IDBillzFan Posted June 30, 2014 Posted June 30, 2014 Wonder how the religious rights victory fighting birth control will play out in politics and in other areas of government. Dems will surely benefit from this obvious anti women ruling but I just wonder what the religious fanatics will object to next? Did you give Sandra Fluke you're login password???
B-Man Posted June 30, 2014 Author Posted June 30, 2014 Reminder: Number of women who can't buy birth control because of the #HobbyLobby decision:.......................... ZERO. Dana Loesch ✔ @DLoesch Back in the day Clinton believed in religious freedom. He signed RFRA that Shumer intro'd and Kennedy wrote. It protected Hobby Lobby today. Hobby Lobby attorney: We’d be thrilled to stay out of employees’ birth-control choices It was the Obama Administration, who wanted otherwise
DC Tom Posted June 30, 2014 Posted June 30, 2014 Hobby Lobby attorney: We’d be thrilled to stay out of employees’ birth-control choices It was the Obama Administration, who wanted otherwise That's a great interview. Well-prepped, and the attorney nails every single point well.
Dorkington Posted June 30, 2014 Posted June 30, 2014 While I'm unsurprised, I think this is a dangerous ruling. This ruling basically says that religious views are more important than federally mandated regulations.
keepthefaith Posted June 30, 2014 Posted June 30, 2014 While I'm unsurprised, I think this is a dangerous ruling. This ruling basically says that religious views are more important than federally mandated regulations. The more dangerous ruling to me was the one that supported that everyone has to buy health insurance or pay the fine(tax).
Dorkington Posted June 30, 2014 Posted June 30, 2014 The more dangerous ruling to me was the one that supported that everyone has to buy health insurance or pay the fine(tax). Indeed, we should have a single payer/universal system like the rest of the developed world. That got thrown out very quickly in negotiations, though.
keepthefaith Posted June 30, 2014 Posted June 30, 2014 Reminder: Number of women who can't buy birth control because of the #HobbyLobby decision:.......................... ZERO. Exactly.
Deranged Rhino Posted June 30, 2014 Posted June 30, 2014 (edited) While I'm unsurprised, I think this is a dangerous ruling. This ruling basically says that religious views are more important than federally mandated regulations. No it doesn't. It says that corporations now have religious rights. Which is hilariously short-sighted. Edited June 30, 2014 by GreggyT
keepthefaith Posted June 30, 2014 Posted June 30, 2014 Indeed, we should have a single payer/universal system like the rest of the developed world. That got thrown out very quickly in negotiations, though. Yeah, what we need is something like the postal service/VA/IRS running our health care system. What could go wrong?
IDBillzFan Posted June 30, 2014 Posted June 30, 2014 Indeed, we should have a single payer/universal system like the rest of the developed world. For the longest time I could never understand why liberals and progressives always seemed to not believe the US is an exceptional place. Obamacare finally made it clear to me; because the only way they know to make their point is to start off with the fact that much of the world is more developed (read that; exceptional) than the US, and we're simply behind the times. It starts with this idiotic idea that single payer is what we should because we're not on a par with "the rest of the developed world," and became increasingly clearer when Obama tried to explain that US companies should provide paid maternity leave because, y'know, France is doing it. It's no wonder this hind-tit-sucking co-dependent ideology is getting hammered daily.
Dorkington Posted June 30, 2014 Posted June 30, 2014 The US is an exceptional place. It's like a hot model with a few glaring moles. Don't take my complaints about certain aspects of this country to mean I don't love it. Every day I'm thankful I was born and raised here. That doesn't mean I think my home is perfect though.
IDBillzFan Posted June 30, 2014 Posted June 30, 2014 That's a great interview. Well-prepped, and the attorney nails every single point well. Perhaps the attorney should chat with Harry Reid. “Today’s decision jeopardizes women’s access to essential healthcare,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said. “The bottom line is that today’s decision is wrong for women. Your boss should never be able to make your healthcare decisions for you.” And who elected this brainchild? “Women should be making decisions about their healthcare with their doctors, not their employers,” Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) added. “Today’s Supreme Court decision unfortunately jeopardizes basic healthcare coverage and access to contraception for a countless number of women, and I’m very disappointed by the ruling.” Article here.
3rdnlng Posted June 30, 2014 Posted June 30, 2014 While I'm unsurprised, I think this is a dangerous ruling. This ruling basically says that religious views are more important than federally mandated regulations. No, it says that the Constitution is more important than unconstitutional federally mandated regulations.
Deranged Rhino Posted June 30, 2014 Posted June 30, 2014 No, it says that the Constitution is more important than unconstitutional federally mandated regulations. Nope. Doesn't say that either.
Doc Posted June 30, 2014 Posted June 30, 2014 (edited) Hobby Lobby still covers 16 contraceptives. They refuse to cover 4 abortives, which are not contraceptives. I have no problem with this decision. Edited June 30, 2014 by Doc
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 30, 2014 Posted June 30, 2014 (edited) Nope. Doesn't say that either. It absolutely does. You're either being obtuse, or are opining on something you haven't read. The decision was a very narrow one which differentiated between publicly owned corporations and closely held ones. The ruling states nothing more than that individuals do not cede their First Amendment rights through the act of incorporating. Edited June 30, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker
IDBillzFan Posted June 30, 2014 Posted June 30, 2014 While I wish I had more time to follow this, if you want a good laugh, follow ScotusBlog on twitter. It's a private blog that comments on SCOTUS decisions. All the libs think it's actually the Twitter account for SCOTUS, have been giving it schitt all day, and Scotusblog just blows them up one at a time. Hours go by and still the libs don't catch on. Link here.
Deranged Rhino Posted June 30, 2014 Posted June 30, 2014 (edited) It absolutely does. You're being obtuse. The decision was a very narrow one which differentiated between publicly owned corporations and closely held ones. The ruling states nothing more than that individuals do not cede their First Amendment rights through the act of incorporating. It says way more than that. Just watch. Re Ginsberg: "“The Court does not even begin to explain how one might go about ascertaining the religious scruples of a corporation where shares are sold to the public... No need to speculate on that, the Court says, for ‘it seems unlikely’ that large corporation ‘will often assert RFRA claims.’” Edited June 30, 2014 by GreggyT
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 30, 2014 Posted June 30, 2014 It says way more than that. Just watch. No, it doesn't. Perhaps you should actually read the Court's opinion before opining on it. Show me the language which bestowes Microsoft with religious rights.
Deranged Rhino Posted June 30, 2014 Posted June 30, 2014 No, it doesn't. Perhaps you should actually read the Court's opinion before opining on it. Show me the language which bestowes Microsoft with religious rights. I did read it. And it's a terrible ruling.
Recommended Posts