Court decision on Hobby Lobby case
Jul 1, 2014 14:02:09 #
RixPix wrote:
This is a dangerous precedent as it gives power to religious beliefs over the law. There are as aspects of some religions (female circumcision) that are barbaric and may be protected under this law.
Yeah, this moron is right. I bet a lot of women who work at Hobby Lonby are concerned about their genitals being mutilated. What a POS this guy is.
Jul 1, 2014 14:22:01 #
Blurryeyed wrote:
I am laughing at you! None of this screed has anything to do with the actual merits of the case.... read the decision and then bring an informed argument... Grow up!
I think your moniker is completely appropriate!
Jul 1, 2014 14:23:31 #
Bazbo
Loc: Lisboa, Portugal
Blurryeyed wrote:
Whoaaa So, you are suggesting that we just allow our government's bureaucracy define what our rights are? You guys are so consumed by your progressive slant that you don't seem to recognize that this mandate was never in the law passed by congress and our elected representation. It was mandated by HHS in a set of regulations it set forth. So now is this where our rights should come from in the future?
You guys are nuts.
You guys are nuts.
I think the point is not the danger of govt bureaucracy, but rather the danger of Corporate Statism. I don't think he's nuts
Jul 1, 2014 14:25:02 #
travelwp wrote:
The fact is the Supreme Court said, if a company has a religious objection to abortion, they don't have to pay for it.
Hobby Lobby will pay for your birth control, they don't want to pay for you to kill your baby.
Hobby Lobby will pay for your birth control, they don't want to pay for you to kill your baby.
Oh please. Are you from the dark ages?
Jul 1, 2014 14:28:26 #
venturer9 wrote:
what a typical idiot response..... But then again, we both have been genetically modified so it could be possible I suppose...
Mike
Mike
Not at all. It was your statement that was idiotic, to say the least and in a moderate, humble way.
And, btw, do not call me an idiot. We have had enough of your inflammatory name calling on this forum.
Jul 1, 2014 14:30:34 #
Blurryeyed wrote:
Can you show me the foundation for such rights? A... (show quote)
Who do you work for? I'll bet whoever it is, they pay for the majority of your medical expenses unless of course you are self employed, and in that case you have a right to do what you want. But you don't have a right to deny an employee their rights just because you happen to disagree with their method of birth control. I guess you want us to go back to the dark ages when women had to go to another building once a month and were considered unclean. You are a neanderthal buddy. The religious right is just like the Taliban in their own closed minded way, sans the car bombs.
Jul 1, 2014 14:31:13 #
I have absolutely no respect for the Supreme Court jesters. The Constitution was written so the average layman could read and understand it, therefore 99% of all decisions should be a 9-0. UNANIMOUS! In the past, the jesters have ruled unanimous on more than one instance and then in a few short years, reversed that same unanimous decision 180 degrees with another unanimous vote! How can anyone have any real trust in these POLITICAL jokers? I will admit though, the conservatives follow the Constitution more closely.
Jul 1, 2014 14:31:43 #
Bazbo
Loc: Lisboa, Portugal
venturer9 wrote:
Hobby Lobby has a particular clientele that shops ... (show quote)
None of my purchasing choices are based on religion, so your analogy completely fails. I personally don't care if people buy cheap crap from HL regardless of the source.
HL is making a religious argument, not an economic argument.
I guess I am completely wrong to expect Evangelicals to be consistent. They use their religion when it suits them and then turn a blind eye when it doesn't. My mistake for pointing out the obvious hypocrisy.
Jul 1, 2014 14:33:26 #
Bazbo wrote:
None of my purchasing choices are based on religion, so your analogy completely fails. I personally don't care if people buy cheap crap from HL regardless of the source.
HL is making a religious argument, not an economic argument.
I guess I am completely wrong to expect Evangelicals to be consistent. They use their religion when it suits them and then turn a blind eye when it doesn't. My mistake for pointing out the obvious hypocrisy.
HL is making a religious argument, not an economic argument.
I guess I am completely wrong to expect Evangelicals to be consistent. They use their religion when it suits them and then turn a blind eye when it doesn't. My mistake for pointing out the obvious hypocrisy.
Right on!
Jul 1, 2014 14:34:04 #
marblclear wrote:
Who do you work for? I'll bet whoever it is, they... (show quote)
Talk about somebody as inflexible as the mujahideen!!
Jul 1, 2014 14:35:32 #
SteveR wrote:
Talk about somebody as inflexible as the mujahideen!!
Typical.
Jul 1, 2014 14:42:40 #
bvm
Loc: Glendale, Arizona
marblclear wrote:
Oh please. Are you from the dark ages?
No, I don't think so, but CA. must be a dreadful place to live, nobody gives anybody any rights.
Jul 1, 2014 14:47:01 #
bvm wrote:
No, I don't think so, but CA. must be a dreadful place to live, nobody gives anybody any rights.
Don't speak about what you don't know.
Jul 1, 2014 14:47:25 #
dljen wrote:
Individuals are falling by the wayside. The Supreme Court is saying that we don't care about the individual, the corporation is more important. Again, the Republican members standing up for big business and the Democratic members (progressive) thinking of the person.
They did not loose their rights, they can still go out an get the junk they need to have sex. All that happened is they have to pay for it themselves. I would think that comes back to the rights of the rest of us not to pay for stuff we don't want to.
Jul 1, 2014 14:47:53 #
bvm wrote:
No, I don't think so, but CA. must be a dreadful place to live, nobody gives anybody any rights.
Oh, I see. You're from Arizona, well I guess that says it all!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.