[PublicAnimalNo9]

redhatmamma redhatmamma:

Hobby Lobby pays it's employees twice the min. wage with a generous benefit package. The ruling is fairly narrow in that it only applies to family businesses, not to giants such as Walmart.

Considering H.L. pays for 16/20 contraceptives they are not saying they won't pay for birth control. They are not wanting to pay for 4 types of b/c they and others consider to be 'abortifacients'. It's debatable and arguably they are not, but they and many people do believe that. IMO it's ridiculous but they believe it and don't want to pay for it... Actually some people believe the 'pill' is also an 'abortifaciant' that's how extreme they can get.

Even Hilary Clinton misunderstood the ruling.


BTW, the S.C. rules that corporations are 'persons'

The sad thing is, it's impossible for a corporation to be a 'person'. It's entirely possible to punch a person in the face. It's utterly impossible to do so to a corporation.
But if corporations truly are 'people', then it should be a criminal matter when they steal from me just like it is if I steal from them, not a 'civil' matter.

[N_Fiddledog]

[DrCaleb]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

But if corporations truly are 'people', then it should be a criminal matter when they steal from me just like it is if I steal from them, not a 'civil' matter.

I think that's the angle people are missing here. The rights of Corporations trump the rights of Citizens with this decision.

How is that a good thing?

[redhatmamma]

It's not, but that's the S.C. for you. However, IMO the ruling is not as bad as some people are making out. HL was not saying they had religions objections to contraception and they do cover birth control, it’s only 4 they believe are ‘abortifacients’. That is definitely debatable, but those four I believe can be quite expensive so eliminating them could lower their insurance premiums I would think.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

The rights of Corporations trump the rights of Citizens with this decision.

No, the rights of the citizens who own a corporation trump the authority of government to tell them they have to do things that violate their conscience.

If you read the majority decision you'll see they were careful to define the case as being about the rights of the small group of people who own the corporation and not about the rights of the corporation itself.

That's why this decision can apply to Wal Mart or Hobby Lobby (both firms are over 50% family run) but not to corporations like General Motors, Union Pacific, Microsoft, or etc.

If it were about the rights of corporations then it would apply to all corporations.

But it doesn't.

Now, stop watching CBC all the time because it rots your brain.

[N_Fiddledog]

It's like Megan says. The ruling affects 90% of the corporations that affect 50% of employees, but it's only those with closely held religious beliefs who are permitted the limitation to the government control.

At that point how many are affected and how cold and impersonal are the corporations if religious beliefs are a criteria to the limitation?

It's a limitation where a small amount of companies with closely held religious beliefs at the top can't be forced to supply abortifacients (not all birth control) to their female employees. Nothing changes. There's a new limitation.

At that point, so what? What's the big deal?

[karra]

$1:

The US Supreme Court has a bad case of being beaten with a Stupid stick.

Well, here's the thing - the members of the SCC don't get to put their personal slant on this or anything else that comes before them - their job, and their only job, is to interpret and uphold the law - that's it.

In this particular case - the justices were called to judge whether a mandate pushed out by the Obama administration in 2012 was in conflict with another law - the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, that was added to the books in 1992.

So, for those loitering in the dark, damp places they know and love so very well - to suggest, as Harry Reid did yesterday, that these nine lawyers (not doctors or teachers) five of whom are male - that the male members of the SCC not render a legal opinion on things female is totally bile inducing.

The rancor emanating from the fools on the left is based on a constant and perpetual state of ignorance - at best - which leads one to ask: Who exactly is being beaten with a Stupid stick?

[N_Fiddledog]

karra karra:

In this particular case - the justices were called to judge whether a mandate pushed out by the Obama administration in 2012 was in conflict with another law - the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, that was added to the books in 1992.

So, for those loitering in the dark, damp places they know and love so very well - to suggest, as Harry Reid did yesterday, that these nine lawyers (not doctors or teachers) five of whom are male - that the male members of the SCC not render a legal opinion on things female is totally bile inducing.

Yes, and here's a "Woman" trying to explain to the wacky left that the slippery slope argument where say, Christian Scientists could deny all healthcare does not apply in this ruling, because as you say, it relies on Bill Clinton's religious rights restoration act which would not allow that.



In fact speaking of stupid, it's like Dana, sometimes says, "The stupid here...it burns".

[bootlegga]

[DrCaleb]

^^

[BartSimpson]

If John Oliver said the same sh*t about a moslem firm in the UK he'd be tossed in a UK prison for hate speech.

That said, DILLIGAF about what John Oliver has to say about this?

[N_Fiddledog]

On the subject of actual information though, remember earlier in this thread where Mother Jones was presented as some sort of credible source, cause there's links within the link you see, and they say Hobby Lobby are hypocrites, because they invested in abortifacient companies, don't ja know?

Well, not a surprise really, but once investigated it turns out that claim is just another example of partisan Hooey pulled out the corporate butt hole of Mother Jones.

It wasn't Hobby Lobby that made the investments.

Start at 1:30.

http://www.971talk.com/media/podcasts/j ... ana-show-3

[Thanos]

So you find some TeaBircher hate radio station to use as a counterpoint? Ha! You're a regular stand-up comedian you are.

[BartSimpson]

Duelin_Dalt Duelin_Dalt:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

If John Oliver said the same sh*t about a moslem firm in the UK he'd be tossed in a UK prison for hate speech.

Bullshit. You're an idiot.

No, you're just ignorant of the Hate Speech laws of the United Kingdom.

[N_Fiddledog]

Thanos Thanos:

So you find some TeaBircher hate radio station to use as a counterpoint? Ha! You're a regular stand-up comedian you are.

Ah...I was waiting for you. You should have known it was a trap when the door was open.

Sorry, no sympathy.

OK remember when we were discussing Mother Jones, and you were telling me how even though your Mother Jones was a biased site it didn't matter, because unlike anything I might link to, Mother Jones posts other links to references supporting their information?

Remember how I told you there was a certain amount of bullshit in that claim?

OK sit back. I'm going to prove it.

Now if you had actually allowed Dana to educate you, instead of clicking off your ears and working on your next bit demagoguery, you would have noticed she also gave a reference.

Here it is. Click below.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanellis/2 ... nt-rights/

Oh, and thanks for playing.