly if HL just gives up the tax breaks for providing health care and pays the penalty.  They want the tax break for providing health care but at the same time want the power to dictate what does or does not constitute health care.  You can't have it both ways and anyone with a working brain should see why that's a conflict of interest.

i.imgur.com
 
2014-03-26 09:03:38 AM

Persnickety: All this could be settled very quickly if HL just gives up the tax breaks for providing health care and pays the penalty.  They want the tax break for providing health care but at the same time want the power to dictate what does or does not constitute health care.  You can't have it both ways and anyone with a working brain should see why that's a conflict of interest.

[i.imgur.com image 843x403]


Brings to mind the Death Star discussion from Clerks.  Picking a job can be related to ones politics.  "They knew the risk when they took the job."  "The money was right, but it was just too risky."

I know a couple Hobby Lobby employees, and they are very comfortable with the views of their company.  If that's what they want, so be it.
 
2014-03-26 09:10:49 AM

fusillade762: Theaetetus: DamnYankees: Justice Anthony Kennedy seems to believe this is a case about abortion.

Oy. That makes it 5-4.

Ayup. The old white guys will have their way, as usual.

Yes I said white guys. Scalia's puppet doesn't count.


Nice racism you got there.
 
2014-03-26 09:14:18 AM

kronicfeld: Domestic battery laws violate the religious beliefs of those who practice Sharia.


Invalid comparison. In order for that comparison to be valid Hobby Lobby would actually have to be arguing that they have the right to demand all of their employees have to use contraceptives as a condition of employment because their religion dictated it. That would mean that any pregnancy, even a planned one, would be grounds for dismissal and not be covered under their insurance policy because they clearly didn't use the proper contraceptives which was a condition of their employment.

Hobby Lobby is arguing that they have the right to not participate in what they consider a sin (think of them as conscientious objectors instead if that helps). Trying to say that active participation in domestic violence under Sharia law would be acceptable if Hobby Lobby won is the exact opposite of the argument that they have presented. As an attorney you should know better.
 
2014-03-26 09:18:34 AM

yourmomlovestetris: Pregnancy is NOT a "dangerous medical condition"


Know how I know you've never had life-threatening complications after delivering your stillborn baby?

Pregnancy is inherently high risk for a lot of women, and carries SOME risk for everyone. People have pointed out that there are a number of benefits to using birth control besides contraception. But there are also plenty of women who have a major interest in preventing pregnancy (hence the "preventative" aspect) for health reasons of their own, or because they know they have low chances for a live birth and don't want to go through the physical and emotional ordeal of a second or third trimester pregnancy loss. Try having two unexplained stillbirths in just over a year, when you're happily married and actually WANT to have a child, and then tell me I can't use any goddamn form of birth control I want.  This is preventative care, and for some of us, it's one of the most important things our health insurance covers.

As far as I'm concerned, there should be more focus on the fact that the whole basis of this lawsuit is bullshiat. They don't want their company's insurance to cover abortifacients? Good news: IUDs and Plan B are not abortifacients. Problem solved. We're done here.
 
2014-03-26 09:21:55 AM

Theaetetus: DamnYankees: Justice Anthony Kennedy seems to believe this is a case about abortion.

Oy. That makes it 5-4.


Hobby Lobby's argument the whole time is that they believe hormonal birth control has abortifacient elements. Estrogen and progestogen have been shown to affect the status of the endometrium, and as a result theoretically a fertilized egg might have a more difficult time implanting in a woman on HBC than a woman who otherwise isn't. Granted, no study has been able to confirm or reject this theory yet because HBC has proven to be so effective at preventing ovulation that studies can't find any signs of embryos being discharged, but the fact that it is theoretically possible is why most non-Catholic Christian who opposed HBC do.

But you're right: if Kennedy is convinced that the unproven concern for abortifacient properties of HBC is synonymous with abortion, the law already allows exceptions for abortion coverage and would give the courts an out (since abortion coverage is elective) rather than enshrine corporate religious rights. Sure the right wing of the court will push for that, but it might be the only agreement they can all come to.
 
2014-03-26 09:26:56 AM

EnderX: Well that article wasn't slant much Left............NOT!


If you're wondering why nobody takes your opinions seriously, it's because you have the writing skills of an intellectually challenged third grader.
 
2014-03-26 09:27:26 AM

Persnickety: All this could be settled very quickly if HL just gives up the tax breaks for providing health care and pays the penalty


Because their employees shouldn't be penalized by not having any health insurance coverage provided by Hobby Lobby just because of one small provision in the ACA that they object to for religious reasons. If any company has to pay the penalty I can guarantee that they are not going to provide any coverage at all in order to offset the penalty cost. Alternatively they may decide to cut full time workers down to 28 hr per week part time employees and not pay the penalty (or health insurance premiums at all for that matter) at all. Neither one of those options are beneficial to the Hobby Lobby employees is it? Why do you hate the hard working employees of Hobby Lobby so much that you would deny them something like employer sponsored health care benefits or a living wage?
 
2014-03-26 09:34:03 AM

hooligan sidekick: Try having two unexplained stillbirths in just over a year, when you're happily married and actually WANT to have a child, and then tell me I can't use any goddamn form of birth control I want.


I'm sorry for your losses. That being said Hobby Lobby is not saying that any of their employees are forbidden from using contraceptives of any type. They are saying that they don't want to pay for them because their religion says that intentionally preventing pregnancy by artificial means is against their religion and that they would be committing a sin by actively facilitating their use. Again, not unlike conscientious objectors who are allowed to not participate fighting in wars because their religion considers it to be murder.
 
2014-03-26 09:39:42 AM

cirrhosis_and_halitosis: EnderX: Russ1642: The problem here isn't that Hobby Lobby is complaining about providing health coverage. The problem is a system where your employer has anything whatsoever to do with your general health coverage.

Health coverage IS a benefit that a company's offers you to entice you to except accept their job offer.

I'm guessing that you aren't employed as an editor or copywriter.  His point, which seems to have escaped you, is that health coverage should be universal rather than a benefit for (some of) the employed.  That kind of system seems to work for every other first world country.  And many second and third worlds as well.


Thx for the spelling correction, I wish I was like you and never made a spelling mistake in my life. You are quite the special person. You seemed to have missed my point, health care is a benefit or a bonus that a employer offers to you. The government should not be forcing a business to give its employee's health care. Yeah other countries are great, maybe you should read the WSJ article on the failing health system in Europe.
 
2014-03-26 10:08:01 AM

La Maudite: EnderX


It is apparent by reading the article that the writer was unable to mask their agenda and the piece presented itself as a opinion piece rather than a news one.

I'm a gifted second grader by the way.
 
2014-03-26 10:16:07 AM

CanisNoir: Trid_Kicker: m00: The real problem is that corporations were ever considered people. This is just a natural extension of that notion. This isn't going to go away. Corporations are going to fight for more and more rights as people, even as real people get those same rights stripped away. I think it's better to lose this battle and win the war, because maybe if Hobby Lobby wins voters will force an action.

No.  Voters cannot influence the Supreme Court.

If Hobby Lobby wins, voters are powerless until a contradictory case emerges, is propagated all the way up to the Supreme Court, and is decided in such a way as to overturn the previous decision.

A very lengthy, chancy, and tall order.  The term "frightening" comes to mind.

What, pray tell, is so "frightening" about it?


If the bolded section doesn't frighten the piss out of you, I have to suspect you're really a corporation yourself, and not a real person...

/How long until they get the right to vote?
//Or run for office? There are plenty of corps older than 35, so they should be eligible for the presidency, too!
 
2014-03-26 10:16:16 AM

DamnYankees: CanisNoir: Why should the government force a family to finance what they and their provable religious beliefs consider murder?

I don't know - why do we force people to finance our military and the apparatus of administering death penalty? Should we be able to opt out of those things as well?


I was strongly opposed to the first invasion of Iraq, but the government forced me to finance it.  I have a provable religious belief against murder.  Where was my religious freedom back in 1991?
 
2014-03-26 10:18:21 AM

Dwight_Yeast: gadian: For anyone genuinely unclear on the subject, neither the IUD or Plan B cause abortions.  The IUD does require doctor approval and insertion.  This alone makes it a medical device worthy of insurance coverage.

  I'm not really sure if Plan B has been liberated from behind the pharmacy glass or not, but I feel it should be since it does not require a prescription - just like everything they keep back there that doesn't require a prescription, like the good decongestant.

Keeping the "Plan B" pills behind the counter was something the Religious Right forced the FDA into when they accounted they were going to make it non-perscription.


Shame is a powerful deterrent and a favored weapon of the religious.
 
2014-03-26 10:19:05 AM

CanisNoir: DamnYankees: CanisNoir: Apples and oranges. For you to have a point we would need a single payer system.
 How is that distinction important in determining constitutional or statutory compliance? I agree with you that it is 2 different things, but why does that difference matter?
"Pay me 5 bucks so I can hire than hitman" v. "pay that hitman 5 dollars" seem like two morally identical directives to me.

No the difference is that the military and criminal justice system are paid through a general tax where elected representatives decide how to spemd it. Want to opt out? Elect someone who shares your views. You have recourse.
This is the government forcing one private entity to pay another private entity specifically for a service one side considers murder. Vastly different scenarios.


Nope.  They're not.
 
2014-03-26 10:42:45 AM

Dwight_Yeast: debug: Waht is your reason for condoms to not be covered? It probably wouldn't raise your premimum at all if they were. Not sure what the big problem is.

Again: why shouldn't aspirin be covered?


I think that he's terrified that the wimmins are getting something that men are not.

It's so not fair!
 
2014-03-26 10:44:34 AM

Dwight_Yeast: why is it that some people like yourself always follow abortion with "on demand"? What does that phrase mean?


Oooooo oooooo I know.

It means abortion without the requisite slut-shaming.
 
2014-03-26 10:45:30 AM

Graffito: Dwight_Yeast: why is it that some people like yourself always follow abortion with "on demand"? What does that phrase mean?

Oooooo oooooo I know.

It means abortion without the requisite slut-shaming.


Or vaginal wand rape.
 
2014-03-26 11:51:03 AM

DamnYankees: Justice Anthony Kennedy seems to believe this is a case about abortion.


It's not? (at least partially?)

The three libbiest lib female justices to serve did this? Inconceivable!!
 
2014-03-26 11:51:43 AM

fusillade762: Theaetetus: DamnYankees: Justice Anthony Kennedy seems to believe this is a case about abortion.

Oy. That makes it 5-4.

Ayup. The old white guys will have their way, as usual.

Yes I said white guys. Scalia's puppet doesn't count.


You racist...
 
2014-03-26 12:20:41 PM

CanisNoir: To make it even easier for you to see your error, I'll buy into your false equivalency and point out that with both the military and criminal justice system, the government has an easily provable compelling interest. In this case, not so much due to the large number of exemptions already allowed.


Are you claiming that now the government needs to establish a compelling interest for literally everything they do? That's the only takeaway I can gather from this assertion.
 
2014-03-26 12:54:57 PM

ciberido: DamnYankees: CanisNoir: Why should the government force a family to finance what they and their provable religious beliefs consider murder?

I don't know - why do we force people to finance our military and the apparatus of administering death penalty? Should we be able to opt out of those things as well?

I was strongly opposed to the first invasion of Iraq, but the government forced me to finance it.  I have a provable religious belief against murder.  Where was my religious freedom back in 1991?


Are you a corporation?  No?

Well, there's your problem, citizen.
 
2014-03-26 12:56:58 PM

EnderX: cirrhosis_and_halitosis: EnderX: Russ1642: The problem here isn't that Hobby Lobby is complaining about providing health coverage. The problem is a system where your employer has anything whatsoever to do with your general health coverage.

Health coverage IS a benefit that a company's offers you to entice you to except accept their job offer.

I'm guessing that you aren't employed as an editor or copywriter.  His point, which seems to have escaped you, is that health coverage should be universal rather than a benefit for (some of) the employed.  That kind of system seems to work for every other first world country.  And many second and third worlds as well.

Thx for the spelling correction, I wish I was like you and never made a spelling mistake in my life. You are quite the special person. You seemed to have missed my point, health care is a benefit or a bonus that a employer offers to you. The government should not be forcing a business to give its employee's health care. Yeah other countries are great, maybe you should read the WSJ article on the failing health system in Europe.



This is why you're coded red.  The WSJ used to be a good paper; now it's just a Murdoch rag.

Stick to FreeRepublic, you'll be happier there.
 
2014-03-26 01:00:03 PM

yourmomlovestetris: Lot of idiocy in this thread. You people DO know that Hobby Lobby DOES cover the pill--the only thing it doesn't cover are IUDs and the Morning After Pill (both of which they consider abortifacients).  Birth control pills used for hormone regulation and other medical problems are covered by the company. No company, as far as I know is required to pay for abortions. (Although there are plenty of people in this forum who entitledly caterwaul that the government refusing to pay for abortion on demand is some kind of Crime Against Women. ) I say again: idiocy.

Pregnancy is NOT a "dangerous medical condition"


It sure as hell can be.  I know women who are only alive BECAUSE OF late-term abortion.  They didn't WANT abortions...they HAD to have them.  And they've gone on to have healthy kids afterwards.

Take your fundy BS back to the Bronze Age.
 
2014-03-26 01:10:33 PM

CanisNoir: Bane of Broone: CanisNoir: The_Fuzz: Dear America, your priorities are messed the Fark up.  I can't believe this is even an issue.

Or how about they choose one of the 20 other forms of contraception that HL will gladly cover and keep having sex like normal.

The amount of low information voters in here is astounding. At the very least watch some darn PBS or listen to NPR so you know what your talking about.

You think the pill is only about contraception and you're calling other people "low information"? 

I read that correctly, right?

The Pill isn't involved in this case and will still be covered. Thanks for proving my point.


It is in the other case the SC is hearing, Conestoga:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/03/24/heres-what -y ou-need-to-know-about-the-hobby-lobby-case/
 
2014-03-26 01:39:15 PM

Radioactive Ass: Persnickety: All this could be settled very quickly if HL just gives up the tax breaks for providing health care and pays the penalty

Because their employees shouldn't be penalized by not having any health insurance coverage provided by Hobby Lobby just because of one small provision in the ACA that they object to for religious reasons.


"Gee officer, I only broke one small law out of a whole bunch.  Why are you being so mean and arresting me?  Oh, and my religion is AOK with me doing it so that makes you an evil oppressor."


If any company has to pay the penalty I can guarantee that they are not going to provide any coverage at all in order to offset the penalty cost. Alternatively they may decide to cut full time workers down to 28 hr per week part time employees and not pay the penalty (or health insurance premiums at all for that matter) at all. Neither one of those options are beneficial to the Hobby Lobby employees is it? Why do you hate the hard working employees of Hobby Lobby so much that you would deny them something like employer sponsored health care benefits or a living wage?

Yay!  False dichotomy.  I like logical fallacies that are easy to spot and don't have big Latin names that I can never remember.  Your guarantee in this instance is, of course, worthless and obviously there are more than two possibilities including what I would consider to be the most likely: they'll obey the law.  The owners still want to make a lot of money and at the end of the day filthy lucre trumps religious dogma.
 
m00
2014-03-26 01:42:50 PM

Trid_Kicker: No. Voters cannot influence the Supreme Court.


Sure they can. There are always Congressional remedies to Supreme Court rulings.

Somewhat ironically, the notion of corporate personhood comes from an interpretation of the word "person" in the 14th amendment. I say it's ironic because if Congress ever repeals the 14th amendment (which Republicans are pushing for) then it removes the legal underpinning by which corporations are considered people.

Ofc, I'm not saying repeal the 14th. But the point is that if Congress really wanted to do something about corporate personhood they could. Even if they didn't want to go so far as modifying the 14th amendment, they could pass laws that redefine the legal status of a corporation so that a corporation is not defined in such a way that triggers 14th amendment protection.

But they won't. Not because it's impossible, but because politicians work for lobbyists who work for corporations.
 
2014-03-26 02:37:30 PM

trappedspirit: [i141.photobucket.com image 591x800]

You know you want her to swing your gavel.


Yes.  Yes, I do.
 
2014-03-26 02:52:48 PM

Radioactive Ass: hooligan sidekick: Try having two unexplained stillbirths in just over a year, when you're happily married and actually WANT to have a child, and then tell me I can't use any goddamn form of birth control I want.

I'm sorry for your losses. That being said Hobby Lobby is not saying that any of their employees are forbidden from using contraceptives of any type. They are saying that they don't want to pay for them because their religion says that intentionally preventing pregnancy by artificial means is against their religion and that they would be committing a sin by actively facilitating their use. Again, not unlike conscientious objectors who are allowed to not participate fighting in wars because their religion considers it to be murder.


A more accurate example would be conscientious objectors being allowed to not pay taxes, because supporting the United States government is facilitating military conflict.

... But of course, such people  do have to pay taxes.
 
2014-03-26 04:32:40 PM

DamnYankees: Can someone explain to me how someone can consistently write the majority opinion in Smith and vote in favor of Hobby Lobby here? Will Scalia have to say he was wrong in Smith? What's the argument?

Last Man on Earth: Ostensibly, it's because Smith was decided pre-RFRA.


Assorted anti-Scalia snark aside, that does seem to be his position -- and perhaps that of several of the left-leaning justices.

But I'm not even a law student, and was skimming the oral argument transcript really fast last night.
 
2014-03-26 05:40:17 PM

nucrash: Pray as you want, practice as you want, just don't force me to endure your simpleminded ness.


So many of THESE^^^

What the bible-thumpers and Jesus freaks can't wrap their tiny little heads around is the concept of leaving other people alone to live their lives the way they see fit as long as those ways harm no one else. Pray to whomever or whatever you like, any time you like, any way you like, from any book you like. If you don't like teh gay, then don't be gay. If you don't like abortions, don't get one. All right with me. Just don't try to force me to do it.
 
2014-03-26 05:55:56 PM
As soon as a whole corporation and/or thier CEOs get executed for murder I will consider them people.
 
2014-03-26 06:28:59 PM

Hickory-smoked: Radioactive Ass: hooligan sidekick: Try having two unexplained stillbirths in just over a year, when you're happily married and actually WANT to have a child, and then tell me I can't use any goddamn form of birth control I want.

I'm sorry for your losses. That being said Hobby Lobby is not saying that any of their employees are forbidden from using contraceptives of any type. They are saying that they don't want to pay for them because their religion says that intentionally preventing pregnancy by artificial means is against their religion and that they would be committing a sin by actively facilitating their use. Again, not unlike conscientious objectors who are allowed to not participate fighting in wars because their religion considers it to be murder.

A more accurate example would be conscientious objectors being allowed to not pay taxes, because supporting the United States government is facilitating military conflict.

... But of course, such people  do have to pay taxes.


Yup.  People who refuse to pay taxes or follow the law for whatever reason have to accept the consequences of their non-compliance: usually fines and jail time.

And conscientious objectors who object to fighting are not simply told to go home.  They still have to serve, often in dangerous jobs like front line medics or corpsmen.
 
Displayed 50 of 251 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