Supreme Court lies; but it's in Hobby Lobby fans' favor, so they won't complain

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Supreme Court lies; but it's in Hobby Lobby fans' favor, so they won't complain

    An article that almost entirely focuses on the opinion of the SCOTUS progressives, as if they were operating from an understanding of the Constitution, or something. How...odd.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from ComingLiberalCrackup. Show ComingLiberalCrackup's posts

    Re: Supreme Court lies; but it's in Hobby Lobby fans' favor, so they won't complain

    The Supreme Court "lied" by upholding a preliminary injunction on a separate case from Hobby Lobby?

    All this hand wringing and bed wetting over four contraceptives that Hobby Lobby did not agree with. Hobby Lobby covered 16 methods of birth control for its employees.......

    The Left 's zealotry knows no bounds.

    All religious objections to contraception must be ground into dust...

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hansoribrother. Show Hansoribrother's posts

    Re: Supreme Court lies; but it's in Hobby Lobby fans' favor, so they won't complain

    If hobby lobby were closely held by Muslims, would the Moonbats be complaining? No, the hate just spews for Christians.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Supreme Court lies; but it's in Hobby Lobby fans' favor, so they won't complain

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    If hobby lobby were closely held by Muslims, would the Moonbats be complaining? No, the hate just spews for Christians.



    So true.

    hey, one thing stand out to me: isn't this decision about regulation, not law? In other words, the regulation comes into play at SCOTUS,  NOT as a matter of law,but regulation. Isn't this proof that the remaining regulatory changes, I.e. the delays, anything that is not anchored in the ACA, is unlawful? Isn't regulation only allowed in the context of the law?

    are we a nation of laws, or men?

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Supreme Court lies; but it's in Hobby Lobby fans' favor, so they won't complain

    ..and another one removed...sigh.

    "It is not down in any map...trueplaces never are...." ( Melville)

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from seawolfxs. Show seawolfxs's posts

    Re: Supreme Court lies; but it's in Hobby Lobby fans' favor, so they won't complain

    A common thread of the Ohole racists and his dingleberry followers is that they never understand the issues 

    here the SC overruled a "regulation" drawn up by bureaucrats, not a law

    I have no interest in having any dialogue with these "useful idiots" as they aren't capable, just want to call them out as the little dingle berry eaters they are

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Supreme Court lies; but it's in Hobby Lobby fans' favor, so they won't complain

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    ..and another one removed...sigh.

    "It is not down in any map...trueplaces never are...." ( Melville)



    Yeah, sorry, but evidently it gets removed because you might have implied logic. 



    Repost it. Who ever is removing posts needs to get a grip.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Supreme Court lies; but it's in Hobby Lobby fans' favor, so they won't complain

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    ..and another one removed...sigh.

    "It is not down in any map...trueplaces never are...." ( Melville)



    Yeah, sorry, but evidently it gets removed because you might have implied logic. 



    Repost it. Who ever is removing posts needs to get a grip.




    no kidding

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Supreme Court lies; but it's in Hobby Lobby fans' favor, so they won't complain

    In response to Sistersledge's comment:

    In response to ronreganfan's comment:

    In response to jedwardnicky's comment:

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    ..and another one removed...sigh.

    "It is not down in any map...trueplaces never are...." ( Melville)



    Yeah, sorry, but evidently it gets removed because you might have implied logic. 



    Repost it. Who ever is removing posts needs to get a grip.




    no kidding



    On this we are in agreement.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Supreme Court lies; but it's in Hobby Lobby fans' favor, so they won't complain

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    If hobby lobby were closely held by Muslims, would the Moonbats be complaining? No, the hate just spews for Christians.



    Yes, the Moonbats would still be complaining, if access to contraception was denied.  But if that Muslim company told its employees not to wear crosses, or its female employees were forced to wear hijabs, I think the wingnuts would be hollering right along with them.

     

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from Sistersledge. Show Sistersledge's posts

    Re: Supreme Court lies; but it's in Hobby Lobby fans' favor, so they won't complain

    ronnie I wish they would leave the comments alone. If I say something stupid it should stay online so the whole world can see I'm a fool . That is what a fool deserves .

    Take care .... I'm done being nice ... 3:)

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from smf2271. Show smf2271's posts

    Re: Supreme Court lies; but it's in Hobby Lobby fans' favor, so they won't complain

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    If hobby lobby were closely held by Muslims, would the Moonbats be complaining? No, the hate just spews for Christians.



    On the contrary, "moon bats," AKA liberals, would be complaining just as loudly.  It is the conservatives who would also be complaining, even louder.  Would you, for example, agree with a decision that a Muslim-held corporation was allowed to deny coverage for a medical treatment that involved not fasting during Ramadan?  I don't think so.  This is no different.  

    "Hate for Christians?" OK, I'm Jewish.  Do you promise to follow every doctrine of my religion, simply because I want you to?  No?  OK, so does that mean you hate me? 

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Supreme Court lies; but it's in Hobby Lobby fans' favor, so they won't complain

    In response to smf2271's comment:

    In response to Hansoribrother's comment:

    If hobby lobby were closely held by Muslims, would the Moonbats be complaining? No, the hate just spews for Christians.



    On the contrary, "moon bats," AKA liberals, would be complaining just as loudly.  It is the conservatives who would also be complaining, even louder.  Would you, for example, agree with a decision that a Muslim-held corporation was allowed to deny coverage for a medical treatment that involved not fasting during Ramadan?  I don't think so.  This is no different.  

    "Hate for Christians?" OK, I'm Jewish.  Do you promise to follow every doctrine of my religion, simply because I want you to?  No?  OK, so does that mean you hate me? 



    I find it interesting on how upset the progressives are when it comes to people exercising their constitutionally protected freedom of religion. I guess if I am allowed to practice my faith freely, it undermines the key tenet of progressivism: eliminate the individual/conform to the collective,

    and, do I promise to follow every tenet of your faith? Of course not. I merely, like this ruling, recognize that I should not infringe on YOUR practice of your faith.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from StalkingButler. Show StalkingButler's posts

    Re: Supreme Court lies; but it's in Hobby Lobby fans' favor, so they won't complain

    Would you, for example, agree with a decision that a Muslim-held corporation was allowed to deny coverage for a medical treatment that involved not fasting during Ramadan?  I don't think so.  This is no different.  

     

    Yes. I would. As long as the employees understood this prior to being hired and that this was a condition of their employment. My guess is that this theoretical corporation would have trouble attracting qualified employees and would last long anyway but, while they were in operation, they would have every right to operate in the way that they saw fit.

     

     

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Supreme Court lies; but it's in Hobby Lobby fans' favor, so they won't complain

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

    Would you, for example, agree with a decision that a Muslim-held corporation was allowed to deny coverage for a medical treatment that involved not fasting during Ramadan?  I don't think so.  This is no different.  

     

    Yes. I would. As long as the employees understood this prior to being hired and that this was a condition of their employment. My guess is that this theoretical corporation would have trouble attracting qualified employees and would last long anyway but, while they were in operation, they would have every right to operate in the way that they saw fit.

     

     

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.



    Apples and oranges example. The correct comparative would be a Muslim company being forced to feed it's employees during Ramadan because they forgot to eat breakfast.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: Supreme Court lies; but it's in Hobby Lobby fans' favor, so they won't complain

    It's ironic that the wingnuts wish to extend costitutional rights to corporations ... especially considering the fact that many corporations are foreign owned, multi-national businesses.

    They'd just as well have companies from China, N Korea, Russia, Quatar telling US workers what they can and can't do in their own country ... all because theses businesses filed some paperwork in court.

    You know your political ideology is warped if it puts rights of foreigners over the rights of Americans ....

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from newman09. Show newman09's posts

    Re: Supreme Court lies; but it's in Hobby Lobby fans' favor, so they won't complain

    This issue will be back in full force, in time for the 2016 elections. As campaign season time begins to ramp up, so will the democrats with their phony "War on Woman", and this SC decision will be the latest example they will try hard to sell you.


    The libs want you to believe they are denying their female Hobby Lobby employees contraception (which they are not) If their female employees want to use one of these four named contrapceptions, go right ahead, nobody is stopping them from buying and using what they want, nobody. But the left wants you to believe that this is not the case. AKA, the phony "War on Woman"!


     


     

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: Supreme Court lies; but it's in Hobby Lobby fans' favor, so they won't complain

    In response to newman09's comment:

    This issue will be back in full force, in time for the 2016 elections. As campaign season time begins to ramp up, so will the democrats with their phony "War on Woman", and this SC decision will be the latest example they will try hard to sell you.

    The libs want you to believe they are denying their female Hobby Lobby employees contraception (which they are not) If their female employees want to use one of these four named contrapceptions, go right ahead, nobody is stopping them from buying and using what they want, nobody. But the left wants you to believe that this is the case. AKA, the phony "War on Woman"!



    If you believe that the rights of foreigners trump the rights of US citizens then by all means vote gop-er.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Supreme Court lies; but it's in Hobby Lobby fans' favor, so they won't complain

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

    Would you, for example, agree with a decision that a Muslim-held corporation was allowed to deny coverage for a medical treatment that involved not fasting during Ramadan?  I don't think so.  This is no different.  

     

    Yes. I would. As long as the employees understood this prior to being hired and that this was a condition of their employment. My guess is that this theoretical corporation would have trouble attracting qualified employees and would last long anyway but, while they were in operation, they would have every right to operate in the way that they saw fit.

     

     

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.



    What if the company changed hands?  That's kind of the root of the problem - people have religious freedom but people can't be bought or sold or 'go public'.  A corporation's principles are not only malleable, they could become diametrically opposed in a moment.

    Is there a litmus test for religious convictions for corporations?  Hobby Lobby goes to the Supreme Court over providing 'abortives' but it imports half its stock from a statist country that forces abortions on its population.  That makes me doubt their sincerity. 

    Does the faith of a corporation have to be tied to its owners?  Can't every corporation in the US claim to be Christian Scientists and be exempt from Obamacare entirely?  

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from ronreganfan. Show ronreganfan's posts

    Re: Supreme Court lies; but it's in Hobby Lobby fans' favor, so they won't complain

    In response to slomag's comment:

    In response to StalkingButler's comment:

    Would you, for example, agree with a decision that a Muslim-held corporation was allowed to deny coverage for a medical treatment that involved not fasting during Ramadan?  I don't think so.  This is no different.  

     

    Yes. I would. As long as the employees understood this prior to being hired and that this was a condition of their employment. My guess is that this theoretical corporation would have trouble attracting qualified employees and would last long anyway but, while they were in operation, they would have every right to operate in the way that they saw fit.

     

     

     

    --

    Think for yourself, question authority.



    What if the company changed hands?  That's kind of the root of the problem - people have religious freedom but people can't be bought or sold or 'go public'.  A corporation's principles are not only malleable, they could become diametrically opposed in a moment.

    Is there a litmus test for religious convictions for corporations?  Hobby Lobby goes to the Supreme Court over providing 'abortives' but it imports half its stock from a statist country that forces abortions on its population.  That makes me doubt their sincerity. 

    Does the faith of a corporation have to be tied to its owners?  Can't every corporation in the US claim to be Christian Scientists and be exempt from Obamacare entirely?  



    What if,what if, what if. 

    The OWNERS of a company have religious freedom rights  protected by the constitution, not the companies themselves.  Companies are just groups of people, for purposes of this discussion.  You cannot force them to violate those rights simply because their money is invested in certain ways.

    This is the nature of rights: personal, and absolute.  They are not subject to government whims.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from high-road. Show high-road's posts

    Re: Supreme Court lies; but it's in Hobby Lobby fans' favor, so they won't complain

    If a corporation has already violated its own "religious beliefs," can those beliefs still be imposed on its workers?


     


    Hobby Lobby is invested heavily in corporations that manufacture contraceptives.


     


    Does that render the corporation's self-professed beliefs null and void? Or is a corporation allowed to be selective, imposing its faith upon others but not upon itself according to its whims?


     


    Does the "religious belief" rule apply even when it's based on false information?


     


    One of the striking things about the Hobby Lobby decision is the fact that its moral position was based on a misperception of reality. This is not attack on anyone's faith. It's a statement of fact. Hobby Lobby has reportedly argued that certain forms of contraception -- emergency contraceptives and IUDs -- terminate a fertilized egg after that moment has passed. But that isn't true. They prevent conception before it happens.


     


    This does not meet Volokh's standard regarding an individual's personal right to determine what constitutes complicity in a deed. In this case, there is no deed being performed.


     


     If a corporation can hold religious beliefs, does that mean it has a soul?

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share