Ruth Bader Ginsburg Writes Scathing 35-Page Dissent In Birth Control Case

[RKMBrown]

Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer, joined Ginsburg in her dissent.

Notice these people are what America will be in the near future with the demographic shift ,not the pasty faced old cracker goyim and uncle Clarence Thomas's

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Writes Scathing 35-Page Dissent In Birth Control Case

Butch libtards get their rocks off killing babies by the millions.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Dear Ruth Bader Ginsberg and company:

 

[Vandalshandle]

I don't see anything that would now prohibit a corporation from claiming that their religious beliefs exempt them from providing health coverage to same sex married couples, in spite of the fact that under state law, they are just as legally married as a heterosexual couple.

...and we march down the road to theocracy....

 

[Stephanie]

Notice how none of them even Ruthie didn't have a meltdown when the Supremes decided Obama had a right to FORCE us to buy insurance or be fined

oh the two faced shines and shines

 

[Wildman]

Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer, joined Ginsburg in her dissent.

Notice these people are what America will be in the near future with the demographic shift ,not the pasty faced old cracker goyim and uncle Clarence Thomas's

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Writes Scathing 35-Page Dissent In Birth Control Case

the only thing that made sense was on the last page where it read, Finished, at last !

 

[theHawk]

Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer, joined Ginsburg in her dissent.

Notice these people are what America will be in the near future with the demographic shift ,not the pasty faced old cracker goyim and uncle Clarence Thomas's

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Writes Scathing 35-Page Dissent In Birth Control Case

Well of course the progressive hacks that have been appointed to the SCOTUS are going to go apeshit after not getting their way.

It's clear that racists like Guano (crackers and an Uncle Tom reference in one sentence!) have their panties in a bunch about this court ruling.

 

[FA_Q2]

Wow. You're confused. Conservatives had no goal here. Hobby Lobby was minding their own business and Obama forced his goal onto them. His goal doesn't overrule religious rights. It's not that complicated.

It may have started out a religious freedom case but the celebration from people who are not admitted evangelicals proves otherwise. What do you think they have accomplished here? Are you prepared to accept the bad long term consequences of this as worth what is essentially a minor inconsequential victory over a piece of legislation you do not like?

Less birth control means more abortion

Something for conservatives to celebrate

Your point?

Just as the government does not have the right to bar you from an abortion you ALSO don’t have the right to demand that another pay for your birth control. That is what freedom looks like. I know you don’t actually recognize it but do try and understand that freedom come with the prices of responsibility.


It does not matter how hypocritical, idiotic or asinine your decisions might be – they are YOURS to make and not the governments.

 

[theHawk]

I don't see anything that would now prohibit a corporation from claiming that their religious beliefs exempt them from providing health coverage to same sex married couples, in spite of the fact that under state law, they are just as legally married as a heterosexual couple.

...and we march down the road to theocracy....

Oh, so since the government can't force everyone to do things against their own religion, we're turning to a "theocracy".

 

[FA_Q2]

Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer, joined Ginsburg in her dissent.

Notice these people are what America will be in the near future with the demographic shift ,not the pasty faced old cracker goyim and uncle Clarence Thomas's

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Writes Scathing 35-Page Dissent In Birth Control Case

What happens when Muslim businesses in the designated categories start opting out of laws that don't conform to Sharia? I have a feeling our Confederate, sorry, I mean Conservative friends will be whistling a different tune, Yes?

"In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs," Ginsburg wrote. She said she feared that with its decision, the court had "ventured into a minefield."

This is a minefield in a guagmire that has the potential of spawning a miasma of unintended consequences. Shoulda listened to Ruth.

No, you don’t get to ignore law at all. What the government cannot do is compel you to act against your religion. IOW you can’t be FORCED to purchase a product that goes against your religious beliefs. That does not mean that you can engage in activities that are unlawful such as animal sacrifice. They are different as one is compulsion and the other is not.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I don't see anything that would now prohibit a corporation from claiming that their religious beliefs exempt them from providing health coverage to same sex married couples, in spite of the fact that under state law, they are just as legally married as a heterosexual couple.

...and we march down the road to theocracy....

Oh, so since the government can't force everyone to do things against their own religion, we're turning to a "theocracy".

Theocracy would be a government whose laws are determined by religious beliefs. This is it, in spades.

 

[FA_Q2]

From this day forward, don't let a single conservative tell you they stand for a "limited government".

Do you not understand English - this IS a case of smaller government - a government that can no longer demand you ignore your religious beliefs. Beliefs that are EXPRESSLY protected in the first amendment.

 

[FA_Q2]

Does the concept of freedom from religion just not register with you social conservatives?

A little Constitutional literacy wouldn't hurt you.

The First Amendment merely includes: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . .".

That doesn't mean that the government has the power to stop others from following their own religious beliefs so that one never encounters religion.

You don't get it, I used to live in a dry county, why was it dry? The Christians wanted it that way and through the law jailed people in possession of alcohol, is that sort of thing right? Why do we have to do without the awesomeness of alcohol or move away or risk arrest just to have a damned drink? That's the shit I want to be free of, keep that shit in the churches and convince people to not drink of their own free will rather than a bullshit law. The same argument can be used to condemn any of their attempts to make citizens stop harmlessly sinning by using the threat of arrest.

You shouldn’t. Those laws are wrong.

The difference though is that when those laws agree with your morality or demands suddenly you are okay with them - like the healthcare law. You have no problem with the convenient controlling me so I really don’t give a damn when you complain that it is controlling you in a manner you disagree with.

I don’t want the government controlling my rights in general - you do.

 

[SmedlyButler]

Dear Ruth Bader Ginsberg and company:

Have you considered the latent time bombs concealed by the premature Christian celebration around this ruling. Other religions are going to want the same rights. And we athiests will be looking at it as well.

 

[FA_Q2]

So, All the liberals are lamenting the loss of ‘rights’ by another proper ruling.

I ask EXACTLY what right has anyone lost under this ruling.

Try and figure that one out.

 

[occupied]

Take a deep breath. Another. Now. There are labor laws that cover those things.

Obamacare is a law, what's the difference? Did you think this ruling only applied to Obamacare?

Laws can be changed in America. Slavery and prohibition used to be law.

Are those supposed to be examples of easily corrected mistakes? Good lord.

 

[Stephanie]

So, All the liberals are lamenting the loss of ‘rights’ by another proper ruling.

I ask EXACTLY what right has anyone lost under this ruling.

Try and figure that one out.

NONE, but if they don't lie they can't fool the people in this country

 

[SmedlyButler]

Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer, joined Ginsburg in her dissent.

Notice these people are what America will be in the near future with the demographic shift ,not the pasty faced old cracker goyim and uncle Clarence Thomas's

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Writes Scathing 35-Page Dissent In Birth Control Case

What happens when Muslim businesses in the designated categories start opting out of laws that don't conform to Sharia? I have a feeling our Confederate, sorry, I mean Conservative friends will be whistling a different tune, Yes?

"In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs," Ginsburg wrote. She said she feared that with its decision, the court had "ventured into a minefield."

This is a minefield in a guagmire that has the potential of spawning a miasma of unintended consequences. Shoulda listened to Ruth.

No, you don’t get to ignore law at all. What the government cannot do is compel you to act against your religion. IOW you can’t be FORCED to purchase a product that goes against your religious beliefs. That does not mean that you can engage in activities that are unlawful such as animal sacrifice. They are different as one is compulsion and the other is not.

Where did you pull that out of? Exactly.

I haven't read the whole ruling, just the digests. Apparently you haven't gone that far. This ruling has nothing to do with consumer rights from what I've seen. It's about busness' rights to opt out of laws they have religious objections to.

 

[occupied]

A little Constitutional literacy wouldn't hurt you.

The First Amendment merely includes: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . . .".

That doesn't mean that the government has the power to stop others from following their own religious beliefs so that one never encounters religion.

You don't get it, I used to live in a dry county, why was it dry? The Christians wanted it that way and through the law jailed people in possession of alcohol, is that sort of thing right? Why do we have to do without the awesomeness of alcohol or move away or risk arrest just to have a damned drink? That's the shit I want to be free of, keep that shit in the churches and convince people to not drink of their own free will rather than a bullshit law. The same argument can be used to condemn any of their attempts to make citizens stop harmlessly sinning by using the threat of arrest.

You shouldn’t. Those laws are wrong.

The difference though is that when those laws agree with your morality or demands suddenly you are okay with them - like the healthcare law. You have no problem with the convenient controlling me so I really don’t give a damn when you complain that it is controlling you in a manner you disagree with.

I don’t want the government controlling my rights in general - you do.

Neither do I but the fact remains that they are endowed with the power to decide the scope and particulars of what we call rights. The SCOTUS just exercised their power to decide the rights of the hobby hypocrite and his female employees and you guys seem overjoyed with that.

 

[SmedlyButler]

I don't see anything that would now prohibit a corporation from claiming that their religious beliefs exempt them from providing health coverage to same sex married couples, in spite of the fact that under state law, they are just as legally married as a heterosexual couple.

...and we march down the road to theocracy....

descision without analyzing the implications. I predict the hangovers will be epic when they sober up.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Eight other laws that Christians may choose to exempt themselves from:

8 Other Laws That Could Be Ignored Now That Christians Get To Pick And Choose