New Precedent: Federal Court Upholds Christians' Rights To Refuse. Kim Davis Has Case.

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Court: Birth control mandate violates religious rights

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — A federal judge has ruled in favor of a Missouri lawmaker who cited religious objections while challenging the inclusion of birth control coverage in his government-provided health insurance....The lawsuit by Wieland and his wife, Teresa, who are Roman Catholics, asserted that it violates their religious beliefs to include contraception coverage in the state health insurance plan that he participates in as a lawmaker....In a ruling Thursday siding with the Wielands, U.S. District Judge Jean Hamilton cited the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which says government shall not "substantially burden" a person's exercise of religion..."the only way plaintiffs can comply with their religious conscience is by dropping their insurance altogether, which would result in them foregoing a valuable job benefit

Kim Davis, you listening? The only way Kim Davis could keep her job would be to violate her religious conscience. Remember, Kim Davis took her job BEFORE Obergefell's illegal Ruling (two justices were mandated to have recused themselves from Obergefell, for performing gay marriages as representatives of the fed while deciding "should the fed preside over states on gay marriage?").

I found this part utterly hilarious...as if a precedent only applies on a case by case basis...as if all Americans don't enjoy interpretation of law equally... What a jokester that Senator was saying this:

State Sen. Paul Wieland said Friday that the ruling , while applying only to his family, could serve as a guide for others seeking to challenge the application of a section of President Barack Obama's health care law that requires insurers to include coverage of contraceptives

As if laws protecting religious freedoms ONLY apply to one person and ONLY in certain specific violations of religious conscience...you know...but not others... !

Jonathan Turley needs to get a hold of Kim Davis. They have a case to file..

At least you’re consistent at being ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That kind of talk is typical rightwing rubbish.

Stop with the ad hom attacks and prove me wrong using the Constitution. Are you not up to the task?

You can't and don't impeach SCOTUS judges for making rulings you don't like.

You can for making rulings contrary to the Constitution. That's part of the checks and balances in our government. But instead of making the generalized ignorant statements, how about you prove their actions were in accordance with the Constitution using the Constitution itself. I can easily prove it wasn't and provide previous decisions to back it up.

I'll even ask you one question that will give you a hint about one part of what I'm talking about, ya ready?

Why did the supreme court rule the presidential line item veto unconstitutional?

BTW don't try to tell me that decision doesn't apply because I can prove otherwise.

List all the judges impeached for their votes on cases.

Stop deflecting. Prove me wrong or STFU. Better yet, I done arguing with ignorance.

And another rightist consistent at being ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.

 

[JimBowie1958]

In her own case yes...

... but in someone else's - No...

... as in exercising their own religious rights.

Unless the third party is forcing Kim to provide the birth control as they fags were forcing her to sign off on their 'marriage' certificates.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Repeating this lie over and over again does not make it so. Gay marriage is here to stay. Too bad, so sad.

No, it is not.

The culture of self destruction is prevailing today, but as the affects continue to be seen wiser heads will see the need to reverse this cultural suicide.

Not only is Fag marriage going to eventually be banned, but abortion passed the first trimester will be as well for the sake of the nation.

 

[mdk]

Repeating this lie over and over again does not make it so. Gay marriage is here to stay. Too bad, so sad.

No, it is not.

The culture of self destruction is prevailing today, but as the affects continue to be seen wiser heads will see the need to reverse this cultural suicide.

Not only is Fag marriage going to eventually be banned, but abortion passed the first trimester will be as well for the sake of the nation.

No, I think most people have moved on from worrying about two queers getting hitched. Hell, even the GOP platform dropped its support for a Constitutional amendment. To be honest, I am far more concerned about our crushing debt.

 

[JimBowie1958]

No, I think most people have moved on from worrying about two queers getting hitched. Hell, even the GOP platform dropped its support for a Constitutional amendment. To be honest, I am far more concerned about our crushing debt.

Support for fag marriage as something GOOD for the country has never been a majority. At best people have taken a live and let live attitude that will change as they see the harm such nonsense causes to national demographic growth rates.

 

[mdk]

No, I think most people have moved on from worrying about two queers getting hitched. Hell, even the GOP platform dropped its support for a Constitutional amendment. To be honest, I am far more concerned about our crushing debt.

Support for fag marriage as something GOOD for the country has never been a majority. At best people have taken a live and let live attitude that will change as they see the harm such nonsense causes to national demographic growth rates.

And yet poll after poll show a majority of people support gay marriage. Those numbers look even more bleak for your position with when you look at the 35 and under demographic.

 

[IcebergSlim]

In her own case yes...

... but in someone else's - No...

... as in exercising their own religious rights.

Unless the third party is forcing Kim to provide the birth control as they fags were forcing her to sign off on their 'marriage' certificates.

If that adulterous load doesn't want to observe the law, then she is free to give up the sweet ride at tax payer expense and do something befitting her level of competence......

 

[IcebergSlim]

No, I think most people have moved on from worrying about two queers getting hitched. Hell, even the GOP platform dropped its support for a Constitutional amendment. To be honest, I am far more concerned about our crushing debt.

Support for fag marriage as something GOOD for the country has never been a majority. At best people have taken a live and let live attitude that will change as they see the harm such nonsense causes to national demographic growth rates.

as they see the harm such nonsense causes to national demographic growth rates.


Male escorts are making crazy money at the RNC | New York Post

Another escort said he had already earned $1,600 since Monday — over six times the amount he usually makes.


“I normally only make $200 to $300, but I’ve been seeing lots of guys in hotels downtown,” he said, noting the boom in business near the Quicken Loans Arena.


The clientele has included mostly married white men between the ages of 40 and 50, said another escort who’s seen eight johns so far.

 

[OKTexas]

Stop with the ad hom attacks and prove me wrong using the Constitution. Are you not up to the task?

You can't and don't impeach SCOTUS judges for making rulings you don't like.

You can for making rulings contrary to the Constitution. That's part of the checks and balances in our government. But instead of making the generalized ignorant statements, how about you prove their actions were in accordance with the Constitution using the Constitution itself. I can easily prove it wasn't and provide previous decisions to back it up.

I'll even ask you one question that will give you a hint about one part of what I'm talking about, ya ready?

Why did the supreme court rule the presidential line item veto unconstitutional?

BTW don't try to tell me that decision doesn't apply because I can prove otherwise.

List all the judges impeached for their votes on cases.

Stop deflecting. Prove me wrong or STFU. Better yet, I done arguing with ignorance.

And another rightist consistent at being ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.

Same thing, prove me wrong or STFU. I guess you regressive are all mouth and zero intelligence.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

Yes, she has the right to refuse birth control for herself...

... but not for someone else.

You are not entitled to imply your meaning in to the Bill of Rights and destroy religious freedom.

 

[waltky]

So you advocate someone else defining your rights...

... based on their beliefs?

 

[ScienceRocks]

To hell with religious extremist.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

So you advocate someone else defining your rights...

... based on their beliefs?

Where did I state any such thing. I didn't mince words.. I stated unequivocally the US Constitution, Bill of Rights.

 

[waltky]

But you left the door wide open for it.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

But you left the door wide open for it.

No I didn't.. Lay off the bong.

 

[waltky]

You are not entitled to imply your meaning in to the Bill of Rights and destroy religious freedom.

Oops, this has a dual meaning based on whether you is singular or plural...

... I understood it to be singular...

... you must have meant it to be plural...

... my bad.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

You are not entitled to imply your meaning in to the Bill of Rights and destroy religious freedom.

Oops, this has a dual meaning based on whether you is singular or plural...

... I understood it to be singular...

... you must have meant it to be plural...

... my bad.

I have no need to imply my own meaning when in fact I called you OUT for that very reason. The Founders were clear as to our Constitutional religious freedoms which means the US CARTEL Government Corrupt Syndicate cannot force ANY American to violate their religious beliefs for ANY reason. PERIOD. There's no comma in that clause.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You can't and don't impeach SCOTUS judges for making rulings you don't like.

You can for making rulings contrary to the Constitution. That's part of the checks and balances in our government. But instead of making the generalized ignorant statements, how about you prove their actions were in accordance with the Constitution using the Constitution itself. I can easily prove it wasn't and provide previous decisions to back it up.

I'll even ask you one question that will give you a hint about one part of what I'm talking about, ya ready?

Why did the supreme court rule the presidential line item veto unconstitutional?

BTW don't try to tell me that decision doesn't apply because I can prove otherwise.

List all the judges impeached for their votes on cases.

Stop deflecting. Prove me wrong or STFU. Better yet, I done arguing with ignorance.

And another rightist consistent at being ignorant, ridiculous, and wrong.

Same thing, prove me wrong or STFU. I guess you regressive are all mouth and zero intelligence.

That kind of talk is typical rightwing rubbish.

Stop with the ad hom attacks and prove me wrong using the Constitution. Are you not up to the task?

You can't and don't impeach SCOTUS judges for making rulings you don't like.

You can for making rulings contrary to the Constitution. That's part of the checks and balances in our government. But instead of making the generalized ignorant statements, how about you prove their actions were in accordance with the Constitution using the Constitution itself. I can easily prove it wasn't and provide previous decisions to back it up.

I'll even ask you one question that will give you a hint about one part of what I'm talking about, ya ready?

Why did the supreme court rule the presidential line item veto unconstitutional?

BTW don't try to tell me that decision doesn't apply because I can prove otherwise.

List all the judges impeached for their votes on cases.

Stop deflecting. Prove me wrong or STFU. Better yet, I done arguing with ignorance.

So the dissenting judges in the same sex marriage case should be impeached for voting against the Constitution.

lol, good one.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You are not entitled to imply your meaning in to the Bill of Rights and destroy religious freedom.

Oops, this has a dual meaning based on whether you is singular or plural...

... I understood it to be singular...

... you must have meant it to be plural...

... my bad.

I have no need to imply my own meaning when in fact I called you OUT for that very reason. The Founders were clear as to our Constitutional religious freedoms which means the US CARTEL Government Corrupt Syndicate cannot force ANY American to violate their religious beliefs for ANY reason. PERIOD. There's no comma in that clause.

The Court has repeatedly ruled that religion cannot be used as a means to ignore the law. The Mormons found that out in the polygamy case.