The Glade 4.0

Also: BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/0 ... 70279.html

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

that's wrong. That's being a hypocrite. I don't deny it, or excuse it. It doesn't somehow make the fundamentals of the argument any less valid as the Constitution doesn't say "so long as you aren't being a hypocrite." and they aren't the only ones with a claim.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Its not about religion. Its about money, and who's in office.

Personally, I think its time we start taxing churches. There's a lot of revenue left on the table there, and if they want to participate in government, they need to chip in

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Not for everyone, Mus.

I'm game if you are. Let's tax Peta, Greenpeace, BSA, planned parenhood, ACORN ACLU, NAACP, GLAD, also, right?

Remember, my ideal tax solution is the fair tax. If churches had to pay consumption on their purchases, I'd be hunky dory so long as it ALL non profits.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Absolutely. Everyone pays if they want a voice. It would be especially delicious to tax the nutjobs as well as... um... the other nutjobs.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Given the choice between tax exempt and the truth, I'll take the truth every time.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Adorable: http://www.avclub.com/article/rick-sant ... -ho-206407

There is a shocking low amount of that in our government.

Perhaps that's why only 7% of the population trusts Congress, and only 30% or so the President and USSC.

Personally, I'm shocked those numbers are *that* high.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

If this means he'll be too busy to run for President again, I'm all for it.

Hey look at that we managed to find some common ground. And you were worried about this thread. /brohoof

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

Except for the fact that the ruling is, you know, excellent. The ruling stated that the government needed to use the least intrusive means to mandate contraception coverage, and that it had failed to do so. The same method to exempt not-for-profit charities from needing to provide contraceptive coverage (and it isn't even all contraceptives, just the abortificant ones) could have been used for for-profit corporations but wasn't, and the government was unable to articulate any good reason why.

In other words, it was a ruling against Obamacare and for smaller (albiet only in a minor way) government. But, it wasn't a ruling against the religious folks, so that must not be important.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

We live in a country that allows freedom of religion to everyone. The problem is that the nonreligious people think that amounts to an entitlement to ahve their way in everything. You don't get to use "**** your religion" as an argument. That isn't a reason.



Corporations were legally persons well before Citizens United under Title 1 of the United States Code. Furthermore, it is certainly their business what they're being forced to pay for, since it's you know, a tax.



Whaaaa!! I guess you were in favor of Free Speech Zones at presidential rallies too?

Whether or not a fetus is a baby is a matter of public debate. They aren't allowed INSIDE the clinics, so they aren't "harassing people whose procedure is none of their business"; they're protesting a matter of public policy they disagree with. People have a right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.



The only thing shit-tastic here is the idea that people need to be protected from the religion of the majority. And there's the problem. "Because Jesus" isn't a reason for the court to just de facto rule against religious freedom. These rulings are good. Every time the court stomps on the faces of the people that think the First Amendment is bludgeon to restrict beliefs they don't like, it's a good thing.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Except that they aren't, which you'd know if you read the decision instead of just ranting about "Because Jesus" like a fanatic. The court pointed out that employees of non-profits get these contraceptives without the employer providing them, and without paying extra themselves. They get them because the provider of insurance would rather pay for them than a baby.

That system could also be used for for-profit corps held by religious people, and would be less intrusive for them without affecting employees. The decision explains at length, so let's quite pretending that they're passing the cost to the employees.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Besides the fact that it's protected by the First Amendment?

This is why. If it wasn't, people like you, Mus, and a few others around here would use any excuse to impose government burdens on it. Because Atheism.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Unfortunately for you, what you want is your brand of neanderthaling to trump everyone else's, and you want the government to trample on major rights (freedom of religion) in favor of a minor one (less-costly access to very specific types of birth control)

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Yaye! The Supreme Court once again favors giving corporations more power. Yaye!
**** the workers!

I'm not the one with outdated and credulous beliefs in an imaginary being.

But that's ok, you belong to the Christian Majority so you see no problem with the USSC shoving religiosity down the rest of our throats. Because Jesus.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

I'm not an atheist. I just have issues with the concept of a "very specific God." There's a world of difference between believing in a benevolent higher power and being absolutely sure that, based on someone else's interpretation of 2000+ year old documents, that God will be very angry with you if you operate a light switch on Saturdays.

Regardless, in a previous thread you tried to convince me that religions don't get special treatment. The fact is, they do, and these kind of special privileges are disturbing. What happens when some Jehovah's witnesses that own a business file a lawsuit saying that since their religion prohibits them from having close associations with nonbelievers, they should be allowed to only hire other JWs and that it's unconstitutional for religion to be a protected class. Why is this argument different from the one that just succeeded? Now all of a sudden being Christian is a prerequisite for being hired in this country, because you know a lot of companies would jump on that.

It's their business. I don't agree but you don't have the right to work for a specific company.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

So, can we tax Church of the American Liberal and their Religious Adherence to Political Non-Issues as Indicators of American Social Health? In other words, can we tax the people who disagree with the Hobby Lobby decision because of their own willful ignorance of facts and the realities behind the decision?

If the three dissenting justices in the decision are all women and led by Ruth Bader Ginsberg, then perhaps you have to look at this issue for what it is: gender politics writ large and on an issue for which no further political progress can be made given the necessity of reproductive politics as a motivating factor. Nevermind that the Court came to the right decision: your corporation is your property and you have protected rights relative to your property. More importantly, the Court simply ruled that prescription abortifacients were not covered by the intent or wording of the Afford Care Act. Actual conception preventing birth control wasn't even part of the discussion. They literally wanted just an exemption for abortifacient birth control: that is, post conception birth control.

But you guys get all up in arms and think this is a women's rights issue, when no rights of the woman are being abridge or abrogated in any way.

As for the Corporations are People Thing -- They always have been. Collective bargaining goes both ways; free association goes both ways. Just because I'm a business owner or majority stakeholder in a company does not remove me from the ability to collectively bargain and the ability to choose who my associates are. So, just to remind you ...

_________________

Too bad you didn't read the ruling ...

The Supreme Court said big corporations (the AFL-CIO and other large unions) could not require Union dues be paid by non-union employees. In other words, the big corporation cannot tax non-affiliated individuals.

Please, arm yourself with facts before you spout nonsense.

_________________

Except for the barrier methods, all forms of birth control will cause an abortion some percentage of the time. The birth control pill is not 100% in preventing ovulation, but it will still prevent implantation even if ovulation and fertilization occur.

Not at all Xeq. "Not wanting to" for ANY reason is a valid reason to not provide certain treatments because the government shouldn't be involved in private compensation contracts AT ALL.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Rights were upheld in the ACA related ruling and no rights were violated. You can choose to work for Hobby Lobby or not to, you can choose to partake in their healthcare plan or not, you can choose to obtain more/other healthcare outside of what Hobby Lobby offers if you want to.

The only thing that changed is the government wasn't trying to force people to fund things that go against their convictions.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

All the rulings advanced liberty because it advanced the amount individuals control their own lives. You may not like it but this doesn't mean it doesn't advance liberty.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Again, normal hormonal birth controls were not part of the decision's scope or arguments. You're making a non-point. Mainstream monthly, tri-monthly, and bi-monthly hormonal regulators were not up for discussion and were not broached as part of the complaint by Hobby Lobby. That said, those drugs are not on-their-face abortifacients; abortifacient effects can happen but are statistically and medically improbable. The drugs in question are abortifacients by intent.

_________________