# Now corporations soon to have "freedom of religion"?  Really?



## ABikerSailor (Nov 29, 2013)

It seems that the people who own Hobby Lobby are going to protest the ACA on the grounds that it makes provisions for birth control, and because the owners are against birth control, they should be allowed "freedom of religion" for their business......................


Supreme Court and Obamacare contraception mandate: Are companies ?persons? with religious freedom rights?

Now...............the ACA already exempts non profit religions organizations from this law, but does that mean that we should now allow for profit companies to impose their religious views on their workers?

What next?  Giving corporations that are owned by devout Christians the ability to discriminate against hiring workers because they are Islamic or Jewish because their belief systems clash with what Christianity teaches? 

It's a slippery slope that is being trod upon here..........................


----------



## occupied (Nov 29, 2013)

Has nothing to do with god unless the god they worship happens to be Mammon.


----------



## Katzndogz (Nov 29, 2013)

Hobby Lobby doesn't care who has birth control.  It is none of their business who practices birth control or who has an abortion.  

They object to paying for it.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 29, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Hobby Lobby doesn't care who has birth control.  It is none of their business who practices birth control or who has an abortion.
> 
> They object to paying for it.



Actually, they do.  You should read the link.

They are against providing any kind of health care for their employees which goes against their own religious beliefs, which is why they are arguing before the SC that for profit corporations should have freedom of religion, meaning they should be able to impose their own views on their employees.

Sorry, but ever since Citizens United said that corporations were people and entitled to free speech, they've been looking for more ways of imposing their views on others.

If they were non-profit religious organizations, I'd say they had a point, but that particular thing is ALREADY covered under the ACA.

But....................since they are for profit corporations, they should have to comply with the law like everyone else.  If they want religious freedom, let them convert their business to a non profit religious organization.


----------



## alan1 (Nov 29, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> It seems that the people who own Hobby Lobby are going to protest the ACA on the grounds that it makes provisions for birth control, and because the owners are against birth control, they should be allowed "freedom of religion" for their business......................
> 
> 
> Supreme Court and Obamacare contraception mandate: Are companies ?persons? with religious freedom rights?
> ...



Why should any company be forced to engage in commerce of any kind?  Why should any person be forced to engage in commerce?

Would you accept a government mandate that forced you to eat out at a restaurant at least one a week?  And it forced you to leave a mandatory 20% tip even if the service was crappy?
Where do you draw the line on government forced action when it comes to you personally?

You are right, it is a slippery slop, I'm unsure why you side with government instead of freedom and liberty.


----------



## Mojo2 (Nov 29, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> It seems that the people who own Hobby Lobby are going to protest the ACA on the grounds that it makes provisions for birth control, and because the owners are against birth control, they should be allowed "freedom of religion" for their business......................
> 
> 
> Supreme Court and Obamacare contraception mandate: Are companies ?persons? with religious freedom rights?
> ...



Remember when Mitt said Corporations are people?

He was proven right.

Again.


----------



## bodecea (Nov 29, 2013)

This will be fun with Muslim run corporations.....like FOX.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Nov 29, 2013)

Sorry....................corporations AREN'T people.

Yes, they are OWNED by people, but they aren't people in and of themselves, because they are a group of people.

Why should CEO's get an extra vote while ordinary citizens can't?  If corporations are people, then that means the CEO's get a vote for themselves as individual citizens, and they get another vote via their corporation?

That means the CEO's get 2 votes, one for themselves, and one for their corporation.  I thought this was a country of 1 person, 1 vote.


----------



## Meathead (Nov 29, 2013)

alan1 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > It seems that the people who own Hobby Lobby are going to protest the ACA on the grounds that it makes provisions for birth control, and because the owners are against birth control, they should be allowed "freedom of religion" for their business......................
> ...


Yes, and they have an excellent case. It is a Pandora's box.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Nov 29, 2013)

Freedom of religion means the government gets to impose their views on everyone, amiright?

That's why we fought the British, amiright?


----------



## BobPlumb (Nov 29, 2013)

Hobby lobby is a PRIVATE corporation.  The owners of a private corporation should not have to check their religion at the door.


----------



## Mojo2 (Nov 29, 2013)

bodecea said:


> This will be fun with Muslim run corporations.....like FOX.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw9oX-kZ_9k]Whatcha talkin bout Willis - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## BobPlumb (Nov 29, 2013)

Mojo2 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > This will be fun with Muslim run corporations.....like FOX.
> ...



Gary Coleman at the signing of Obimacare?


----------



## ScreamingEagle (Nov 29, 2013)

bodecea said:


> This will be fun with Muslim run corporations.....like FOX.



nobody on the left has a problem with Sharia-compliant banks and finance corporations...


----------



## MeBelle (Nov 29, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> Sorry.....corporations AREN'T people.
> 
> Yes, they are OWNED by people, but they aren't people in and of themselves, because they are a group of people.
> 
> ...



SCOTUS disagrees.
What other recent SCOTUS decisions would you like to see overturned?

CEOs don't get two votes, silly.

Corporate personhood is the legal concept that a corporation may be recognized as an individual in the eyes of the law. This doctrine forms the basis for legal recognition that corporations, as groups of people, may hold and exercise certain rights under the common law and the U.S. Constitution. For example, corporations may contract with other parties and sue or be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or unincorporated associations of persons. *The doctrine does not hold that corporations are flesh and blood "people" apart from their shareholders, officers, and directors, nor does it grant to corporations all of the rights of citizens*


Corporate personhood - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 29, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> It seems that the people who own Hobby Lobby are going to protest the ACA on the grounds that it makes provisions for birth control, and because the owners are against birth control, they should be allowed "freedom of religion" for their business......................
> 
> 
> Supreme Court and Obamacare contraception mandate: Are companies ?persons? with religious freedom rights?
> ...



You want to take away people's rights just because you don't like the rights?

At least you are honest about it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 29, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Hobby Lobby doesn't care who has birth control.  It is none of their business who practices birth control or who has an abortion.
> ...



Is there any reason you think corporations don't have rights? Should the government be able to take property simply because they write a law that requires people to form corporations in order to do things?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 29, 2013)

Mojo2 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > It seems that the people who own Hobby Lobby are going to protest the ACA on the grounds that it makes provisions for birth control, and because the owners are against birth control, they should be allowed "freedom of religion" for their business......................
> ...



Do I remember things that didn't happen?

????Way too often, which is why I work so hard to avoid it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 29, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> Sorry....................corporations AREN'T people.
> 
> Yes, they are OWNED by people, but they aren't people in and of themselves, because they are a group of people.
> 
> ...



What the fuck are you babbling about now?

If the government decided to raid a union because they thought that someone was stealing from them would they need a search warrant? If unions have rights, why on earth do you think corporations don't?


----------



## Jughead (Nov 29, 2013)

Individuals are free to practice birth control. Why should corporations have to pay for it though?


----------



## dblack (Nov 29, 2013)

As much as I hate the ACA and its various mandates, the first amendment's religious protections aren't there to grant religious believers special exemptions to the law.


----------



## jasonnfree (Nov 29, 2013)

Mojo2 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > This will be fun with Muslim run corporations.....like FOX.
> ...



The right wing will slowly turn muslim without a shot being fired. They won't even realize they became what they used to hate.  Might take a few years though.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 29, 2013)

dblack said:


> As much as I hate the ACA and its various mandates, the first amendment's religious protections aren't there to grant religious believers special exemptions to the law.



Quite true, the 1st Amendment is there to prevent everyone, even atheist, from the government. Once you get that through your bias you will see why you should support any and all attempts to restrict government power, even if you disagree with the people who are trying to do it.


----------



## JohnL.Burke (Nov 29, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> Sorry....................corporations AREN'T people.
> 
> Yes, they are OWNED by people, but they aren't people in and of themselves, because they are a group of people.
> 
> ...



LMFAO!!!! I have to admit that your thought process fascinates me.


----------



## dblack (Nov 29, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > As much as I hate the ACA and its various mandates, the first amendment's religious protections aren't there to grant religious believers special exemptions to the law.
> ...



But that's NOT what's happening here. Granting special exemptions doesn't restrict government power, it expands it.


----------



## jasonnfree (Nov 29, 2013)

ScreamingEagle said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > This will be fun with Muslim run corporations.....like FOX.
> ...



And you people didn't have a problem with bush swapping spit and holding hands with the saudi prince either.

https://www.google.com/search?q=bus...IOsj9oATLz4GQBQ&ved=0CCkQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=613


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 29, 2013)

dblack said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



That is exactly what is happening here. If you don't believe me take a gander at the arguments defending the mandate.

I really like the one Sandra Fluke used, "So theres an attack on allowing employers to be required to provide  this insurance coverage on insurance that employees pay for, at the same  time that theres an attack on public availability through clinics."

Tell me the truth, do you view the argument against the mandate as an attack on allowing employers to provide contraception?


----------



## dblack (Nov 29, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Uh... no? But I'm not sure I understand your question. 

The first amendment isn't there to give religious people an excuse to not follow the law. It's there to prevent government from targeting religions for persecution. These mandates are wrong, period. But allowing exemptions for favored special interest groups only expands government power, setting them up to pick and choose who will suffer the consequences of the law and who will get a pass.


----------



## Drake_Roberts (Nov 29, 2013)

In my opinion, businesses should not have to pay for their employees to have birth control or abortions. The decision should be left to the discretion of the business. That way, the government does not expand, and people get to keep their 1st Amendment Rights. That is, however, as far as it goes. Past that, I have no reason why business should be exempt from parts of a legal (and unjust) bill like the Unaffordable Care Act. 

Also, justifying your argument that businesses should give up their rights so that others can force said business to adhere to their beliefs is a stupid argument. You are, in effect, saying, "Oh, well you're Christian/Catholic/General beliefs don't coincide with mine, so I'll force you to relinquish your liberties in the name of preserving mine." See the hypocrisy


----------



## Drake_Roberts (Nov 29, 2013)

jasonnfree said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



What do you mean? Are you suggesting that right-wingers and the like will start reciting passages from the Quran, celebrating Ramadan, going on pilgrimages to Mecca, etc.? I'm fairly certain nearly every American would notice the change. For example, the U.S. would probably get a regime change every other week followed by days of executions and rebellions. Seems pretty noticeable to me.


----------



## Mojo2 (Nov 29, 2013)

jasonnfree said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Sadly, I can imagine that based on what I see happening today.


----------



## daveman (Nov 29, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Hobby Lobby doesn't care who has birth control.  It is none of their business who practices birth control or who has an abortion.
> ...


So, you object to people imposing their beliefs on others and insist the government should impose your beliefs on them.

Remind me...why are they bad again?


----------



## daveman (Nov 29, 2013)

bodecea said:


> This will be fun with Muslim run corporations.....like FOX.



"Muslim run"?

I'd ask you to prove that, but we both know you're just mindlessly lashing out.

Kerry on.


----------



## daveman (Nov 29, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> Sorry....................corporations AREN'T people.
> 
> Yes, they are OWNED by people, but they aren't people in and of themselves, because they are a group of people.
> 
> ...


Ummm...corporations can't vote.  Nor can CEOs direct how the corporation's officers and employees vote.

Take your time.  I can tell you haven't given this much thought.  At all.


----------



## daveman (Nov 29, 2013)

jasonnfree said:


> The right wing will slowly turn muslim without a shot being fired. They won't even realize they became what they used to hate.  Might take a few years though.


Dumbest.  Prediction.  Ever.


----------



## Mojo2 (Nov 29, 2013)

jasonnfree said:


> ScreamingEagle said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



How is ANYTHING involving George W. Bush going to save this country from what Obama is doing to it and us?

Please tell me.

And if you won't, then PLEASE STFU about Bush. We're trying to save this country. We're not playing tit 4 tat.


----------



## dblack (Nov 29, 2013)

Mojo2 said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> > ScreamingEagle said:
> ...



I think the point is that a lot of Republicans who are griping about stuff Obama is doing, were conspicuously silent when Bush was doing exactly the same things. Of course, it's also true that a lot of Democrats that were griping about the stuff Bush was doing are conspicuously silent while Obama does exactly the same thing. It's kind of a hypocrite's circle jerk. Go team.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 29, 2013)

Bush tried to force churches to push birth control and abortions?

Please link that.


----------



## Mojo2 (Nov 29, 2013)

Drake_Roberts said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> > Mojo2 said:
> ...



Start boiling a live frog in a pot at room temperature and he will remain in the water until it is hot enough to kill him but he'll never save himself because the temperature rise happens so gradually he never becomes alarmed.

What's happening to America right now is an indication the strategy can work.

We sat here and watched the left gain a strangle hold on our news our culture our politics our history and we let it happen with only a few court battles here and there and now this country is in really bad shape and things are not looking any more hopeful with Obama in office for another 3 years!

Things are VERY different...noticeably different today than they were twenty years ago.

And not for the better.

So, to expect the Muslim Brotherhood would permit us to become alarmed is very unlikely.

They will want things kept as calm as possible so we won't have anything or anyone to shoot at until it is too late for shootin.

And so many of the left will act as Judas goats that we'll all go down with hardly any blood being shed.

Nationwide, only a few dozen thousands or so, I'd guess.


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 30, 2013)

People will die of starvation and of easily treated disease.It's already starting.


----------



## Mojo2 (Nov 30, 2013)

dblack said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> > jasonnfree said:
> ...



Yeah, I was paying attention the past few years. I know what happened THEN.

But as this giant ship of state is heading toward a gigantic iceberg I don't want some leftist assholes who want to get married to their same sex lovers or who want free condoms thinking they're helping our collective situation by taking everyone's little spans of attention off the #1 priority, which is:

PREVENTING A COMPLETE SOCIETAL, ECONOMIC, GOVERNMENTAL COLLAPSE AND TAKEOVER.

Rag on Bush AFTER we save our asses, Okay?



> Jim Lovell: Gentlemen, what are your intentions?
> [Jack Swigert and Fred Haise turn around and stare at Lovell]
> Jim Lovell: I'd like to go home.



Apollo 13 (1995) - Quotes - IMDb


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 30, 2013)

dblack said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Wow, I specifically point out that the only purpose of the 1st Amendment is to stop the government from doing things, and you rant about religious people not obeying the law.

Come back when you stop arguing like rdean.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 30, 2013)

dblack said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> > jasonnfree said:
> ...



Funny, I thought the point was that a lot of the Democrats that were griping about Bush are conspicuously silent now that Obama is doing the same thing.

Given that only idiots try to hold people responsible for things they have no control over, the point about what other people are doing is, at best, a red herring. that intelligent people only acknowledge to mock the people that bring it up.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 30, 2013)

Mojo2 said:


> Drake_Roberts said:
> 
> 
> > jasonnfree said:
> ...



  Letme get this straight, because you believe in psuedo science the entire world is crazy, and only you realize the water is boiling.

Guess what, that old wives tale is an old wives tale.


----------



## dblack (Nov 30, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Heh... aren't you in the surly mood!

I think you're missing the forest for the trees here. This isn't about resentment at people not following the law. It's a recognition that allowing leaders to pick and choose who has to follow laws and who doesn't isn't a restriction on government power. Indeed, it amplifies it by giving them the power to decide who deserves the special privilege and who doesn't. To even implement an exemption for religious belief, the government must decide what qualifies as a religion and what doesn't - specifically violating the First Amendment by making 'law respecting the establishment of religion'.

Again, the point of freedom of religion is that government stays out of religion. It's not to grant government recognized churches special exemptions.


----------



## syrenn (Nov 30, 2013)

not sure what they cover or not... but most do..



the way i see it, if a company covers Viagra...they should cover birth control. HL should be able to OFFER any health plan they want..... if the employee doesn't like it they don't have to use or take it. 

Remember.... obamacare is there for anyone who doesn't like what their _employer is paying_ for.... they are all free now to _buy their own_ plans... bwhahaha


----------



## koshergrl (Nov 30, 2013)

dblack said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


It also means that government cannot force churches to submit to laws that require them to act contrary to their stated belief.


----------



## dblack (Nov 30, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Well, that's exactly the assumption I'm challenging. It's often stated in that way, but it doesn't make sense. If a church believes in human sacrifice, must they submit to laws requiring them to act contrary to their stated belief?


----------



## Vox (Nov 30, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> Sorry....................corporations AREN'T people.
> 
> Yes, they are OWNED by people, but they aren't people in and of themselves, because they are a group of people.
> 
> ...



Yes, THEY ARE.
Citizens United


----------



## Vox (Nov 30, 2013)

syrenn said:


> not sure what they cover or not... but most do..
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Viagra is a medical treatment. Birth control is NOT medical treatment, especially abortifacients.
the latter ones should not be forced to be covered by employer.


----------



## longknife (Nov 30, 2013)

A typical atheist rant against anyone or any entity that seeks to worship their God - except for Allah, of course -without a realistic approach.

If you are against HIV testing as it encroaches upon your personal beliefs, should you be forced to pay for it or be fined for not doing so?

Employees know the basic beliefs of the owners when they apply for positions. So, they are making the choice. If they know the owners are pro-lifers, why should they expect the owners to pay for an abortion they want/need/etc?

It amazed me how many ways you anti-religion types can go out of your way to try to force your beliefs on others.


----------



## Mojo2 (Nov 30, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> > Drake_Roberts said:
> ...



Most of America who is older than 35 realizes that we are decidedly worse off than we have been in anyone's experience or memory.

With the jaunty tam on his head and a playful cartoonish animal on his shoulder, is your avatar image the picture Michael Jackson kept on his mirror of what he wanted to look like after all his plastic surgeries were completed?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 30, 2013)

dblack said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



It annoys me when people repeat stupid arguments simply because they have nothing else to support their position, especially when I already  pointed out that hey are right and that the purpose of the Constitution is to define, and limit, government. 

You are partially right, the point of freedom of religion is partially that government stays out of religion. The part you don't get is that that is the lesser purpose of the restriction, even if it is mentioned first.

Lets look at the clause we are discussing.


> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...


We agree on the first part, so you can stop bringing it up, the part that has your panties all in a wad is the second part. This prohibits Congress from making even a general purpose law that restricts anyone's free exercise of their religion. Religion, in this case, means more than simply believing, or even not believing, in God. 

Courts have always recognized that this part of the Constitution actually empowers individuals, like you, to refuse to obey the government if their personal beliefs were sincerely held, even if they aren't based on a religious text. This is why it is legal for atheist to register as conscientious objectors to the draft, and to refuse to serve in any capacity that promotes war.

You, solely because you refuse to see just how powerful this makes you, see this as an expansion of government power. This is not England, the government does not have the power to define what is, and is not, a religion, you do. You are perfectly free to stand up and argue that your personal beliefs prohibit you from doing the same thing, it you chose to do so. There are currently 70 separate challenges to the mandate working their way through the courts, and hundreds of different parties involved in the challenge, including a few government entities.

The mandate is a challenge to your personal freedom, and it is exceedingly stupid to close your eyes to that fact, and to argue that you oppose limiting the government simply because you don't like some of the people who are challenging it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 30, 2013)

syrenn said:


> not sure what they cover or not... but most do..
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Personally, I don't see why it is any of your fucking business what they cover, even if it means letting them cover birth control and to refuse to cover Viagra because they believe Viagra enables rape.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 30, 2013)

dblack said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Human sacrifice is legal, its called abortion.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 30, 2013)

Mojo2 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Mojo2 said:
> ...




And they are starting to fight back, not simply pretending that the water is perfectly comfortable. Same thing happens with a frog, it will stay in the gradually warmed water until it reaches a point where the internal temperature of the frog is too hot. At that point the frog will jump out of the water unless it is prevented from doing so. 

So, please, stop pretending you are smarter than everyone else. The comfort levels vary, but most people will fight back long before we reach the point of no return. The secret is getting them to see what is making the water hot, not complaining because they got the wrong idea of the source of the problem.


----------



## JohnL.Burke (Nov 30, 2013)

People always want the government out of their bedrooms unless the government comes knocking with "free" sponges, viagra, spermicide and day after pills.


----------



## dblack (Nov 30, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I don't have anything against religious people, so please stop suggesting that's my motivation here. This is about corporatist government and the corrosive way it expands government power, even when it pretends to be giving us a break.

I think we agree that the mandates of ACA are wrong because they violate the fundamental freedom think and make financial decisions for ourselves. You seem to be of the opinion that letting _some_ people skip out of a bad law is better than making everyone follow it and it's that notion I'm taking exception to. Every group that's exempted from Obamacare is just another block of voters who will be more willing to give into it, and diminishes resistance to a really bad trend in government.

And, yes, granting exemptions to laws based on religious beliefs does put government in the powerful position of deciding what represents a legitimate religious belief - and raises the question of why that should even matter. Why should a religious belief that being forced to buy insurance is wrong be any more of an excuse than simply believing insurance is a really bad way to finance health care? Does the mystical nature of the religious belief make it more worthy of protection than a rational analysis? Why?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 30, 2013)

dblack said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I forgot, you hate everyone who gets together to real with their common interests.

Let me try typing this really slow.

Giving individuals, not groups, more power does not empower the government, even if the individuals have to form groups in order to get their point across. Corporatism, in and of itself, is not bad. What is bad is when we give the government the power. Anything, repeat anything, that restricts the power of the government is good for everyone.


----------



## Mojo2 (Nov 30, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I'm saying the time to get serious is now, not later. And if you merely assume that America will wake up before we reach that point of no return I ask what makes you so certain? How do you know now isn't already too late?

Basically, your position is, 'Nevermind about YOUR line in the sand, we should use MY line in the sand to know when the time has come to take action.'

That doesn't make your line is any better than mine.

It only means you are allowing less time to do what needs to be done to save America.

If that's all you got you should sit the fizzuck down, Jacko.

We ain't in a pissing match!


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 30, 2013)

Mojo2 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Mojo2 said:
> ...



The time to get serious was 236 years ago.


----------



## dblack (Nov 30, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I have no interest in typing slowly, so I'll give up trying to convince you. But I'll leave you, and anyone else who cares about the cause of liberty, with a plea to look closely at what's going on. This 'divide and conquer'strategy its exactly how they defeat us. They peel off one group after another with special favors, exemptions, deductions, incentives and carve outs until we can no longer mount meaningful political opposition. Then they move on to their next conquest. We won't win until we stop letting them get away with it.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Nov 30, 2013)

dblack said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



If there is a divide and conquer strategy being employed by the government, which is arguable, you are the one that is making it successful by insisting that the only legitimate challenge to a law can be based on your principles.


----------



## NYcarbineer (Nov 30, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Hobby Lobby doesn't care who has birth control.  It is none of their business who practices birth control or who has an abortion.
> 
> They object to paying for it.



They aren't paying for it.  They are providing compensation for work performed by their employees, that might possibly be used for birth control.

The employee can use the cash in their paycheck to purchase birth control, or an abortion.

Does that mean Hobby Lobby is being forced to pay for abortions because it gives its employees money?


----------



## Drake_Roberts (Nov 30, 2013)

Mojo2 said:


> Drake_Roberts said:
> 
> 
> > jasonnfree said:
> ...



If that sad day comes, I'll vouch for this: there will be something or someone who needs to be shot at, and this is one American who will gladly do it.


----------



## Drake_Roberts (Nov 30, 2013)

dblack said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Your argument is invalid. 


Find one religion that is still active in the US that features human sacrifice. Regardless, we're talking about Hobby Lobby, Christianity, and contraceptives, not human sacrifice.

Just a thought, some people view the use of contraceptives or having abortions as murder. Are you allowed to force them to permit and encourage what is, in their minds, human sacrifice?


----------



## dblack (Nov 30, 2013)

Drake_Roberts said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Are you unfamiliar with the concept of a hypothetical? It's a proposition to test the general application of a principle, usually to show that it doesn't hold in all cases. The point here is to illustrate that the first amendment doesn't afford an unlimited right to practice religious beliefs. The point of the first is to prohibit government from co-opting religion, not to grant unlimited freedom to religious interests.


----------



## Drake_Roberts (Nov 30, 2013)

Mojo2 said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Mojo2 said:
> ...



Ah, but QuantumWindbag has a point there. If you try to spring out to early, the other metaphorical frogs won't follow you. They don't see or believe the water is getting warmer. Only when things reach the literal boiling point will people... I mean frogs, act for the good of everyone and the preservation of the current order. 

The only way to resist a hypothetical Muslim onslaught is to wait until all of America stands at your back, party lines finally forgotten, ready to stand up for your rights. The boiling water, ironically, is what causes things to be better. For example, this nation wouldn't have been founded and the revolution never fought if not for Britain denying representation, taxing, closing Boston Harbor, quartering, etc. If you go back further, Boston, the place where the revolution began, would not have been founded if not for the boiling pot religious intolerance in Britain forcing the Puritans to leave for the New World.

Maybe this boiling pot will help usher in the next great power of justness. And judging by the warring history of our nation, it certainly won't be a Muslim power.


----------



## Drake_Roberts (Nov 30, 2013)

dblack said:


> Drake_Roberts said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I am familiar with hypotheticals, just not ones that are ignorant and fail to help support my argument. You obviously chose not to quote the second half of my statement, proved your point idiotic didn't it?


----------



## daveman (Nov 30, 2013)

JohnL.Burke said:


> People always want the government out of their bedrooms unless the government comes knocking with "free" sponges, viagra, spermicide and day after pills.


----------



## daveman (Nov 30, 2013)

Drake_Roberts said:


> Find one religion that is still active in the US that features human sacrifice.



The progressive god Choice:


----------



## Drake_Roberts (Nov 30, 2013)

daveman said:


> Drake_Roberts said:
> 
> 
> > Find one religion that is still active in the US that features human sacrifice.
> ...



I apologize. I stand corrected. The God of the Liberals completely slipped my mind. Sorry, let me rephrase my question, why should babies be allowed to be murdered on the altar of Choice instead of allowing them to be saved on the altar of God?


----------



## Mojo2 (Dec 1, 2013)

Drake_Roberts said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> > Drake_Roberts said:
> ...



Watch this video and maybe you'll understand how all of us waiting for the shooting to start may end up with our guns hanging limp at our sides and Mosques sprouting like mushrooms.


The protests will all be academic.

The issue has already been decided in Europe. No one to shoot at. Nothing to do. No one to protest to.

Their frogs are all boiled.

Whether they know it or not.

We are next.


----------



## Drake_Roberts (Dec 1, 2013)

Mojo2 said:


> Drake_Roberts said:
> 
> 
> > Mojo2 said:
> ...



If everything I say is hopelessly wrong, then what do you suggest? Should we start massacring Muslims in the streets? Do you want us to forbid Muslims from immigrating here? Is your suggestion that we ban Islam? This America, the land of the free and all that stuff. If you ban a religion, you might as well void the first amendment, then the constitution. Hell, we might as well not even have a government in that case. And where would that take us?

Ah yes...

Anarchy!


----------



## Katzndogz (Dec 1, 2013)

Stopping muslim immigration is an excellent start.  Denmark did it.  Some countries have just stopped building mosques.   Stop passing sharia compliant laws.  Stop making buildings sharia compliant.  Stop putting foot baths into public buildings.


----------



## Drake_Roberts (Dec 1, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Stopping muslim immigration is an excellent start.  Denmark did it.  Some countries have just stopped building mosques.   Stop passing sharia compliant laws.  Stop making buildings sharia compliant.  Stop putting foot baths into public buildings.



Ah, but you can't do that under the 1st amendment. Besides, Supreme Court would automatically gun down lol any legislation that proposes such a thing as "unconstitutional". It would never work with this government, no matter the party. Under a new government with new rules, however...


----------



## Mojo2 (Dec 2, 2013)

Drake_Roberts said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> > Drake_Roberts said:
> ...



I don't have a prescription. All I know is that no matter what anyone does, a sizable minority of Muslims (maybe less than 20% worldwide) take the Koran seriously and literally and are actively seeking to establish Islamic dominance over all religions and governments using any means necessary...violent or non.

When/if we reach the "Fifth Stage of Islam" point here in the USA they will control and maybe deny you of _*your *_ religious worship.

Would you die to defend their religious rights even though they would deprive you of your religious rights?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 2, 2013)

I'm still waiting for anyone to provide a link to a real news site that proves Sharia law is taking over this country.

I'm also waiting to hear of any city, state or federal government program that is replacing the Constitution with Islamic ideals.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Dec 2, 2013)

Jughead said:


> Individuals are free to practice birth control. Why should corporations have to pay for it though?



On the face of it, I agree. 

But, do we really want to allow employers to decide what medical treatment your insurance pays for? In the past, we have allowed insurance companies to dictate health care. Both are wrong and should not be ignored. And, the ACA should not allow exemptions.

Remember, being "good christians" and all, HL actually pays very little in health insurance benefits. Like WalMart, they fill their stores with shit from China, they screw over their store help with crappy pay and pay very little in the way of any benefits at all. Only the top execs get decent pay and bennies.

This is not about HL paying for birth control. This is is never about any company paying for birth control. lushbo used that asssinine excuse to get the rws all up in their usual hating so they wouldn't notice what is really happening. All the screeching lies about Sandra Fluke was the perfect smoke screen to hide behind and, amazingly, the rw's STILL believe those lies. 

I can't believe people really didn't see this coming when Lord Romney made his gaffe with _"corporations are people too, my friend"_.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Dec 2, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> I'm still waiting for anyone to provide a link to a real news site that proves Sharia law is taking over this country.
> 
> I'm also waiting to hear of any city, state or federal government program that is replacing the Constitution with Islamic ideals.



IF a working definition of Sharia law is law based on religious beliefs, then yes, it is doing quite well in the US. This thread is about Hobby Lobby trying to use religious beliefs to force their will on the entire country. Same with screeching about abortion. 

The right doesn't care about fetuses. They care about power.

They can get power by stirring up the rw's who can't think for themselves. 

rw's are happy with a Muslim running Fox but they get crazy if a woman's pay includes health insurance that includes birth control.

THAT is the belief in Sharia Law, Repub style and if they could, women would be wearing chastity belts and their preacher would hold the key.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 2, 2013)

*Now corporations soon to have "freedom of religion"? Really?*

Then corporations will eventually denied special tax breaks and be assessed as all people are assessed.


----------



## manifold (Dec 2, 2013)

dblack said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Bingo!


----------



## manifold (Dec 2, 2013)

Drake_Roberts said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Well, that's exactly the assumption I'm challenging. It's often stated in that way, but it doesn't make sense. If a church believes in human sacrifice, must they submit to laws requiring them to act contrary to their stated belief?
> ...



How about polygamy then?


----------



## Vox (Dec 2, 2013)

Drake_Roberts said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Stopping muslim immigration is an excellent start.  Denmark did it.  Some countries have just stopped building mosques.   Stop passing sharia compliant laws.  Stop making buildings sharia compliant.  Stop putting foot baths into public buildings.
> ...



immigration quotas are executive decisions and has been done by every sane country always. Was in place in this country as well until leftardism on steroids took over.


----------



## Vox (Dec 2, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Jughead said:
> 
> 
> > Individuals are free to practice birth control. Why should corporations have to pay for it though?
> ...



Birth control is NOT medical treatment. it's a lifestyle choice.

or you want your employer to pay for your relaxation dry martini? it is more of the medical benefit that the birth control


----------



## manifold (Dec 2, 2013)

Vox said:


> Birth control is NOT medical treatment. it's a lifestyle choice.



The same can be said about viagra and knee replacement surgery.

Should coverage for that be voluntary also?


----------



## Mojo2 (Dec 2, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> I'm still waiting for anyone to provide a link to a real news site that proves Sharia law is taking over this country.
> 
> I'm also waiting to hear of any city, state or federal government program that is replacing the Constitution with Islamic ideals.



This site's focus is examples of creeping sharia in America.

Creeping Sharia | the Islamization of America


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 2, 2013)

Mojo2 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > I'm still waiting for anyone to provide a link to a real news site that proves Sharia law is taking over this country.
> ...



Mojo2, give us something with a factual and historical narrative not propaganda.


----------



## Jughead (Dec 2, 2013)

manifold said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Birth control is NOT medical treatment. it's a lifestyle choice.
> ...


knee replacement surgery is a necessary medical procedure, so it is indeed considered medical treatment. Viagra is not. I am very surprised that insurance companies cover Viagra under their medical plans.


----------



## manifold (Dec 2, 2013)

Jughead said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



Why is knee replacement necessary?


----------



## koshergrl (Dec 2, 2013)

Because unless you replace your knee, you can't walk or stand. 

Which means you can't work.

Which isn't a big deal for most deadbeats...but they certainly aren't big on living with the pain as well.


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 2, 2013)

Scalia used to be against it remember? 

Justice Scalia on religious freedom | TheHill


> As the Supreme Court majority wrote in 1990, &#8220;We have never held that an individual&#8217;s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law &#8230; On the contrary, the record of more than a century of free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.&#8221;
> *
> Before someone complains about left-wing justices ignoring constitutional norms and legislating from the bench, note that the author of that opinion, and those words, was none other than Antonin Scalia.* Enough said.





I think we all know that if Nino changes his mind now he'll be a certified


----------



## manifold (Dec 2, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Because unless you replace your knee, you can't walk or stand.
> 
> Which means you can't work.
> 
> Which isn't a big deal for most deadbeats...but they certainly aren't big on living with the pain as well.



Plenty of people work without being able to walk or stand.

Once again, your argument is invalid and you've contributed absolutely nothing... ****.


----------



## koshergrl (Dec 2, 2013)

Ah, trolling I see. Cute.


----------



## koshergrl (Dec 2, 2013)

Looks like the troll sites must be slow these days.


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 2, 2013)

manifold said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Because unless you replace your knee, you can't walk or stand.
> ...



This is especially true given the fact that much of this great nation's GDP is derived from, to my chagrin, *cough* "financial services". They just stare at screens while scheming how to "rip client's faces off"


Goldman Sachs and the Art of Ripping Your Clients' Faces Off


----------



## Sallow (Dec 2, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> It seems that the people who own Hobby Lobby are going to protest the ACA on the grounds that it makes provisions for birth control, and because the owners are against birth control, they should be allowed "freedom of religion" for their business......................
> 
> 
> Supreme Court and Obamacare contraception mandate: Are companies ?persons? with religious freedom rights?
> ...



It would be no slippery slope.

It would be a gigantic leap into a Theocratic state if Hobby Lobby wins this.

Just amazing this made it this far.

Just goes to show the quality of the judges currently on the bench.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 2, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> Scalia used to be against it remember?
> 
> Justice Scalia on religious freedom | TheHill
> 
> ...



Scalia is pretty well know for his "situational" view of how the justice system works.


----------



## dblack (Dec 2, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> Scalia used to be against it remember?
> 
> Justice Scalia on religious freedom | TheHill
> 
> ...



I'll definitely be surprised, and disappointed, if they rule in favor of exempting on religious grounds. But the Court has surprised, and disappointed, me before - most notably Roberts caving on the mandate.


----------



## koshergrl (Dec 2, 2013)

It has made it this far because judges realize what morons like you don't....when you use the government to force churches to pay for things that they are diametrically opposed to religiously, the state is violating the constitution regarding freedom of religion.


----------



## koshergrl (Dec 2, 2013)

"*The First Amendment* provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise."

Anti-christian fascists always forget that part.


----------



## dblack (Dec 2, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> It has made it this far because judges realize what morons like you don't....when you use the government to force churches to pay for things that they are diametrically opposed to religiously, the state is violating the constitution regarding freedom of religion.



That doesn't make any sense at all - certainly not as a general principle. Are you saying if I start a church that is religiously opposed to compulsive state government, we'd get a pass on following laws altogether? If so, I'm on it. We'll call it the "First Anarchist Assembly Church".


----------



## Sallow (Dec 2, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> It has made it this far because judges realize what morons like you don't....when you use the government to force churches to pay for things that they are diametrically opposed to religiously, the state is violating the constitution regarding freedom of religion.



Churches are non profit, don't pay taxes and are exempt from most of the provisions of the ACA.

Which puts squarely on display you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

This is about 'for profit' corporate entities.


----------



## koshergrl (Dec 2, 2013)

I'm sure all the judges who keep moving this through the courts are just big dummies.

You should call them and set them straight, genius.


----------



## dblack (Dec 2, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> "*The First Amendment* provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise."
> 
> Anti-christian fascists always forget that part.



Yeah... that's to prevent laws attempting to ban specific practices in the name of religious persecution. It doesn't mean religions get a free pass to ignore laws that apply to everyone else.


----------



## dblack (Dec 2, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> I'm sure all the judges who keep moving this through the courts are just big dummies.
> 
> You should call them and set them straight, genius.



If you wanna send me a list of phone numbers, I'd be happy to.


----------



## Vox (Dec 2, 2013)

manifold said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Birth control is NOT medical treatment. it's a lifestyle choice.
> ...



Nope, it can't.

educate yourself before showing your ignorance to the world.


----------



## koshergrl (Dec 2, 2013)

dblack said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > "*The First Amendment* provides that Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise."
> ...


 
The judges disagree with you.

Specific practices/religious persecution include financial persecution, and ENACTING LAWS which force churches to act in ways that are in conflict with their religious beliefs.

The courts know this. It's funny that you guys don't.


----------



## koshergrl (Dec 2, 2013)

Vox said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...


 
Mani is pro-ignorance and anti-education.


----------



## dblack (Dec 2, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Heh.. it's happened before. Won't surprise me if it happens again.

They would be wrong, however.


----------



## koshergrl (Dec 2, 2013)

manifold said:


> Drake_Roberts said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


 
Polygamists are perfectly free to marry as many times as they wish in the church that allows it, and the church is not fined or persecuted for it.

Subsequent marriages after the first won't be recognized by the state, but that isn't persecution, any more than it's persecution when the state fails to recognize queer marriage.


----------



## Vox (Dec 2, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Ah, trolling I see. Cute.



I am surprised you even got involved 

an ignorant brainwashed idiot who considers birth control to be a medical necessity and compares it to a TKA is not worth a discussion.
the same straw argument are involved in the defense of the murder in utero.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 2, 2013)

Vox said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



If the court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby? All medical procedures would be subject to religious scrutiny by corporations.

Additionally, corporations could deny employment to people of different faiths.

It's a very dangerous case.


----------



## Vox (Dec 2, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



and a pro-abort obviously. plus pro-straw man argument in defense of the murder in utero.


----------



## Vox (Dec 2, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



GOOD.

Medical procedures as abortion are in direct violation of the religious beliefs and should not be forced to be paid for by an employer.

You don't like the policy of the employer - you change the job.

it is funny how the "pro-choice" crowd is all for the "stay out of my bedroom" shriek until it is "but not in the case when somebody else has to PAY for my in and post  the bedroom activities"


----------



## Sallow (Dec 2, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Drake_Roberts said:
> ...



Polygamy is illegal in America.

Legal status of polygamy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## koshergrl (Dec 2, 2013)

dblack said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


 
Yes, I'm sure they would be.

What are your specific qualifications that give you superior understanding again?


----------



## dblack (Dec 2, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Unequaled wit and superior moral standing.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 2, 2013)

Vox said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...





You folks are funny.

The whole civil rights movement was about corporations denying the right of minorities to have access to goods.

It started at the Woolworth's lunch counter.

Corporations aren't entirely private either. They are in fact, given their status by government charter and enjoy a plethora of rights and services because of it.

For profits are obligated to follow the law. Not laws they like.


----------



## Vox (Dec 2, 2013)

dblack said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



bwahahahaha 

"superior moral standing" in a proabort, or without linguistic coverage - a murder supporter?


----------



## Vox (Dec 2, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


It is actually ia civil right issue - for the forced employer - in validation his/her BASIC human right for the freedom of religious beliefs and not to be forced by the government to act in the violation's of his/her beliefs.


----------



## Sunshine (Dec 2, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Drake_Roberts said:
> ...



I worked at a big managed care organization that cared for the SPMI population.  Of course, those lives are chaotic, and any marriage will be as well.  But they still have the urge to marry and make their behavior 'right' in the eyes of God.  Too often, they would break up leaving the one (usually the woman) who had lost her benefits homeless and pennyless.  So, some of the SWs got together and cooked up a 'ceremony' for them which made them feel better about their relations, but didn't cost them their benefits, nor leave either of them with no resources if/when it didn't work out.


----------



## Jughead (Dec 2, 2013)

manifold said:


> Jughead said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...


To try and alleviate the pain caused by worn knee cartilage. In many cases, the pain is unbearable, so surgery helps considerably.


----------



## Sunshine (Dec 2, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Drake_Roberts said:
> ...



Oh but Amir needs to have SS bennies there for his 18 wives and 16 goats!


----------



## koshergrl (Dec 2, 2013)

The goats are necessary because, as of today, it is still illegal to keep a stable of young boys...

But I'm sure our enlightened progressives are working hard to change that!


----------



## Sallow (Dec 2, 2013)

Vox said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



Scalia basically has already ruled on this. But given what a horrible justice he is, I can see him ruling against himself.

In any case..an entity like a "for profit" cannot force their religious views on the individuals they employ nor discriminate against people of different religions.

At present, that is the law.


----------



## Vox (Dec 2, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



profit has absolutely nothing to do with the civil rights of the employer and don't lie - if anybody wants to impose their beliefs - it is the government which forces it's beliefs on the employer.

Healthcare paid for by employer is not a "right" at all, to start with.
So what is paid for and what is not - is the choice of the employer.

But you are a pro-choice only when the choice is for murder in utero, right?


----------



## manifold (Dec 2, 2013)

Vox said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



Yes it can.

Your ignorance duly noted.


----------



## koshergrl (Dec 2, 2013)

Arthritis of the knee isn't a choice.

So no, it can't, troll.


----------



## boedicca (Dec 2, 2013)

Jughead said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Jughead said:
> ...




Indeed.  My dad's knee got mangled when he was in the Army.  He was in chronic pain for years (bone on bone) - and finally got a knee replacement.  It was medically necessary.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 2, 2013)

Vox said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



Well yeah.

It absolutely does.

The rest of your post is nonsense.


----------



## manifold (Dec 2, 2013)

Jughead said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Jughead said:
> ...



I never said there aren't good reasons for a knee replacement.

Of course there are good reasons, just like there is for birth control. Still doesn't make it necessary.


----------



## Vox (Dec 2, 2013)

manifold said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



yawn

healthcare benefit is not a right.
what is paid and what is not by employer - is his/her choice entirely.

and birth control is not medical treatment.

TKA is not a necessity in a single payer system - true.

But we are not there YET.


----------



## manifold (Dec 2, 2013)

Vox said:


> and birth control is not medical treatment.



Except according to real world definitions of course.


----------



## Vox (Dec 2, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


oh, I get  it - only people on the government handouts have civil rights. Those who work for a living, give work to others and pay taxes so the bums can survive on the taxpayer's handouts - THOSE people do not have any civil rights.

well, maybe that's your utopian dream, but we are not there yet.


----------



## Vox (Dec 2, 2013)

manifold said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > and birth control is not medical treatment.
> ...



which consider birth control NOT a medical treatment.


----------



## manifold (Dec 2, 2013)

Vox said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



Read that again gilligan, I said 'real' world.

How many other drugs that people need a prescription for do you consider outside the realm of medical treatment?


----------



## Vox (Dec 2, 2013)

Contraception is not considered medical treatment even in a single payer system in Canada.

Or, maybe, we should look to the single payer systems and their restrictions of what is covered, to finally realize WHAT is medical treatment and in what medical heaven we live?


----------



## Vox (Dec 2, 2013)

manifold said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



Exactly. In a REAL world contraception is NOT a medical treatment.
Should I make it bold and red so you finally GET IT?


----------



## koshergrl (Dec 2, 2013)

"*the **various* *methods** or **types** of **equipment** that **allow* *people** to have **sex** without having **children**:"*

birth control noun - definition in the British English Dictionary & Thesaurus - Cambridge Dictionaries Online

I don't see the term "treatment" used there.


----------



## koshergrl (Dec 2, 2013)

manifold said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...


 
So what is it used to treat?

Fertility? 

Is fertility an illness?


----------



## koshergrl (Dec 2, 2013)

manifold said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...


 
Even in the real world it isn't called treatment:

"*Birth control*, also known as *contraception* and *fertility control*, are methods or devices used to prevent pregnancy"

Birth control - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Vox (Dec 2, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



I guess, the real shocker should be that it is not "for free" in Canada or UK 

even a bigger shocker would be that a total knee replacement in those single payer system is NOT considered a medical necessity for people after certain age 

there are many more hidden shockers which our ignorant brainwashed leftards don't expect to exist 

However, our leftards consider pregnancy and childbearing to be an ILLNESS, an ABNORMALITY which has to be avoided at all costs, including murder in utero.


----------



## manifold (Dec 2, 2013)

Vox said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



who said anything about contraception gilligan?

got straw?


----------



## manifold (Dec 2, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



Endometriosis, to name one example.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 2, 2013)

Vox said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



No..you don't get it and quite obviously.

There is a huge difference between a "For Profit" corporation and a "Not for Profit" religious organization. This case seeks to break that barrier.

It is a very dangerous barrier to break.


----------



## koshergrl (Dec 2, 2013)

Sure, but in that case, it's not birth control.


----------



## dblack (Dec 2, 2013)

The interpretation of the first amendment argued by Hobby Lobby, et.al, implies that opposition to a legal requirement based on mystical mumbo-jumbo is a protected right, but opposition based on rational thought isn't. How's that again? Does that seem right to you?


----------



## manifold (Dec 2, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Sure, but in that case, it's not birth control.



Do you think Hobby Lobby is really going to care if given a special dispensation allowing them to deny coverage?


----------



## koshergrl (Dec 2, 2013)

My primary thought at this moment is that you're full of shit.


----------



## manifold (Dec 2, 2013)

translation: Allie knows I'm right


----------



## koshergrl (Dec 2, 2013)

You're not right. You just had the floor wiped with your dumb face, and you're too dumb to know it.


----------



## Vox (Dec 2, 2013)

manifold said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, but in that case, it's not birth control.
> ...



government violation of the first Amendment right of the employer supersedes your definition of what you would like to be covered or not.

Insurance coverage by employer usually does not provide liposuction and cosmetic procedures - which are much more a medical treatment than birth control will ever be.

I have never seen you, leftards, jumping from your pants on that matter.


----------



## Vox (Dec 2, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



it has absolutely no relation to profit - AT ALL>

Government can not violate the employer's First Amendment right. Period.

And I am appalled that you are not in support of the employer covering the fat women's tummy slimming by liposuction - this is a real RIGHT 

and a medical emergency - for some


----------



## Sallow (Dec 2, 2013)

Vox said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



Does making all sorts of unrelated arguments make you feel clever?

This is "kitchen sinking".

It would be laughed out of court.


----------



## Vox (Dec 2, 2013)

manifold said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



Except it is not a birth control 

It is a specific hormonal treatment.

Not a birth control pill.


----------



## Vox (Dec 2, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



well, you think your considering a lifestyle choice as medical treatment is clever.

It is not a medical treatment and has nothing to do with healthcare.

It is not covered in the single payer systems and will not be covered in American system as well - if the employer opts not to do it.


----------



## Vox (Dec 2, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



It does not matter.

Birth control is NOT healthcare - and you don;t get it, obviously.


----------



## manifold (Dec 2, 2013)

Vox said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



You're entitled to your own opinions, as fucked as they may be, but you don't get to make up your own facts.

Birth control is medical treatment, just like viagra and knee replacements are medical treatment. If your argument requires the denial of fact, your argument fails. Period.


----------



## manifold (Dec 2, 2013)

Vox said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



More factual inaccuracies from Vox!

Shocker!!!


----------



## koshergrl (Dec 2, 2013)

Vox said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...


 
Lol...don't get all specific and stuff, they're talking about "real world" definitions...like wiki..

Oh wait..wiki defines birth control as methods or devices used to prevent pregnancy.....

The very term "birth control" defines what the hormones are being used for. You don't prescribe "birth control" for endometriosis. You prescribe hormones...the same hormones which are given as birth control.

But vagifold and swallow like to be spanked like the little squealers they are....this substitutes for real S&M for them...


----------



## Mojo2 (Dec 2, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



You don't get to invalidate a source that reports the news from other sources until or unless you can prove this source makes a habit of posting inaccurate or unreliable information.

And you can't dismiss this source until or unless you prove the info cited is mostly FALSE  propaganda.

Your silly little dodge won't work.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 2, 2013)

Vox said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



Sure it does.

And it has roots in the constitution which at it's foundation advocates for a secular government.

The federal government has a great deal of power over commerce. And since the civil rights act it has become the role of the Federal government to make sure minority groups are not disenfranchised from society as a whole. That includes people of different races, ethnic backgrounds and religions. And that power was the basis for the civil rights act.

There is a very clear distinction between a "For Profit" corporation and a "Not for profit" religious organization. For example, religious organizations do not pay taxes.

There are clear reasons for that.

And breaking that down is both foolish and dangerous.

And it's a huge step toward Theocracy.


----------



## Vox (Dec 2, 2013)

manifold said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



neither are you.

*Birth control is NOT medical treatment as is not considered as such anywhere in the world.*

It is not covered in single payer systems - get used to it


----------



## boedicca (Dec 2, 2013)

Where does the first amendment say that people who work for or own corporations are exempt?


----------



## koshergrl (Dec 2, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...


 
No it's not, you loon. You obviously don't have any better understanding of what constitutes a theocracy than you do of what birth control is.

Go back to school.


----------



## Vox (Dec 2, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



No, it does not.

I want my red wine be covered by my employer - and my red wine is much more a medical treatment than birth control will ever imagine to be - because consumption of red wine prevents cardiovascular disease and it also prevents the whole list of gynecological cancers.
Where is my red wine paid by my employer?


----------



## Sallow (Dec 2, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



Please.

The second I lower my standards to let a crack ho like you give me a gummer and a swallow..is the day I have to turn in my hot dude card.

And that's not today.

This ain't your realm of expertise.

It's quite obvious you are in above your tiny little head.

Go bake a pie or something.

The law is a little to complex for you.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 2, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...




The government giving corporate charters to religious groups is a leap toward Theocracy.

You should think about starting school.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 2, 2013)

Vox said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



Seriously?

Now making ridiculous arguments count as some sort of counter point?

Scalia has ALREADY said you cannot use religion as a barrier against following the law.

Let's see if he holds up to that precedent.


----------



## manifold (Dec 2, 2013)

Vox said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



If you need a prescription for it, it absolutely is medical treatment.

Fact, not opinion.


----------



## Drake_Roberts (Dec 2, 2013)

Vox said:


> Drake_Roberts said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Really? I certainly don't remember those days. Let's put it this way, the first president I really remember is the second Bush. You people are all way older than I am.

Regardless, any decision banning Islam would be viewed as "unconstitutional" by much of the nation today, being that they have to be "politically correct" and other nonsense.


----------



## Peterf (Dec 2, 2013)

dblack said:


> As much as I hate the ACA and its various mandates, the first amendment's religious protections aren't there to grant religious believers special exemptions to the law.



Exactly.

That great creator of wealth, the free market,   is only possible if the same rules apply to all companies, public or private.   Twisting, bending or manipulating regulation to try to confirm to company owners alleged 'moral' framework is a crazy idea.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 2, 2013)

Peterf said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > As much as I hate the ACA and its various mandates, the first amendment's religious protections aren't there to grant religious believers special exemptions to the law.
> ...


----------



## Vox (Dec 2, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Yes, seriously.

For some idiotic reason you and other leftards here consider birth control to be a "medical care" which it never have been, never will be and is not at present as well.

It is a lifestyle choice. For the pleasure of sex.

drinking red wine is much more a preventive medical treatment, as it has shown in numerous studies its prophylaxis against cardiovascular problems and against gynecological cancers ( some of them).
So the lifestyle option and pleasure of drinking red wine should be mandatory coverage before anybody ever considers birth control to be a "medical care".

But it is not a political lever of control, just a beneficial pleasure, therefore it is not hyped by the left and you and others are not brainwashed constantly about something being "medical care" when it is not.

Like Goebbels taught - if a lie is repeated enough times, some will wholeheartedly believe it. And the lie about birth control being a "medical treatment" is as much a classic Goebbels lie as it possibly can ever be.


----------



## Vox (Dec 2, 2013)

Peterf said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > As much as I hate the ACA and its various mandates, the first amendment's religious protections aren't there to grant religious believers special exemptions to the law.
> ...



except birth control is NOT a medical treatment and can not be forced under the medical necessity agenda 

The employer can drop entire coverage if forced to do something against their will 

it is pretty easy to do - and thousands already have dropped the coverage entirely.

It's a free market, you know. And the third law of Newton's physics


----------



## Vox (Dec 2, 2013)

Drake_Roberts said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Drake_Roberts said:
> ...



no, you do not, because it was started way before anyone of the board members were even planned.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5078/

the quota system was abolished in 1965.
however, I might have been wrong that it was done by executive branch, because the quotas were instituted by a law and were abolished by law.
Which means that reinstatement of quotas should not be considered contrary to the Constitution as it was there for 40 years ( first started in 1925)


----------



## dblack (Dec 2, 2013)

Vox said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Agree with all of this, but then, that makes it pretty much not a first amendment concern, right?


----------



## Vox (Dec 2, 2013)

manifold said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



Nope, it is not. you are incredibly ignorant as you think your opinion is a fact 
prescription is needed for some devices which are not medical treatment


----------



## Vox (Dec 2, 2013)

dblack said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Peterf said:
> ...



It is a First Amendment concern if the government wants to impose the requirement to pay for something which is against employers religious beliefs.
Next thing you know it would be requirement to pay for the gay wedding of your employee.
Or for any wedding, for that matter - it's the Pandora's box - the government imposing what lifestyle choice of the employee the employer has to pay for.
there is no end if one considers a government pushing it's view of what the employer should do for his employees as a mandate.
might as well start with abolishing private property already - because THIS is the start of it.


----------



## dblack (Dec 2, 2013)

Vox said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



I agree. But you've not yet answered my question. Why do religious beliefs get this protection but non religious beliefs don't? 

What we're talking about here is a far more fundamental right, the right to think and act on your own values, that has nothing in particular to do with religious freedom.


----------



## Vox (Dec 2, 2013)

dblack said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Non religious do as well. the freedom of speech is in the same Amendment and the government can not force an employer to pay for the employee porn subscription 

And I agree that the right to act on ones fundamental values is much broader than religious freedoms, but it is still under the same First Amendment.

It is simply here in the dimension of the religious belief, but as I have stated above the mandate to cover pron subscription for the employee would fell into the same category - it is a lifestyle option, but that is already the freedom of speech category.


----------



## dblack (Dec 2, 2013)

Vox said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



So you agree that the mandate for contraception should be abolished altogether, rather than simply giving an exemption to those with a religious objection?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 2, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> Jughead said:
> 
> 
> > Individuals are free to practice birth control. Why should corporations have to pay for it though?
> ...



Corporations don't make that determination, the people who buy the insurance do, all the corporations decide is what they will pay for. If the men that work for them want to get pap smears, they have the option of choosing a plan with different benefits.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 2, 2013)

manifold said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Birth control is NOT medical treatment. it's a lifestyle choice.
> ...



Yes.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 2, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



Thanks for displaying your complete ignorance.

Tell me something, why do you have to base every argument you make on lies?


----------



## Vox (Dec 2, 2013)

dblack said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



yes.
I actually think the whole healthcare mandate should be abolished


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 2, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



They were called Jim Crow *laws* for a reason.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 2, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



Even better.

The issue was never raised before because the courts have a funny rule  which prohibits anyone from challenging a law before it goes into affect, or has even been written down. This particular mandate was nothing more than a gleam in the eyes of progressives until after the ruling that rationalized Obamacare was handed down.


----------



## manifold (Dec 2, 2013)

Vox said:


> prescription is needed for some devices which are not medical treatment



such as...?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 2, 2013)

dblack said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I have already pointed out, more than once, that all beliefs get that protection. If they didn't you wouldn't be able to stand on a street corner and declare that all religions should be outlawed, and that anyone who believes in magical sky fairies should be deported.


----------



## Vox (Dec 2, 2013)

manifold said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > prescription is needed for some devices which are not medical treatment
> ...



Air purifiers, air ionizers, numerous walkers, wheelchairs, penile enlargement devices, commodes, beds, seats, hearing aides, vision aids, the list is endless...


----------



## dblack (Dec 2, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



The question is whether such a belief should be protected from overreaching laws. If your belief that insurance coverage for contraception goes against the laws of God should get such protection, then so should my belief that it's a waste of money. If not, then neither should.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 2, 2013)

dblack said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



That is only a question if you assume over reaching laws are valid.


----------



## Drake_Roberts (Dec 2, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



Ah, but what if the courts rule against Hobby Lobby? What then? I'll tell you what will happen; all those bad things you mentioned above, but reversed and against religion.


----------



## dblack (Dec 2, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



It's a question regardless. Care to answer it?


----------



## Drake_Roberts (Dec 2, 2013)

Anybody care to hear a solution that does not offend people's 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion and at the same time saves this nation economically? 

Repeal Obamacare.

No more worthless websites, loss of freedom, loss of money, stealing of rights, etc., etc., etc.

Funny how the best solutions are the ones right under everyone's nose, isn't it?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 2, 2013)

dblack said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



You want me to assume that left is purple just to answer a senseless question?


----------



## dblack (Dec 3, 2013)

Drake_Roberts said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



The Hobby Lobby will have every incentive to join those of us fighting to repeal an unjust law.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 3, 2013)

dblack said:


> Drake_Roberts said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



What, exactly, do you think they are doing? 

When are you going to learn the difference between Obama handing down an exception to the law because it helps him politically, like he did when he declared that unions are exempt from the requirements of the law last month, and the courts telling him that he cannot rewrite the Constitution simply because it is politically advantageous to him? 

One of those is exactly what you claim you don't like, the government handing out favors, the other is the government being prevented from railroading people. yet, despite the fact that they are completely opposite, you have decided that they both expand the power of the government.


----------



## dblack (Dec 3, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Drake_Roberts said:
> ...



They're fighting for the privilege of being exempted from a law everyone else has to follow.


----------



## Political Junky (Dec 3, 2013)

With the humanization of corporations, when will Texas execute one.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Dec 3, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> It seems that the people who own Hobby Lobby are going to protest the ACA on the grounds that it makes provisions for birth control, and because the owners are against birth control, they should be allowed "freedom of religion" for their business......................
> 
> 
> Supreme Court and Obamacare contraception mandate: Are companies ?persons? with religious freedom rights?
> ...



if they do they will have to become a church Run organization and non-profit... 
I don't see that happening anytime soon


----------



## manifold (Dec 3, 2013)

Vox said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



most of those can be purchased online, without a prescription.

Do not pass go, do not collect $200.


----------



## billyerock1991 (Dec 3, 2013)

dblack said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



when you become a profit company, you have to accept the commerce clause ...you have to follow the law for the majority ... not for your beliefs


----------



## billyerock1991 (Dec 3, 2013)

manifold said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



why should you have to pay for something that every body else gets with the payment of their health care... why do they get to force their religious beliefs on their employees ... when they are clearly violating the constitution of freedom of religion...


----------



## manifold (Dec 3, 2013)

dblack said:


> They're fighting for the privilege of being exempted from a law everyone else has to follow.



Cannot be stated any more succinctly or accurately. 

If a law violates anyone's freedom of religion, then surely it is an unjust law in it's entirety and should therefore be struck down. As slim a chance as that has of happening, it's about the only chance Hobby has in this case. The idea that the Supreme Court would grant them an exemption to the law just because they object to it on religious grounds is pretty preposterous. I'm not so cynical as to believe the Court could be that stupid.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Dec 3, 2013)

Liberty University's appeal on religious grounds was denied hearing yesterday by SCOTUS, which ends that avenue.


----------



## dblack (Dec 3, 2013)

billyerock1991 said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



No, you're mistaken. The constitutional freedom of religion pertains to the government's ability to legislate regarding religion and has nothing to do with the demands made or benefits offered by a business to its employees. A business has no power to coerce it's employees, so it can't violate their freedom of religion.


----------



## dblack (Dec 3, 2013)

billyerock1991 said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Well, that's definitely where the problem is. This isn't a freedom of religion issue, it's a freedom issue, and the broad interpretation of the commerce clause you're citing is a gross violation.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 3, 2013)

dblack said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Just because they are better at asserting their rights than you does not mean that you will not benefit.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 3, 2013)

Political Junky said:


> With the humanization of corporations, when will Texas execute one.



This is from a person that is quite willing to assert that corporations have rights when the position benefits her in some way.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 3, 2013)

manifold said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > They're fighting for the privilege of being exempted from a law everyone else has to follow.
> ...



Except that you refuse to allow the courts to strike down laws simply because it violates freedom of religion. That is your problem, not mine.


----------



## manifold (Dec 3, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Reading for comprehension, it's all the rage... give it a try sometime.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 3, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Liberty University's appeal on religious grounds was denied hearing yesterday by SCOTUS, which ends that avenue.



Liberty University challenged the entire fucking mandate on employers on the grounds that it violated the constitution, they didn't challenge it on religious freedom grounds. I guess that makes you wrong, as usual.


----------



## manifold (Dec 3, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Liberty University's appeal on religious grounds was denied hearing yesterday by SCOTUS, which ends that avenue.
> ...



So now you're arguing that violating religious freedom is not violating the Constitution?


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 3, 2013)

they need to either go non-profit or abide by the law.


----------



## Sallow (Dec 3, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



What lie?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 3, 2013)

manifold said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



Where the fuck did you ever argue that the fact that Mennonites are exempted from Social Security means that everyone should be exempted from it? Where the fuck did you ever argue that the fact that Obamacare regulations are specifically written to exempt churches from the mandates means that everyone should be exempted? 

Until you start actually staking out, and defending, the position you just espoused, I am perfectly free to point out that your position is actually what it is.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 3, 2013)

manifold said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



No, I am arguing that Liberty University did not challenge the law on behalf of their being a religious institution, and that makes Jake wrong. The fact that you are attempting to defend him just reinforces my position.


----------



## Dot Com (Dec 3, 2013)

manifold said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > They're fighting for the privilege of being exempted from a law everyone else has to follow.
> ...



true  Repeal a law that benefits 10's of millions so that a few fringe outlets like hobby lobby & chick fil et can chisel their employees out of a couple of benefits  Not gonna' happen


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 3, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> they need to either go non-profit or abide by the law.



Let me get this straight, they have to obey the law, but the government doesn't. Interesting position, can you explain what gives the government the power to ignore the law?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 3, 2013)

Sallow said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Sallow said:
> ...



That Hobby Lobby winning this somehow means that all medical procedures are subject to employer scrutiny.

Does your employer  not paying your cable bill mean that they control what you watch?

Does it not paying for your clothing mean that they scrutinize what you wear at home?

See the problem yet, or are you still confused by your lies?


----------



## manifold (Dec 3, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about, I can only hope you have me confused with someone else and aren't actually this stupid.

My position is that if the law violates protected religious freedom, it should be struck down completely. If the law does not violate protected religious freedom, then Hobby has to follow the law just like everybody else.

Get it screetch?


----------



## manifold (Dec 3, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Thanks for sharing your ill-formed and unsupported opinion.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 3, 2013)

manifold said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



According to the federal government Social Security violates religious freedom. In fact, saying the pledge of allegiance in school violates religious freedom. There are a lot of laws on the books that violate religious freedom, and have been successfully challenged on that basis, yet they still exist, and apply to everyone who doesn't take an exception to them. Feel free to demand that all of them be repealed while you are staking out your position against all laws that do so, not just the ones you don't like.


----------



## dblack (Dec 3, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



No, I actually want to see the law, or even just the contraception requirement, ruled unconstitutional and struck down. And if that was what Hobby Lobby is after, I'm in favor of it. But what I don't want to see, and what seems the most likely reversal (if any) to come from the Hobby Lobby case, is a special exception granted for designated religious institutions.

I don't believe the religious freedom guaranteed by the first amendment is intended to give religions special treatment. I believe it's intended to prevent it. It's there to prevent the federal government from making laws persecuting (or promoting) religion.

The stipulation that congress can't make laws 'prohibiting the free exercise' of a religion doesn't mean, in my view, that any law which conflicts with a religions practice can't be enforced if someone objects for religious reasons. I find that interpretation absurd. What it means, by way of example, is that we can't make a law banning Islam. But we _can_ make it illegal to marry underage girls or beat your wife, regardless of the recommendations of the Koran. And Muslims would have to follow those laws just like the rest of us.


----------



## manifold (Dec 3, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Wow, debating is easy when you get to completely fabricate your own facts.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 3, 2013)

dblack said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



Let me spell this out for you, the Supreme Court made striking down the law, as written, impossible. That leaves you with the option of getting Congress to repeal the law, or getting the courts to strike it down because they can't apply it without violating the Constitution. If your goal is actually what you say it is you should support every attack on the law because everything that weakens the law makes it more likely to reach your goal. 

Yet you insist that your bullheaded interpretation of the way life works is more important that getting rid of the law.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 3, 2013)

manifold said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



Which fact did I fabricate? Why are Mennonites and other religious orders exempted from Social Security? Why did Congress specifically write Obamacare to exempt religious communities from the requirements, even if they run a business? Where have you demanded the repeal of Social Security based on the fact that it violates religious freedom for some people and is therefore unconstitutional?


----------



## manifold (Dec 3, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Let me spell this out for you, the Supreme Court made striking down the law, as written, impossible.



Let me spell it out for you... B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T

You said yourself that previous challenges to the law were not based on religious freedom. Unless you are completely wrong about that, there is no precedent that would prevent them from striking the law down on that basis.


----------



## dblack (Dec 3, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Ok, can you clarify - are you arguing in favor of the Court created a defacto exemption for religions here? Or are you assuming that the court would strike down the contraception requirement for everyone because it violates religious freedom. I'm in favor of the latter. But the former would only make the the law stronger by diminishing potential opposition.



> Yet you insist that your bullheaded interpretation of the way life works is more important that getting rid of the law.



What is my 'bullheaded interpretation of the way life works', in your view?


----------



## SwimExpert (Dec 3, 2013)

alan1 said:


> Why should any company be forced to engage in commerce of any kind?  Why should any person be forced to engage in commerce?
> 
> Would you accept a government mandate that forced you to eat out at a restaurant at least one a week?  And it forced you to leave a mandatory 20% tip even if the service was crappy?
> Where do you draw the line on government forced action when it comes to you personally?
> ...



Truth is, there are all kinds of government mandates.  Some force you to buy certain things (like car insurance).  Some prohibit you from doing things.  Some indirectly force you to buy things (through taxes that pay for expenditures).  Mandates are issued for the good of society, over all.  We can't fight Obamacare on the ideology of it infringing freedom, because good uses of government power infringe freedoms of some kind or another.  And it's hard to make the case that expanding health care access harms society overall.  We need to fight it on its functional failures.  How it negatively impacts people with lesser means, instead of helping them as it was supposed to do.  How the whole project is too massive to be effectively managed by government, as seen in the problems with the website.  How it will increase the costs of health care access instead of making it more affordable.  Instead of waging constitutional fights which haven't worked so far and aren't likely to succeed still, we need to start generating realistic and effective alternatives, and start addressing the things that have created secondary effects that have led the the problems in the way health care works in our country.


----------



## koshergrl (Dec 3, 2013)

Except it doesn't expand health care access. It is limiting it.


----------



## rdean (Dec 3, 2013)

This is for the guys:  Which would you rather be paying for?  Birth Control or Day Care?

Hands?

Daycare:







Birth Control:


----------



## Sunshine (Dec 3, 2013)

Well, I'm not reading every page of this thread.  I'm sure I can divine what was said without reading it.  

I will say this, though, if they can force  Hobby Lobby to pay for a medication they consider immoral, then the can force a store owned by muslims to allow pork in their establishment.  Anybody remember when THAT case came up.  Seems muslims fired a woman for eating a BLT.  If this case against Hobby Lobby is not upheld Christians aren't the only ones who are going to be pissed off.  Yes, it IS a slippery slope when you start forcing people whether they are engaged in business or not to do something that violates their religious beliefs.  I'm thinking there was another case about this, a pharmacist who didn't want to fill orders for birth control.  I had several nursing students who objected to abortion, and my advice to them:  Don't work where they do abortions.  If you find the moral constructs of the employer to be distasteful to you, don't work there, don't shop there, don't do business with them.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 3, 2013)

dblack said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I am arguing in favor of not allowing government to restrain rights in any way, shape, or form. You, on the other hand, prefer a government that screws everyone over because you think that restricting government's power to screw people over gives it more power.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 3, 2013)

manifold said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Let me spell this out for you, the Supreme Court made striking down the law, as written, impossible.
> ...



Religious freedom issues didn't come up until the regulations were written. That is an as applied argument, not as written.


----------



## dblack (Dec 3, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I hear what you're saying - letting some people off the hook, whatever the reason, is better than everyone's rights being violated. But rights are universal and apply to everyone equally. If they don't apply to everyone, they aren't rights, they're just privileges afforded to special interest groups.

As a hypothetical, let me ask you this. What if the exemption wasn't granted to all religions, but only to Catholics. Would you still support it? Why, or why not?


----------



## Sunshine (Dec 3, 2013)

dblack said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Are you aware that our female soldiers in the middle east aren't allowed to use birth control while they are there?  I think in Desert Storm we brought home something like 1500 pregnant women.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 4, 2013)

Sunshine said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Provide a credible link for the claim posted above, or be known as a purveyor of bullshit.


----------



## manifold (Dec 4, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> Sunshine said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I'm not sure that even a link could make a difference at this point, that ship sailed ages ago.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 4, 2013)

Well, the sunny disposition of Spunk Slime (Sunshine) has never been known for it's pursuit of truth or facts.

Her (or their) case has always been to repeat talking points from the tea baggers and conservatives, hoping that by sheer repetition instead of facts, people would believe their bullshit.

Boehner, Cantor, and McConnell all use the same tactic.


----------



## Vox (Dec 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



except you fail to see that they are paving the road for repealing the crap for everyone.


----------



## Vox (Dec 4, 2013)

manifold said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



Nope, they can't.


----------



## Vox (Dec 4, 2013)

manifold said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



so can be a birth control


----------



## manifold (Dec 4, 2013)

Vox said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



How much do you want to wager?


----------



## Vox (Dec 4, 2013)

manifold said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



so can be a birth control 

and if you want your insurance to pay for the goodies - you have to have a prescription.

you fell in a perfect trap set up by yourself


----------



## Vox (Dec 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> billyerock1991 said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



the government has no power to coerce the employer to violate HIS religious beliefs as well.
The First Amendment.


----------



## dblack (Dec 4, 2013)

Vox said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



I'd like to believe that. But it looks the opposite to me. The more groups that can score their own exemptions, the more likely it will remain law. That's why they're cutting all the deals in the first place.


----------



## dblack (Dec 4, 2013)

Vox said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > billyerock1991 said:
> ...



Where did you get that idea? Would that mean Muslims can't be punished for beating their wives then?


----------



## Vox (Dec 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



that is your personal opinion and a wrong one.* The Constitution is there to protect us from the government *not to protect one group of private citizens from the other group of private citizens. employer's denial do pay for your privileges  does not impose anything on you( you can walk away from the employer), government pressure on the employer of it's, government, values - is OPPRESSION and a direct violation of the First Amendment - you can not walk away from the government's oppression. Or, you can walk away by harming YOU, a private citizen, but staying in scope of government oppression - and the end result is going to be more harm for the end receiver - you, a private employee, because of that government oppression of the private employer.


----------



## dblack (Dec 4, 2013)

Vox said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



I completely agree. Which is why the entire requirement should be struck down, and not simply exempted for religious groups.


----------



## koshergrl (Dec 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


 
Rights only extend to the point that they impede the rights of others.

So no.

This is a sticking point for fascists, though. They don't get it, and I've no doubt that you don't get it, either.


----------



## Vox (Dec 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



paying for your privileges ( including the whole insurance) has nothing to do with violence against the private citizen. Beating of the wife is not a religious belief.


----------



## manifold (Dec 4, 2013)

Vox said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



Right or wrong academically, your reasoning would also suggest that minimum wage laws and a whole litany of other labor laws are unconstitutional. Since stare decisis clearly shows that's not the case, outside of an academic vacuum your argument has no legs to stand on.


----------



## manifold (Dec 4, 2013)

Vox said:


> Beating of the wife is not a religious belief.



You must not be familiar with Islam.


----------



## Vox (Dec 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



the religious group has the LEVERAGE under the First Amendment and by this can pave the road to strucking down the whole absurdity.

You don't get it, don't you?

The Supreme Court ruled that individual mandate as a TAX is constitutional.
Which does not mean that that TAX can be in violation of the First Amendment.

But it IS. So using that venue one can overturn the whole mandate - if one succeeds in a small portion of it.

It is using the availability of  possibilities.

On the philosophical basis I agree with you, but philosophical basis is not in the First Amendment


----------



## dblack (Dec 4, 2013)

Vox said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



Please don't dodge the point. There are, or at least have been, religions which practice human or animal sacrifice. I'm assuming you wouldn't argue they should get a pass in the name of religious freedom. Surely you can see that the point of the first amendment isn't to protect religious practices when the come into conflict the law. The point is to keep the law from targeting religions.


----------



## koshergrl (Dec 4, 2013)

It's irrelevant anyway. Beating your wife is a human rights violation, and therefore, freedom of religion does not extend to violation of human rights.


----------



## Vox (Dec 4, 2013)

manifold said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > Beating of the wife is not a religious belief.
> ...



yes, I am familiar with Islam.
But I do not engage in a strawmen argument.


----------



## Vox (Dec 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



there is NO point.
Violence against someone's human rights has absolutely nothing to do with violence in imposing the oppression to PAY for somebody's life style.


----------



## manifold (Dec 4, 2013)

Vox said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



It's commonplace for Muslim men to beat their wives.

That's a fact, not a strawman.

Go buy a dictionary or learn to fuck'n google already.


----------



## Vox (Dec 4, 2013)

manifold said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



so far the Supreme Court ALWAYS been strucking down the violation by the government of religious freedom, we will see what will happen this time.

Labor laws have ABSOLUTELY ZERO relevance to First Amendment and if they have - those are exactly IN PROTECTION of religious beliefs.


----------



## Vox (Dec 4, 2013)

manifold said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



stop showing your IGNORANCE, which is not surprising in the stupid leftard 

commonplace TRADITION has absolutely nothing to do with RELIGION.


----------



## dblack (Dec 4, 2013)

Vox said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



As I've said, if the challenge prompts the court to strike down the entire law, or even just the contraception requirement, _as long as it applies equally to everyone_, I'm totally with you. But rule of law is too important to sacrifice in the name of a 'partial' victory. In fact, I'd argue that it wouldn't be a victory at all. Without rule of law, rights are meaningless and become, essentially, arbitrary privileges that can be revoked at will by the regime in power.


----------



## dblack (Dec 4, 2013)

Vox said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



Sigh. You are dodging. Are willing to say that ANY religious practice, no matter how heinous, should be protected from legal restriction?


----------



## dblack (Dec 4, 2013)

Vox,

I'm trying to understand your position here. Do you think religious people should have to follow the same laws as everyone else? Or can they pick and choose based on their religious beliefs?


----------



## koshergrl (Dec 4, 2013)

No, he didn't say that, he never said that. 

FREEDOM OF RELIGION DOES NOT EXTEND TO THE VIOLATION OF THE FREEDOMS/RIGHTS OF OTHERS.


----------



## manifold (Dec 4, 2013)

Vox said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



If Hobby were to win their challenge and be exempted from following this law due to religious objections, what's to stop someone like [MENTION=20947]The Rabbi[/MENTION] from refusing to comply with minimum wage laws on account of they violate his religious beliefs?


----------



## koshergrl (Dec 4, 2013)

Well then you get into whether min wage is a right.

I don't think it is.


----------



## manifold (Dec 4, 2013)

Vox said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



Damn yo

You really don't know anything about Islam.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/01/egyptian-muslim-cleric-offers-instructions-on-proper-way-beat-ones-wife-never-harshly-and-with-simple-object-like-a-pen/


----------



## manifold (Dec 4, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> Well then you get into whether min wage is a right.
> 
> I don't think it is.



So you agree then that a Hobby victory would open up a huge can of worms.

It just so happens to be a can you want to see opened.

OK, at least you're consistent anyway.


----------



## dblack (Dec 4, 2013)

manifold said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



What prevents that from happening is the Court making the call on what constitutes a 'legitimate' religious belief and what is simply a spurious claim to avoid following the law. Ironically, this approach to freedom of religion turns the intent of the first amendment inside out and, rather than keeping government out of religion, injects it squarely into the business of religion, endorsing some beliefs and rejecting others.


----------



## koshergrl (Dec 4, 2013)

manifold said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Well then you get into whether min wage is a right.
> ...


 
Yup.


----------



## dblack (Dec 4, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> No, he didn't say that, he never said that.
> 
> FREEDOM OF RELIGION DOES NOT EXTEND TO THE VIOLATION OF THE FREEDOMS/RIGHTS OF OTHERS.



Do you think religious people should have to follow the same laws as everyone else? Or can they pick and choose based on their religious beliefs?


----------



## Vox (Dec 4, 2013)

manifold said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > Well then you get into whether min wage is a right.
> ...



no, it won't. it will fall exactly where the First Amendment stays on guard of the religious beliefs of the private citizens against the oppressive government.


----------



## koshergrl (Dec 4, 2013)

I think in this country, they are afforded religious freedom to the extent that it impedes upon the rights of others.

I do not believe our government, or any of our laws, have the authority to compel churches to act in a way that is in conflict with their religious beliefs.


----------



## dblack (Dec 4, 2013)

koshergrl said:


> I think in this country, they are afforded religious freedom to the extent that it impedes upon the rights of others.
> 
> I do not believe our government, or any of our laws, have the authority to compel churches to act in a way that is in conflict with their religious beliefs.



Regardless of what those religious beliefs might be? Seriously?


----------



## manifold (Dec 4, 2013)

Vox said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > koshergrl said:
> ...



And what happens the The Rabbi files a suit claiming that following minimum wage laws violates his religious beliefs?


----------



## Vox (Dec 4, 2013)

manifold said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



there are no religious beliefs against minimum wages and in order to prove in front of the court that something IS a religious belief violation, there has to be a log-standing established proof it is. Abortion and contraception is a DIRECT violation of numerous religious ESTABLISHED beliefs and the established rules go back centuries in some cases.

more straw men arguments on your part, or the proof of your ignorance


----------



## Vox (Dec 4, 2013)

manifold said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



American Constitution does not extend to Egypt.


----------



## manifold (Dec 4, 2013)

Vox said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



Debating made easy: Just make up your own facts.

Made up facts bolded for your convenience.

But at least Vox admits that in his opinion the government gets to dictate what is and what is not considered a religious belief. Unfortunately he's still dumb enough to think he's making a case FOR 1st Amendment protection.


----------



## Vox (Dec 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> > I think in this country, they are afforded religious freedom to the extent that it impedes upon the rights of others.
> ...



seriously.

others people beliefs is just others people beliefs, they are not more or less valid.

you don't like this private citizen or enterprise BELIEFS - you do not associate with them or work for them.
Simple.


----------



## manifold (Dec 4, 2013)

Vox said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



I'd say nice strawman, but it's even weak for a strawman.

try harder gilligan


----------



## Vox (Dec 4, 2013)

manifold said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



government does not get to dictate what  constitutes religious belief - and THIS exactly is the reason for the court action.
but you are too obtuse to comrehend this.
p.s. there is no debate with an ignorant leftard( you) who brings straw men "arguments" to the discussion all the time and clearly does not understand what is it about 
so - adieu.


----------



## dblack (Dec 4, 2013)

Vox said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



It's a hypothetical, to explore weaknesses in an argument. Can you just answer it? If there were religious beliefs that minimum wage, or stopping at stop signs, or whatever, was wrong - should that give religious people a free pass to ignore the law?

koshergirl is saying, from what I gather, 'yes, as long as they don't violate the rights of others', and I ideally, I agree with that. But that is a general principle that should apply to ALL beliefs, not just religious beliefs. No one should face coercion from government unless they are violating someone else's rights.

But the sad fact is, our government is not ideal. There are many laws of expedience wherein breaking them wouldn't violate anyone else's rights. Should religious people feel free to skip out on those whenever it conflicts with their religious views?


----------



## dblack (Dec 4, 2013)

Vox said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



So, you're of the view that any belief someone calls 'religious' can be used as a justification for ignoring the law?


----------



## manifold (Dec 4, 2013)

Vox said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



I guess you must've failed civics class in high school, so let me clue you in...

The courts is one of three branches of GOVERNMENT.

And if the courts say that opposition to birth control is a protected religious belief but opposition to minimum wage laws is not, then the GOVERNMENT is ABSOLUTELY dictating what is and what is not a protected religious belief.

Damn you're fuck'n slow.


----------



## Vox (Dec 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



hypothetical does not apply here.
there are clear, long time ago delineated religious beliefs and the First Amendment stands as a guard for them not to be violated BY THE GOVERNMENT.

On the hypothetical nonsense you are welcome to discuss it with manifold - as he clearly thinks that bringing an opinion of some obscure cleric from some pit outside the US borders IS an argument.
so he ( or you) might find out a newly invented sect which will say that paying certain amount of money for certain work is their religious belief. oh, wait, there is such a sect - it is called leftist progressivism


----------



## dblack (Dec 4, 2013)

Vox said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



So, are you contending religious freedom applies only to 'long standing, established' religions? I don't see that stipulation in the first amendment.


----------



## Vox (Dec 4, 2013)

manifold said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



you, idiot, I was referring to THIS PARTICULAR court case.

but a leftard is exactly that - a tard.


----------



## Againsheila (Dec 4, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> It seems that the people who own Hobby Lobby are going to protest the ACA on the grounds that it makes provisions for birth control, and because the owners are against birth control, they should be allowed "freedom of religion" for their business......................
> 
> 
> Supreme Court and Obamacare contraception mandate: Are companies ?persons? with religious freedom rights?
> ...



Hobby Lobby has made it's intentions clear.  If they have to pay for the abortion pill, they are going out of business.  How many jobs lost is that in an economy that needs those jobs?


----------



## dblack (Dec 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



And Vox, if this is your view, how long-standing? how well established? What is the cutoff?  More importantly, who decides? Government?


----------



## Vox (Dec 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



I am applying only that so far the SCOTUS did upheld only those and only in the cases when others rights are not violated.
and don't subsitute my argument of a proof of long-standing BELIEF to the long-standing religion.

although I am not aware about any SCOTUS ruling on the behalf of the scientology sect. Maybe there is some, just can't remember one


----------



## manifold (Dec 4, 2013)

Vox said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



And when someone goes to court to challenge minimum wage laws on religious grounds, what would you want the court to do?


----------



## dblack (Dec 4, 2013)

Vox said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



So do you see why mani and I are contending that this actually violates the spirit of the first amendment, by putting the Court in charge of deciding what is a legitimate religion and what isn't?


----------



## manifold (Dec 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



No no, government doesn't get to decide, the court gets to decide.


----------



## Vox (Dec 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



The court decides in every particular instance - there have been numerous cases already.
You can not claim that your religious belief forbids you to provide services to green-eyed man over 6 feet tall because of his height and the color of his eyes.
But you can and should claim that your particular religious belief forbids you to pay for abortions and birth control to your employees.

BTW, abortion has been already decided and it is outside any coercion from the government. And birth control ( especially abortifacients) are in the same religious belief's category, so I do not see any reason, the government coercion in this instance should not be overturned.


----------



## dblack (Dec 4, 2013)

Vox said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Again, neither do I. But I see no reason why some should be coerced because of their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) and some should not. The way to deal with a law that conflicts with a religious belief is to strike down the law, not cut special deals.


----------



## manifold (Dec 4, 2013)

Vox said:


> BTW, abortion has been already decided and it is outside any coercion from the government. And birth control ( especially abortifacients) are in the same religious belief's category, so *I do not see any reason, the government coercion in this instance should not be overturned*.



Prepare yourself to be disappointed.


----------



## Vox (Dec 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Nope, I do not. You simply want somebody to pay for YOUR personal lifestyle choices and that is the very reason you so vehemently want the government to force employer's to pay for it.

I can tell you ahead of whatever SCOTUS will decide - it won't happen.
The whole health insurance will be dropped and the employer won't pay even a cent of penalty.

*BTW, I, personally, think,  that seeming stupidity and stubbornness of the obama admin in this case is neither stupidity, nor stubbornness. It is a well manipulated move in sync with all others to force employers to drop the healthcare coverage for their employees entirely - so the employees would be forced to buy insurance through the exchanges - the whole obamacare possibility of survival lies in  the amount of people subscribing to it - so it is just simple, perverse, but very logical move form the standpoint of the administration in the implementation of obamacare.*


----------



## Rebelitarian (Dec 4, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> It seems that the people who own Hobby Lobby are going to protest the ACA on the grounds that it makes provisions for birth control, and because the owners are against birth control, they should be allowed "freedom of religion" for their business......................
> 
> 
> Supreme Court and Obamacare contraception mandate: Are companies ?persons? with religious freedom rights?
> ...



No religious exemptions for corporations this is ludicrious.


----------



## dblack (Dec 4, 2013)

Vox said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



What??? Have you been reading my posts at all? I'm firmly against ALL of the mandates associated with ACA. I thought I made that clear. I just don't agree with scapegoating _some_ people at the expense of others. If Hobby Lobby doesn't have to follow the law, neither should any other businesses.



> *BTW, I, personally, think,  that seeming stupidity and stubbornness of the obama admin in this case is neither stupidity, nor stubbornness. It is a well manipulated move in sync with all others to force employers to drop the healthcare coverage for their employees entirely - so the employees would be forced to buy insurance through the exchanges - the whole obamacare possibility of survival lies in  the amount of people subscribing to it - so it is just simple, perverse, but very logical move form the standpoint of the administration in the implementation of obamacare.*



Agreed.


----------



## manifold (Dec 4, 2013)

Vox said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



Nice rant.

But of course your prophesy can only be enacted by companies with less than 50 employees.

"Missed it by that much" - Voxwell 'ain't' Smart.


----------



## Vox (Dec 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



that is just your personal opinion and on the personal philosophical level I agree with that. 
But on the much more important practical level the whole possibility of throwing this garbage obamacare i n the trash now lies in this decision - and since it is the very core matter protected under First Amendment, there is a huge chance to overthrow the mandate.
Which eventually will lead to the demise of the vicious obamacare altogether.

I can not understand why you, if you claim you are against the law, and want it to be thrown out, do not want Hobby Lobby to win the case.
*Unless, obviously, you are an obamacare fan.

So - are you?*


----------



## Vox (Dec 4, 2013)

manifold said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


*oh, piss of, ignorant leftard *


----------



## manifold (Dec 4, 2013)

Vox said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



Translation:  "Doh!"


----------



## Vox (Dec 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I apologize if I counted you with obama worshipers, and I understand that suspicion is extremely offensive.


----------



## Vox (Dec 4, 2013)

manifold said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



I wasn't even talking to YOU, idiot, as a leftard can not understand anything which needs thinking by default.
you are a leftard, so piss off.


----------



## dblack (Dec 4, 2013)

Vox said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



Exempting religious businesses from the mandate will remove them from the ranks of those us fighting the law. Just as giving exemptions to the unions and all the other special interest groups that Obama bought off to pass this shit turned their opposition into tacit support. This is how they defeat us. It's the heart and soul of the statist motif, where special interests are played off each other as part of the political strategy. Everybody is so busy jumping through hoops to get special treatment we miss out on the fact that our rights are being systematically obliterated.


----------



## manifold (Dec 4, 2013)

Vox said:


> manifold said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



Translation: Yup, I totally fuck'd up and forgot about the 50 employee healthcare requirement in the ACA, but I'm so far from man enough to admit it that I'm going to pretend it didn't happen.


----------



## Vox (Dec 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


*

You would be right if Hobby Lobby would be seeking the exemption from obama admin - and there have been thousands of exempt businesses ( unions included) who received the permanent waiver.
But if the business can have the mandate overthrown by SCOTUS - this is huge by itself, and the very start of the small repeals one by one.

It is not the religious belief part here which is important for the future. It is the corporation part *


----------



## dblack (Dec 4, 2013)

Vox said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...


*

As I said, if it's overthrown for everyone, even if it's just the contraception mandate, I'll be cheering with you. If it's only thrown out for religious institutions - as seems the most likely way they'd rule against ACA, if they do - then I'll see it as a net loss of freedom. And it would effectively be another exemption, albeit for a class of businesses rather than a specific company.*


----------



## Vox (Dec 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



it won't happen. we lost last year, remember? it's a TAX.
in order to overthrow it NOW one has to use ALL the methods left.


----------



## manifold (Dec 4, 2013)

Vox said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



he's talking about the birth control mandate, not the individual mandate

do try to keep up corky


----------



## Sunshine (Dec 4, 2013)

Againsheila said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > It seems that the people who own Hobby Lobby are going to protest the ACA on the grounds that it makes provisions for birth control, and because the owners are against birth control, they should be allowed "freedom of religion" for their business......................
> ...



Obama will be overcome with glee if that happens.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Think about this.

In order for this to pass muster the government has to prove that it is in furtherance of a compelling government interest in forcing companies to provide birth control. Under that standard it is assumed that a law, or regulation, is unconstitutional, and the entire burden falls on the government to prove that what they are doing is Constitutional. In other words, if they win, the regulation is overturned automatically. 

That means you win, even though the law was challenged because it infringes on religion. The lawyers on the left know this, and are attempting to reframe the debate as being about corporations, and you are letting them win, which is what makes you wrong before you even start.

If the government actually proves that mandating birth control is constitutional, they then have to prove that the way they are doing it, ie requiring employers to pay for it, is the least intrusive method of furthering that interest.  To accomplish that they have to prove that the 100+ countries that allow women to purchase  birth control without a prescription are endagering the health of women by not requiring them to visit a doctor every year to get a new prescription, even though no doctor in this country actually runs any real tests on any woman that comes to him for birth control. Can you imagine a Republican government official getting up in court and insisting that women are too stupid to protect themselves unless they see a doctor? Why the fuck should we allow a Democrat to get away with it?

You need to stop whinging about the fucked up idea that this is going to hurt you and start pointing out why everyone, including you, who ever argued that this challenge was wrong is actually insulting women. Shove the fact that women who support this want the government in control of women's reproductive rights. Show them why the government is making it more expensive by mandating that insurance cover birth control rather than make it available OTC. Above all, stop wasting my time by insisting that you actually understand the fucking issues when you can't see the fucking forest for the trees.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



If it is struck down on religious grounds it is still struck down.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



And, like it or not, there are still religions that practice animal sacrifice, and the Supreme Court has ruled that laws that prevent animal sacrifice cannot be applied to Santeria churches because sacrifice is an integral part of their religion. 

Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Will you admit you are wrong now?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



It is not a hypothetical to argue that someone has a religious belief that precludes obeying traffic laws unless you can point to a religion that requires it.

On the other hand, I can easily show you hundreds of cases where laws have been struck down because of how they affected religious rights. For example, did you know that some cities passed laws making it illegal to knock on someones door unless you got a permit in advance? And that the Supreme Court struck it down because it was challenged by Jehovah's Witnesses who fought for the right to knock on your door without a permit? They have won 48 different times in the Supreme Court on the basis of religious freedom and free speech, and that has made you freer than you would be if they had lost.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



No, he has the same view I do, all beliefs, religious or not, are protected by the Constitution. You really need to get over your obsession with framing this as a religious freedom issue.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



Like Scientology? 

Get your head out of your fucking ass.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 4, 2013)

manifold said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > manifold said:
> ...



I would want them to throw you into stocks and require everyone who passed by to slap you upside the head.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Do I see why you are confused?

Franky, no, because your stupidity is incomprehensible to me.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Yet you keep arguing in favor of the mandate simply because you think your freedom is somehow restricted by other people being free.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



If the court rules that it would make more sense to make contraception available OTC than require women to report to a doctor on a yearly basis in order to not get pregnant how long do you think it will take Obama to make contraception less expensive?


----------



## dblack (Dec 4, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



You're missing a key point in this. If they 'strike down' the law for everyone, whatever the reason, I'll be in favor of that. What I'm saying would be wrong is if they simple exempt religious groups, but still apply the law to everyone else. That's not striking down the law as unconstitutional, that's selectively enforcing it against groups who's sole 'crime' is not being religious. You're equivocating and bouncing back and forth between the two propositions. It's never clear which you're defending. You seem to want to pretend they're the same thing, but they're not.


----------



## dblack (Dec 4, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



Sure, why not? If not, who decides? Should government be in charge of deciding which religions are 'real' and which aren't?


----------



## dblack (Dec 4, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



So, you don't get what a hypothetical is?



> On the other hand, I can easily show you hundreds of cases where laws have been struck down because of how they affected religious rights. For example, did you know that some cities passed laws making it illegal to knock on someones door unless you got a permit in advance? And that the Supreme Court struck it down because it was challenged by Jehovah's Witnesses who fought for the right to knock on your door without a permit? They have won 48 different times in the Supreme Court on the basis of religious freedom and free speech, and that has made you freer than you would be if they had lost.



Once again, striking down a law, for everyone, is fine. Saying that only some people have to obey it is not.


----------



## dblack (Dec 4, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



Did you even read the article? It backs up my view. The law was ruled unconstitutional because it targeted the religion. The contraception mandate doesn't target a particular religion, or even religion in general. It also struck down the law for everyone. It didn't, as you suggest, simply say the law couldn't be applied to Santeria Churches.


----------



## Vox (Dec 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



yes, it does. It targets Catholics, Orthodox and some Protestants DIRECTLY.
On abortifacient methods of contraception - all branches. On other methods of contraception - not all of them, but majority. Hobby Lobby does not fight all contraceptive methods just abortifacient ones.


----------



## dblack (Dec 4, 2013)

Vox said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



No, not in the way stipulated in decision:



> Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993),[1] was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that an ordinance passed in Hialeah, Florida, forbidding the "unnecessar[y]" killing of "an animal in a public or private ritual or ceremony not for the primary purpose of food consumption", was unconstitutional. *The law was enacted soon after the city council of Hialeah learned that the Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, which practiced Santería, was planning on locating there.* The church filed a lawsuit in United States district court for the Southern District of Florida, seeking for the Hialeah ordinance to be declared unconstitutional.
> 
> Adhering to Employment Division v. Smith, the lower courts deemed the law to have a legitimate and rational government purpose and therefore upheld the enactment. The Supreme Court, however, held that *the ordinances were neither neutral nor generally applicable: rather, they applied exclusively to the church. Because the law was targeted at Santería, the Court held, it was not subject to an undemanding rational basis test*. Rather, the nature of the case was held to mandate a standard of strict scrutiny: state action had to be justified by a compelling governmental interest, and be narrowly tailored to advance that interest. Because the ordinance suppressed more religious conduct than was necessary to achieve its stated ends, it was deemed unconstitutional, with Justice Anthony Kennedy stating in the decision, &#8220;religious beliefs need not be acceptable, logical, consistent or comprehensible to others in order to merit First Amendment protection&#8221;


.

Based on the above criteria, the contraception mandate would not be struck down. It has general purpose and, regardless of whether that purpose is just, impacts anyone who isn't currently providing coverage for contraception.

To reiterate, I think it SHOULD be struck down, because it violates a more fundamental freedom to think and make our own economic decisions. But the law doesn't specifically target religion. I conflicts with the views of some religions, granted, but according to the above decision, that's not the litmus test for the first amendment. Nor should it be.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



No, you are missing the point, Hobby Lobby challenged the contraception mandate on the grounds that it violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says:



> Government shall not substantially burden a persons exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b) of this section.
> (b) Exception
> Government may substantially burden a persons exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person
> (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
> ...



42 USC § 2000bb?1 - Free exercise of religion protected | Title 42 - The Public Health and Welfare | U.S. Code | LII / Legal Information Institute

You seem to think this will create an exception for this company alone, it won't, so please, pull your fucking head out of your fucking ass and join the fucking fight instead of fighting for the government.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Don't be an idiot.

I used Scientology on purpose. Most countries define it as a cult and refuse to allow it to have the same legal protections they extend to "real" religions. Frankly, I agree with them, it isn't a real religion, but it still gets exactly the same legal treatment in the US as the Catholic Church.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Yes, I get what a hypothetical is, it is an argument from inference in classical logic. In order to be valid you have to supply two premises of which at least one has a conditional statement. What you are actually attempting to do is use reductio ad absurdum, which is an attempt to prove that you are right by showing that an absurd result is the inevitable end of my position. and call it a hypothetical. You really should learn the difference.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



It had a general purpose which was, arguably, well within the duties of government, the health and safety of everyone not in the religion.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 4, 2013)

dblack said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



I already provided the law that negates your argument. Until you deal with the law as it actually exists instead of living inside a fantasy world there is really no reason to actually try to reason with you.


----------



## dblack (Dec 5, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> No, you are missing the point, Hobby Lobby challenged the contraception mandate on the grounds that it violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for the clarification. Per the bolded part, why do you think this won't result in an exemption for religions objections? Like I said, if they strike down the requirement across the board, I'm in favor of it. 

To reiterate, my concern isn't that it will create an exception for this company alone, but rather an exception for religious objections alone. I don't see why a religious objection deserves any more Constitutional protection than a secular objection.

Also, why do you persist with the insulting language? The debate would be more enjoyable, for me at least, without it. Is it necessary?


----------



## Vox (Dec 5, 2013)

dblack said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



what does the ritual animal sacrifice has in common to the enforcement to PAY for somebody's lifestyle option which is in direct contradiction with the religious beliefs of the one, who has to pay?
contraception mandate does not have any general purpose as it is NOT medical treatment. it is a LIFESTYLE option, available OTC.
those are absolutely different issues.


----------



## Vox (Dec 5, 2013)

dblack said:


> To reiterate, my concern isn't that it will create an exception for this company alone, but rather an exception for religious objections alone. I don't see why a religious objection deserves any more Constitutional protection than a secular objection.



we are going in circles here.

Because there are NO secular objection protected under the Constitution which can be somehow applied to the case of obamacare therefore no possibility to struck it down. The secular objection would be freedom of speech, which is not pertinent in any aspect.
Freedom of religion IS a huge aspect and therefore it should be protected and the contraception mandate struck down.
If it is ruled unconstitutional ( a blue dream) - then the whole law will be unconstitutional


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 5, 2013)

dblack said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > No, you are missing the point, Hobby Lobby challenged the contraception mandate on the grounds that it violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says:
> ...



Because, nitwit, there are exceptions written into the regulation already.


----------



## dblack (Dec 5, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Alright jackass. You clearly don't like civil debate. Let's just shout pointless insults at each other. Go team!


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 5, 2013)

dblack said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...




Why the fuck should I be civil with an idiot who hasn't fucking read a single word about the case unless it was posted in this thread? Do you know why the Tenth Circuit upheld the Hobby Lobby challenge? 

You keep arguing that the should apply to everyone. It doesn't, even if Hobby Lobby loses there are exceptions written into the fucking law. The Tenth Circuit  recognized the existence of those exceptions when it upheld the challenge based on the RFRA.



> The government asserts two interests here: the interests in [1] public health and [2] gender equality. We recognize the importance of these interests. But they nonetheless in this context do not satisfy the Supreme Courts compelling interest standards.
> 
> [T]he interest here cannot be compelling because the contraceptive-coverage requirement presently does not apply to tens of millions of people. As noted above, this exempted population includes those working for private employers with grandfathered plans, for employers with fewer than fifty employees [who dont have to provide any health insurance -EV], and, under a proposed rule, for colleges and universities run by religious institutions. As the Supreme Court has said, a law cannot be regarded as protecting an interest of the highest order when it leaves appreciable damage to that supposedly vital interest unprohibited. Lukumi; see also O Centro (citing Lukumi as instructive in determining whether exemptions undermine a compelling government interest for purposes of RFRA). The exemptions at issue here would yield precisely this result: they would leave unprotected all women who work for exempted business entities.



4B. RFRA Strict Scrutiny: The Argument from Secular Exceptions | The Volokh ConspiracyThe Volokh Conspiracy

In other words, your entire premise is wrong to begin with. That makes everything you say in opposition to the challenge wrong, just like it makes everything the government says in defense of it wrong. If you fucking want civility from me, stop being an ideological asshole that ignores the facts and defend your position honestly. Until you do, you don't deserve anything but contempt and insults.


----------



## BobPlumb (Dec 5, 2013)

Question:  Given past rulings of the surpreme court, do we really expect the judgement to be logical?


----------



## dblack (Dec 5, 2013)

BobPlumb said:


> Question:  Given past rulings of the surpreme court, do we really expect the judgement to be logical?



Seems unlikely at best.


----------



## dblack (Dec 5, 2013)

Vox said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > To reiterate, my concern isn't that it will create an exception for this company alone, but rather an exception for religious objections alone. I don't see why a religious objection deserves any more Constitutional protection than a secular objection.
> ...



We're not going in circles so much as bouncing back and forth between a couple of different, but related, issues. One is the whether a ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby would result in striking down the contraception mandate for everyone, or whether the law would simply be modified to exempt religions - as they've done with the individual mandate for certain religions. I hope your assumption is right, and that the rule is struck down for everyone. I suspect that if the law is ruled in violation of Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Obama will simply modify it to exempt religious groups via his penchant for ruling by decree.

The other issue is whether special protections, like those implied by the RFRA, are faithful implementations of the first amendment. I don't think the first amendment was meant to grant special privilege to religious convictions. But, regardless of it's intent, I'm more interested in why _you_ believe religious convictions should be afforded protections that non-religious convictions aren't. And please don't say 'because the first amendment says so', I'm asking you why _you_ think the Constitution should give religious convictions special treatment. *Why should a religious person's conviction that insurance coverage for contraception is immoral be protected, but not my conviction that it's a waste of money?*

I don't think the intent of the first amendment was to give special status to religious convictions. I think it was to protect religions from political persecution, and to keep the state from dictating our religious beliefs. And I'm pointing out that when government _does_ indulge the practice of giving religious convictions special treatment, it's actually _violating_ the original intent of the religious protection by distinguishing 'legitimate' religious convictions from spurious beliefs.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 5, 2013)

dblack said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Feel free to file a lawsuit, after you start a business that employs more than 50 people and supplies insurance. Until then, all you are doing is arguing in favor of government regulations on other people.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 6, 2013)

Vox said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



No, sorry, but contraception isn't "a lifestyle option".  In many cases it is used to medically treat certain diseases and disorders.

And................fwiw.....................the ACA ALREADY has a religious exemption, but it's only for non profit religious organizations.  If Hobby Lobby wants to drop their for profit status as a business and turn themselves into a non profit religious organization, THEN they can argue that they object based on religious reasons.  

Sorry.................but if it's a for profit business, they have to follow the rules of the ACA.

What do you suggest next, allowing Christian owned businesses to discriminate against Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and Muslims?


----------



## Vox (Dec 6, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



No, it DOES NOT.

Failure on your part to know physiology, anatomy, pathology and pharmacology does not give you a right to spread nonsense anyway.

the contraception hormonal "pill" is not used to treat ANYTHING. Hormones, which are part of the contraception "pill" are used in treating some medical conditions. But that does not mean it is the "pill". and that treatment is covered.


----------



## dblack (Dec 6, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Where does profit enter into it? Are you suggesting we give up our rights if engaged in commerce?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 6, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> Vox said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Sorry, but IUDs and Plan B are not used to treat medical conditions. Since the lawsuit specifically applies only to contraceptives that prevent implantation, not ordinary contraceptives, your argument is, like most arguments in this thread, based on a delusion.


----------



## SwimExpert (Dec 7, 2013)

Vox said:


> so far the Supreme Court ALWAYS been strucking down the violation by the government of religious freedom, we will see what will happen this time.
> 
> Labor laws have ABSOLUTELY ZERO relevance to First Amendment and if they have - those are exactly IN PROTECTION of religious beliefs.



Think you need to go read Employment Division v. Smith.


----------



## SwimExpert (Dec 7, 2013)

Vox said:


> there are no religious beliefs against minimum wages and in order to prove in front of the court that something IS a religious belief violation, there has to be a log-standing established proof it is.



Quite wrong.

_Neither this Court, nor any branch of this Government, will consider the merits or fallacies of a religion. Nor will the Court compare the beliefs, dogmas, and practices of a newly organized religion with those of an older, more established religion. Nor will the Court praise or condemn a religion, however excellent or fanatical or preposterous it may seem. WERE THE COURT TO DO SO, IT WOULD IMPINGE UPON THE GUARANTEES OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT._

Universal Life Church v United States of America


----------



## SwimExpert (Dec 7, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Think about this.
> 
> In order for this to pass muster the government has to prove that it is in furtherance of a compelling government interest in forcing companies to provide birth control. Under that standard it is assumed that a law, or regulation, is unconstitutional, and the entire burden falls on the government to prove that what they are doing is Constitutional. In other words, if they win, the regulation is overturned automatically.



Universal compliance with taxation is a "compelling government interest."


----------



## SwimExpert (Dec 7, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > Vox said:
> ...



When a law is not aimed at religion, it can require or forbid actions that conflict with a person's religious beliefs.  However, when a law *is* aimed at religion, a first amendment violation usually occurs.  In the case you cite, the latter occurs.  The law that was passed was created specifically to impede the practice of a certain group's religion.  Plural marriage is a form of religious practice for some.  However, those people do not enjoy exceptions to the laws that prohibit polygamy.


----------



## SwimExpert (Dec 7, 2013)

Vox said:


> yes, it does. It targets Catholics, Orthodox and some Protestants DIRECTLY.
> On abortifacient methods of contraception - all branches. On other methods of contraception - not all of them, but majority. Hobby Lobby does not fight all contraceptive methods just abortifacient ones.



Just because a law has implications on one or more particular religions does not mean that the law targets them.  Again, I refer you to Employment Division v. Smith.


----------



## SwimExpert (Dec 7, 2013)

Vox said:


> contraception mandate does not have any general purpose as it is NOT medical treatment.



......
......
......
......
......
......


You are a sad excuse for a conservative.  You're the reason why we keep losing.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 8, 2013)

SwimExpert said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Think about this.
> ...



Can you show me a single example of any tax that the government actually mandates 100% compliance with?

Didn't think so.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 8, 2013)

SwimExpert said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Look up the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the 1st Amendment, then come back and show me how stupid you are by totally misrepresenting all the case law I have at my fingertips.


----------



## dblack (Dec 8, 2013)

SwimExpert said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...



Exactly. Attempting to do anything more turns the first amendment inside out and sets government up as the judge of what constitutes legitimate religious practice and what doesn't. Typical of so many misguided constitutional interpretations is implements the very thing the founders sought to prevent.


----------



## SwimExpert (Dec 8, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Can you show me a single example of any tax that the government actually mandates 100% compliance with?
> 
> Didn't think so.



All tax, within their statutorily prescribed applicability.

Anyway, you seem to have missed the point.  All people are subject to the tax laws, as they are written.  No exceptions.  Including Quakers, who are religiously opposed to funding the military.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 8, 2013)

SwimExpert said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > Can you show me a single example of any tax that the government actually mandates 100% compliance with?
> ...



In other words, you really have no idea what you are talking about.


----------



## SwimExpert (Dec 12, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



In other words, you've got nothing.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 13, 2013)

SwimExpert said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > SwimExpert said:
> ...




I didn't ask for statutory, or even regulatory, compliance, I asked for 100% compliance. You came up with a didge.


----------



## SwimExpert (Dec 13, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Are you kidding me?  Tax laws apply to all people, as the laws are written.  There is not one person who is exempt from tax laws.  If you disagree, present an example.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 13, 2013)

SwimExpert said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > SwimExpert said:
> ...



What? I asked you to prove your point, and now you want me to do it for you? Do I look like your nanny?


----------



## SwimExpert (Dec 13, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



You're making an asinine claim.  Tax laws apply to everyone.  You want me to prove it?  What proof would satisfy you?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 13, 2013)

SwimExpert said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > SwimExpert said:
> ...



I don't know, proof?


----------



## oreo (Dec 13, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> It seems that the people who own Hobby Lobby are going to protest the ACA on the grounds that it makes provisions for birth control, and because the owners are against birth control, they should be allowed "freedom of religion" for their business......................
> 
> 
> Supreme Court and Obamacare contraception mandate: Are companies ?persons? with religious freedom rights?
> ...




F.... THAT--the dumb ass's-- the states they operate in--the state insurance commission have mandated that insurers have and will continue to pay for birth control pills has they have done for *decades now*--regardless of religion or challenge.

*Sweet Baby Jesus-*-Birth control pills are a PRESCRIPTION DRUG--and so is VIAGRA and all the male enhancement drugs that are REQUIRED to be paid for by the insurer.

We have got so many dumb-ass's on the right--they almost equal those on the left.




----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 14, 2013)

If health insurance can cover Viagra, then why can't it cover birth control?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 14, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> If health insurance can cover Viagra, then why can't it cover birth control?



It can, if you want to pay for it. I don't.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 14, 2013)

Quantum Windbag said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > If health insurance can cover Viagra, then why can't it cover birth control?
> ...



Interestingly enough, your dollars that you put into the health insurance collective WILL pay for Viagra for old white men who can't get boners.

It just won't pay for the birth control that the women they bone need.

BTW...........................WTF is up with this "rape insurance" that is going on.  Does a woman actually plan to get raped?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 14, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Hobby Lobby doesn't care who has birth control.  It is none of their business who practices birth control or who has an abortion.
> ...





> They are against providing any kind of health care for their employees which goes against their own religious beliefs,


It's called healthcare COVERAGE, not healthcare. and yes hobby lobby provided healthcare coverage for it's employee's long before obamatax came along.


----------



## SwimExpert (Dec 14, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> BTW...........................WTF is up with this "rape insurance" that is going on.  Does a woman actually plan to get raped?



There is no such thing as "rape insurance."  That name is just as much a lie as "partial birth abortion."


----------



## Katzndogz (Dec 14, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Viagra is a medication prescribed for heart disease.  It has a side effect that also treats male erectile dysfunction.   Birth control pills on the other hand only treat one condition, pregnancy.   If a man is prescribed Viagra to treat his sexual disabilities, I certainly don't want to pay for it.  He should pay for it himself.  Just as a woman should have her sex partner kick in a few bucks for the birth control.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (Dec 14, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> Quantum Windbag said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Yes, they will. Now.

They didn't before because I didn't have a plan that covered shit I didn't want, or need.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 14, 2013)

SwimExpert said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > BTW...........................WTF is up with this "rape insurance" that is going on.  Does a woman actually plan to get raped?
> ...



Yes their is such a thing as rape insurance


----------



## SwimExpert (Dec 14, 2013)

That's _deterrence_.  Not insurance.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Dec 14, 2013)

SwimExpert said:


> That's _deterrence_.  Not insurance.



It's still insurance


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 14, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Quantum Windbag said:
> ...



Actually, hormonal birth control pills can be used to treat ovarian cysts and other medical conditions.  And....................can you provide a link (from a real medical site) that shows Viagra is used to treat heart conditions?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 14, 2013)

SwimExpert said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > BTW...........................WTF is up with this "rape insurance" that is going on.  Does a woman actually plan to get raped?
> ...





> Both chambers of the Michigan legislature have passed a measure banning insurance coverage for abortion in private health plans unless women purchase a separate rider. And because of the way the legislation was put forward, it is set to become law despite the objections of both the state&#8217;s Democratic minority and the veto of the Republican governor.
> 
> In a charged hearing Wednesday, Michigan Senate Minority Leader Gretchen Whitmer told the story of her own rape and called the legislation &#8220;one of the most misogynistic proposals I&#8217;ve ever seen in the Michigan Legislature,&#8221; according to the Detroit Free Press. The fact that women are required to plan in advance to have an abortion, Whitmer said, &#8220;tells women who are raped &#8230; that they should have thought ahead and bought special insurance for it.&#8221;
> 
> ...



Michigan passes 'rape insurance' bill | MSNBC

Women don't plan to get raped, but, if they are raped and a pregnancy happens, if they don't buy an extra coverage rider, they can't get an abortion.

Hence..............the term "rape insurance".

Might wanna actually watch the news sometime Swimexpert.


----------



## SwimExpert (Dec 14, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> And....................can you provide a link (from a real medical site) that shows Viagra is used to treat heart conditions?



The current role of sildenafil citrate in the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension

https://www.medicines.org.uk/guides/sildenafil citrate/pulmonary hypertension

What Is Viagra? What Is Sildenafil Citrate? - Medical News Today


----------



## SwimExpert (Dec 14, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> Hence..............the term "rape insurance".
> 
> Might wanna actually watch the news sometime Swimfan.



And I repeat, calling it "rape insurance" is as dishonest as using the phrase "partial birth abortion."

This idea that the law forces women to buy insurance _just in case_ they are raped is a complete fabrication.  The law regulates insurance coverage of abortion procedures.  Namely, it separates insurance coverage for abortions from the main policy.  That's it.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 14, 2013)

SwimExpert said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > And....................can you provide a link (from a real medical site) that shows Viagra is used to treat heart conditions?
> ...



Okay...........but the primary use of Viagra is for getting erections, not for heart disease.

Interestingly enough, the primary use of hormonal birth control pills is to prevent pregnancy, but it is also used to treat ovarian cysts and other conditions that women have.

Why should Viagra be allowed and birth control shouldn't?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 14, 2013)

SwimExpert said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Hence..............the term "rape insurance".
> ...



Still..............if they don't have the abortion rider on their healthcare plan, and they are raped, they will not be able to have the result of the rape aborted.

Besides...................does any woman actually ever PLAN to have an abortion?


----------



## SwimExpert (Dec 14, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> Why should Viagra be allowed and birth control shouldn't?



Where did I say that it shouldn't be allowed?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Dec 14, 2013)

SwimExpert said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Why should Viagra be allowed and birth control shouldn't?
> ...



Many on this thread think that, and the whole purpose of this thread was because Hobby Lobby didn't want to pay for birth control for their workers healthcare coverage.


----------



## SwimExpert (Dec 14, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> Still..............if they don't have the abortion rider on their healthcare plan, and they are raped, they will not be able to have the result of the rape aborted.



*False.  False, false, false.*

The law does not stop a woman from having an abortion.

Furthermore, the vast majority of abortions *are paid for out-of-pocket*.  Medicaid will not pay for an abortion.  And even women whose insurance _does_ pay for it almost always end up paying out of their pocket anyway, usually for reasons of privacy.



> Besides...................does any woman actually ever PLAN to have an abortion?



Probably about the same number of women who plan on getting raped, right?  So why call it rape insurance?  Oh, I know.  Because "rape insurance" is a ridiculously incendiary terminology which is sure to distract people from the facts.

BTW, how many people plan on having their houses burn down?  None?  Then why do they buy arson insur--I mean, fire insurance?  Kinda what insurance is all about, innit?  Preparing for the unexpected.

The truth of the matter is that you're being played just as much as the bible thumpers.  This law isn't actually going to change anything.  The law makers who voted for this only did it to pander to idiots in their base.  They haven't accomplished anything.  They aren't stopping abortions, they aren't going to prevent people from having abortions, they aren't going to make it more difficult for people to get abortions.  They're just tossing the bible thumpers a bone.  

Meanwhile, liberals are melting down even though nothing will change.  So damn gullible.


----------



## SwimExpert (Dec 14, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> SwimExpert said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



So why are you talking about Viagra, then?


----------



## Toro (Dec 14, 2013)

Awesome.

Hopefully, corporations will be able to vote one day too!


----------

