Hobby Lobby Et AL - Decision

[Exterminator]

Think what you will,

you lost: get over it   

The Constitution still works they way or forefathers INTENDED it to work.

If you'd pull your head out of your ass and actually read the article, it states explicitly why this is absolutely not the way the Constitution was intended to work.  Now don't you have jihad to wage  or something?

[The Troll]

Think what you will,

you lost: get over it   

The Constitution still works they way or forefathers INTENDED it to work.

  No Henry, we all lost with this bunch of Republican assholes.     We lost when they took our eminent domain away from us,     We lost when they made corporations human beings.      We the workers of America when they decided to stop SCABS from paying dues and keep on collecting union benefits.     The women lost, all young women of child bearing age lost because of a bunch of crazy asshole Christians wanted to save some money.     Yes Henry, it's all about money and destroying ObamaCare.   

  You Republicans sure have stacked the Supreme Court with one of the finest, bought bastards you creeps could find. 

  Four asshole men deciding what was good for women and all based on lies.   

[Henry Hawk]

No we all didn't lose shit over this. 

No women are being violated.  PEROID.  If you work at Hobby Lobby and you want a contraception that is not provided by them....then go buy it.  Don't try to tell me differently.  She go work someplace else, if it is THAT important that she gets free contraceptives.

Liberals are making this a WAY bigger issue out of this than it really is.


Ex I did read the article. 

The constitution works and the judges abided it.

[Henry Hawk]

If you'd pull your head out of your ass and actually read the article

I got one YOU can read then....we can go back and forth on this if you want.

Hobby Lobby ruling: Why Supreme Court got it right

[Exterminator]

No we all didn't lose shit over this. 

Correct; Hobby Lobby will still cover vasectomies and Viagra.  Typical Muslim, oops, Christian male attitude.  Are you making your women wear headscarves (as the bible says they should) and making them walk behind you as well?

[Exterminator]

I got one YOU can read then....we can go back and forth on this if you want.

Hobby Lobby ruling: Why Supreme Court got it right

A (stupid) Fux News op-ed piece...typical.   

[me]

If you bother to check into it further you will find it is only 4 out of 20 which will not be covered and there are 16 more forms of birth control that will remain available to them.  It is not "all" forms of birth control only the ones that destroy an already fertilized egg the Hobby Lobby owners object to.



http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/30/morning-after-iuds/11768653/





   

[Palehorse]

If you bother to check into it further you will find it is only 4 out of 20 which will not be covered and there are 16 more forms of birth control that will remain available to them.  It is not "all" forms of birth control only the ones that destroy an already fertilized egg the Hobby Lobby owners object to.





   
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/30/morning-after-iuds/11768653/

I see you are going to post this repeatedly until someone, likely me since I was the first one you posted it to, responds. With that in mind, be sure to read this very carefully, because this may be a bit complex for you to digest. I will be brief in order to allow you the best opportunity at success in comprehending my position on your repeated responses to the issue:


"WOOOOOOOOSH"!

[Palehorse]

No we all didn't lose shit over this. 

No, you didn't lose anything over this. Why? Because you have a kickstand instead of a vagina.

Way to be caring and supportive.

No women are being violated.  PEROID.  If you work at Hobby Lobby and you want a contraception that is not provided by them....then go buy it.  Don't try to tell me differently.  She go work someplace else, if it is THAT important that she gets free contraceptives. 

Wrong on all counts. But then again, you wouldn't understand that. And I absolutely will not try to tell you differently. I gave up being the patron saint of lost causes a long time ago. When this legislation comes up and bitch slaps you in the face via a daughter or granddaughter, don't come around here whimpering over it.

I will agree with the last part of your quoted post though; sweat shop wages are fairly prevalent so if you work for one and they are requiring you to pay for your health-care, why not work at Taco Bell where they will cover your chosen form of birth control for YOUR hard earned money?

Ex I did read the article. 

The constitution works and the judges abided it.

And I will restate this; I want to hear the very same damned response come out of you when some corporation owned by an extremist group imposes Sharia Law upon its employees then.

You think it won't happen? The fact is because of the Hobby Lobby decision those ass-hats will have NO choice but to support it.

[Palehorse]

So what about the dissenting opinions of the very same court?

And I quote Ginsberg  and those members agreeing with her:

. . ."RFRA speaks of "a person's exercise of religion." 42 U. S. C. §2000bb–1(a) (emphasis added). See also §§2000bb–2(4), 2000cc–5(7)(a).12 Whether
a corporation qualifies as a "person" capable of exercis- ing religion is an inquiry one cannot answer without refer- ence to the "full body" of pre-Smith "free-exercise caselaw." Gilardi, 733 F. 3d, at 1212. There is in that case law no support for the notion that free exercise rights pertain to for-profit corporations.
Until this litigation, no decision of this Court recognized a for-profit corporation's qualification for a religious ex- emption from a generally applicable law, whether under the Free Exercise Clause or RFRA.13 The absence of such precedent is just what one would expect, for the exercise of religion is characteristic of natural persons, not artificial legal entities. As Chief Justice Marshall observed nearly two centuries ago, a corporation is "an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law." Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 4 Wheat. 518, 636 (1819). Corporations, Justice Stevens more recently reminded, "have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires." Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U. S. 310, 466 (2010).". .

. . ."The First Amendment's free exercise protections, theCourt has indeed recognized, shelter churches and other nonprofit religion-based organizations.14 "For many indi- viduals, religious activity derives meaning in large meas- ure from participation in a larger religious community," and "furtherance of the autonomy of religious organiza- tions often furthers individual religious freedom as well." Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. Amos, 483 U. S. 327, 342 (1987) (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment). The Court's "spe- cial solicitude to the rights of religious organizations," Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, 565 U. S. ___, ___ (2012) (slip op., at 14), how- ever, is just that. No such solicitude is traditional for com- mercial organizations.15 Indeed, until today, religious exemptions had never been extended to any entity operat- ing in "the commercial, profit-making world." Amos, 483 U. S., at 337.16
The reason why is hardly obscure. Religious organiza- tions exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community. Indeed, by law, no religion-based criterion can restrict the work force of for-profit corporations. See 42 U. S. C. §§2000e(b), 2000e–1(a), 2000e–2(a); cf. Trans World Air­ lines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U. S. 63, 80–81 (1977) (Title VII requires reasonable accommodation of an employee's religious exercise, but such accommodation must not come "at the expense of other[ employees]"). The distinction between a community made up of believers in the same religion and one embracing persons of diverse beliefs, clear as it is, constantly escapes the Court's attention.17 One can only wonder why the Court shuts this key difference from sight.. . ."

Why is this opinion wrong? Because it, along with several others who supported it's author, and whom are also serving members of the court, is not in line with an obscured vision shared by the conservative swayed and leaning sector of the very same court?

This decision is nothing more than the same shite spewed out by this very same court when it granted constitutional rights to these very same corporate entities. That was wrong, and it clearly was the first step in enabling the very legal action set before the court this week; of which I predict with a high level of certainty, will be only step two in a long a sustained march upon the constitutional rights afforded individual citizens of this nation as outline within the very same constitution this court has been using for ass wipe for a number of years now. 

In reading the full decision I am now fully certain that when, not if, a corporation owned by a small number of extremist muslims begins imposing upon its employees Sharia  Law, (Something you ultra conservative zealots have been crying wolf about for the last 6 years and laying at the POTUS's feet), this very same court will now be forced, based upon the very precedent this decision handed down today sets, to uphold it.

What will you say then? Will you cry to the heavens in a vain attempt to have your false-idol sky daddy send a barrage of lightening and thunder down upon the infidels? Who will you blame this on then?

And if you'd care to read the entire decision, including the dissenting one(S), you'll find within said decision facts fully supporting what I have been saying on here for years; the ACA that was passed is NOT the one presented by the Obama Administration; and in fact many of the very components of it that you have been wanting to crucify the POTUS over were, in fact, injected into the bill by members of congress.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

[me]

Hobby Lobby pays above min wage.  The women are getting the same coverage as far as birth control as they were getting before.  The wooosh happens, in this case, to be over your head not mine. 

I see you are going to post this repeatedly until someone, likely me since I was the first one you posted it to, responds. With that in mind, be sure to read this very carefully, because this may be a bit complex for you to digest. I will be brief in order to allow you the best opportunity at success in comprehending my position on your repeated responses to the issue:


"WOOOOOOOOSH"!

[Palehorse]

Again. . .


"WOOOOOOOOSH"!

[The Troll]

Again. . .


"WOOOOOOOOSH"!

  You Republican Dingbats are bat shit crazy.  You don't have a Jesus bone in your foolish and simple minds and bodies. 

  Just where in your Bible that states that birth control is a sin.       Hell, the dumb asses back then didn't know anything about birth control.  Let us      FOOLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[The Troll]

  And to think the 5 nuts on the Supreme Court are suppose to be some of the smartest Republican in the country.   

[Palehorse]

. . .
In reading the full decision I am now fully certain that when, not if, a corporation owned by a small number of extremist muslims begins imposing upon its employees Sharia  Law, (Something you ultra conservative zealots have been crying wolf about for the last 6 years and laying at the POTUS's feet), this very same court will now be forced, based upon the very precedent this decision handed down today sets, to uphold it.

. . .
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf

So how about the fact that Catholicism forbids birth control in any way shape or form? Nothing save for the withdrawal method is acceptable to the Catholic faith surrounding birth control.

So now when a predominately held corporation owned by those claiming to be of a strict catholic faith, wants to eliminate all forms of birth control from the healthcare plans of its employees, it now has legal precedent to do so without fear of any legal ramifications what-so-ever?

Yep.

And then, let us consider the fact that increasingly, corporations are moving toward those high deductible plans that ensure that the first 4-8k of medical expenses each and every year come directly out of the pockets of their employees, without the corporation incurring one red cent in expenditures. Additionally, the costs for coverage are increasingly seeing the burden shifted to the employees themselves; with many incurring a monthly premium of 600 dollars a month or more just for the so called "coverage" the insurance provides.

And yet, these corporations feel entitled to their "religiosity" exemptions despite the fact it imposes those religious claims upon each and every employee of the corporations? Tripe, pure and simple. Nothing more than a legal maneuver designed to limit their financial liabilities at a cost to the quality of the lives of their employees; all the while fattening up an already healthy bottom line, while their employees sink into the pit of poverty that widens each and every day.

A Catholic church that harbors and abets serial child molesters. . .