Supremes got it right

[silverscreenselect]

But for you and others it's not about better wages or a better quality of life, as you claim. It's about abortion. Period.

Yes, you are the true hypocrite. Fed by ignorance of who and what you are fighting against or what you are truly fighting for. It is your mirror with problems.

It's not about "abortion" period. It's about a person's rights to determine what they do with their own body. Not mine. Not yours. Not Hobby Lobby. Not the legislature of the State of Texas.

And no matter how well you pay someone, it doesn't give you the right to dictate that.

[tlynn78]

But for you and others it's not about better wages or a better quality of life, as you claim. It's about abortion. Period.

Yes, you are the true hypocrite. Fed by ignorance of who and what you are fighting against or what you are truly fighting for. It is your mirror with problems.

It's not about "abortion" period. It's about a person's rights to determine what they do with their own body. Not mine. Not yours. Not Hobby Lobby. Not the legislature of the State of Texas.

And no matter how well you pay someone, it doesn't give you the right to dictate that.

They can still make any choice they want. They just can't force their employer to pay for poor choices. But hey, don't let facts color your vision.

[silverscreenselect]

But for you and others it's not about better wages or a better quality of life, as you claim. It's about abortion. Period.

Actually, it's not about abortion, since Obamacare provided an opt-out for abortion in order to get the approval of some of the more conservative House Democrats. It's about contraception. The FDA has approved 20 different types of contraception and companies are supposed to include coverage for those under essential health benefits. Hobby Lobby objected to four of those as "morning after" pills that could prevent the development of a fertilized embryo. Other religious groups have their own readings of what are and are not permissible types of contraception and would exclude more types of contraception.

[silverscreenselect]

They can still make any choice they want. They just can't force their employer to pay for poor choices. But hey, don't let facts color your vision.

If they choose to smoke, their employer has to pay for the medical result of poor choices.

If they choose to overeat like crazy, their employer has to pay for the medical result of poor choices.

If they choose to go skateboarding without proper safety gear (or in my case, go skateboarding, period), their employer has to pay for the medical result of poor choices.

[Weyoun]

They can still make any choice they want. They just can't force their employer to pay for poor choices. But hey, don't let facts color your vision.

If they choose to smoke, their employer has to pay for the medical result of poor choices.

If they choose to overeat like crazy, their employer has to pay for the medical result of poor choices.

If they choose to go skateboarding without proper safety gear (or in my case, go skateboarding, period), their employer has to pay for the medical result of poor choices.

ACTUALLY that's a bad idea, since companies have and do test for nicotine, do strong incentivize/push employees into weight loss programs, and so forth... I am not really sure you want to go down the rabbit hole of "the employer has to pay for bad choices" because it opens the door to "the employer gets to regulate one's private life."

Anyway, from a legal point of view, this was a gimme case. LOL at the political left, which used to be the refuge for people of conscience.

[Bob78164]

Anyway, from a legal point of view, this was a gimme case. LOL at the political left, which used to be the refuge for people of conscience.

This case was no gimme. There is a very strong (and in my view correct) argument that for-profit entities are not entitled to the benefits of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. --Bob

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Anyway, from a legal point of view, this was a gimme case. LOL at the political left, which used to be the refuge for people of conscience.

This case was no gimme. There is a very strong (and in my view correct) argument that for-profit entities are not entitled to the benefits of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. --Bob

If you started at the very beginning of the United State Code what does 1 USC Section 1 say?

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise—
words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things;
words importing the plural include the singular;
words importing the masculine gender include the feminine as well;
words used in the present tense include the future as well as the present;
the words “insane” and “insane person” shall include every idiot, insane person, and person non compos mentis;
the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;
“officer” includes any person authorized by law to perform the duties of the office;
“signature” or “subscription” includes a mark when the person making the same intended it as such;
“oath” includes affirmation, and “sworn” includes affirmed;
“writing” includes printing and typewriting and reproductions of visual symbols by photographing, multigraphing, mimeographing, manifolding, or otherwise.

[Bob78164]

Anyway, from a legal point of view, this was a gimme case. LOL at the political left, which used to be the refuge for people of conscience.

This case was no gimme. There is a very strong (and in my view correct) argument that for-profit entities are not entitled to the benefits of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. --Bob

If you started at the very beginning of the United State Code what does 1 USC Section 1 say?

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise—
words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things;
words importing the plural include the singular;
words importing the masculine gender include the feminine as well;
words used in the present tense include the future as well as the present;
the words “insane” and “insane person” shall include every idiot, insane person, and person non compos mentis;
the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;
“officer” includes any person authorized by law to perform the duties of the office;
“signature” or “subscription” includes a mark when the person making the same intended it as such;
“oath” includes affirmation, and “sworn” includes affirmed;
“writing” includes printing and typewriting and reproductions of visual symbols by photographing, multigraphing, mimeographing, manifolding, or otherwise.

Fixed that for you. --Bob

[mrkelley23]

If anyone's interested in a non-inflammatory, non-pandering, but still analytical essay on the decision

I would doubt anyone here would be interested in such a foreign beast....

lb13

What can I say? When you're right, you're right.

[earendel]

If anyone's interested in a non-inflammatory, non-pandering, but still analytical essay on the decision

I would doubt anyone here would be interested in such a foreign beast....

lb13

What can I say? When you're right, you're right.

FWIW I was interested and read the article.

[mrkelley23]

I would doubt anyone here would be interested in such a foreign beast....

lb13

What can I say? When you're right, you're right.

FWIW I was interested and read the article.

(smiling) Yes, just as with most places that allow public comment, the extremes on each side tend to dominate the discussion, don't they?

There were two points in this article that struck me, as I hadn't considered them before. First, that this was a completely statutory decision, not Constitutional. And most of it was based on the RFRA, which was ratified in 1993, when one Mr. Clinton was president. I'm sure others have already noted that, but this article was the first I had come across that spelled it out for me. If you don't like a statutory Supreme Court decision, folks, there's a way to fix it: elect Congresscritters who will write the laws the way you want them. Unfortunately, there are precious few of these any more who will listen to little folks, and since the Tea Party seems to be the only entity with the ballz to vote out anyone, that's not likely to change. And yes, I understand that this law was produced by the first Contract with America Congress, but Clinton still signed it.

Second, the author points out that this decision opens the door for much scarier stuff. I don't know how slippery this slope will turn out to be, but given that this author is in the business of advising religious groups on the law, and he basically tells them it's okay now for religious groups to organize as if you were a corporation, as long as you don't declare a profit; and for corporations to form quasi-religious entities to get religious exemptions, scares me much more than some women having to go through some extra paperwork to get 4 types of contraception covered under their insurance policies.

[littlebeast13]

If anyone's interested in a non-inflammatory, non-pandering, but still analytical essay on the decision

I would doubt anyone here would be interested in such a foreign beast....

lb13

What can I say? When you're right, you're right.

This realist calls them as he sees them....

lb13

[Bob78164]

There were two points in this article that struck me, as I hadn't considered them before. First, that this was a completely statutory decision, not Constitutional. And most of it was based on the RFRA, which was ratified in 1993, when one Mr. Clinton was president. I'm sure others have already noted that . . . .

Some in this very thread.

I'd like to think that my posting on this topic has been reasoned and considered, rather than knee-jerk reactionary, so I was a little concerned by your initial take on this thread. I'm now strongly suspecting that you simply didn't read my posts. --Bob

[Bob Juch]

But for you and others it's not about better wages or a better quality of life, as you claim. It's about abortion. Period.

Yes, you are the true hypocrite. Fed by ignorance of who and what you are fighting against or what you are truly fighting for. It is your mirror with problems.

It's not about "abortion" period. It's about a person's rights to determine what they do with their own body. Not mine. Not yours. Not Hobby Lobby. Not the legislature of the State of Texas.

And no matter how well you pay someone, it doesn't give you the right to dictate that.

They can still make any choice they want. They just can't force their employer to pay for poor choices. But hey, don't let facts color your vision.

Poor choices?! You think birth control is a poor choice? What the fuck right do you have to impose your beliefs on others?

[Beebs52]

It's not about "abortion" period. It's about a person's rights to determine what they do with their own body. Not mine. Not yours. Not Hobby Lobby. Not the legislature of the State of Texas.

And no matter how well you pay someone, it doesn't give you the right to dictate that.

They can still make any choice they want. They just can't force their employer to pay for poor choices. But hey, don't let facts color your vision.

Poor choices?! You think birth control is a poor choice? What the fuck right do you have to impose your beliefs on others?[/quote]

One could not ask for any more weirdly ironic two questions than that from you in this kind of thread.

[Beebs52]

I would doubt anyone here would be interested in such a foreign beast....

lb13

What can I say? When you're right, you're right.

This realist calls them as he sees them....

lb13

Do you really think this thread has been that vitriolic? Also, sometimes people actually have opinions, and they differ, and they discuss them, sometimes rudely, in these types of forums. I would like to not give a shit about some of this, but the reason our country is fucked in so many ways is because too many people don't give a shit about anything.

[tlynn78]

It's not about "abortion" period. It's about a person's rights to determine what they do with their own body. Not mine. Not yours. Not Hobby Lobby. Not the legislature of the State of Texas.

And no matter how well you pay someone, it doesn't give you the right to dictate that.

They can still make any choice they want. They just can't force their employer to pay for poor choices. But hey, don't let facts color your vision.

Poor choices?! You think birth control is a poor choice? What the fuck right do you have to impose your beliefs on others?

You're hysterical. Really. I don't think birth control is a poor choice, and you won't find where I said any such thing. I've actually used responsible birth control methods myself. I'm not surprised by your response, however.

[Bob Juch]

They can still make any choice they want. They just can't force their employer to pay for poor choices. But hey, don't let facts color your vision.

Poor choices?! You think birth control is a poor choice? What the fuck right do you have to impose your beliefs on others?

You're hysterical. Really. I don't think birth control is a poor choice, and you won't find where I said any such thing. I've actually used responsible birth control methods myself. I'm not surprised by your response, however.

Well that's certainly isn't what you said above.

[earendel]

Second, the author points out that this decision opens the door for much scarier stuff. I don't know how slippery this slope will turn out to be, but given that this author is in the business of advising religious groups on the law, and he basically tells them it's okay now for religious groups to organize as if you were a corporation, as long as you don't declare a profit; and for corporations to form quasi-religious entities to get religious exemptions, scares me much more than some women having to go through some extra paperwork to get 4 types of contraception covered under their insurance policies.

It's this that bothers me. Despite the efforts on the part of the majority to couch this in very narrow terms, it doesn't seem like they were successful. Only time will tell, however.

[mrkelley23]

There were two points in this article that struck me, as I hadn't considered them before. First, that this was a completely statutory decision, not Constitutional. And most of it was based on the RFRA, which was ratified in 1993, when one Mr. Clinton was president. I'm sure others have already noted that . . . .

Some in this very thread.

I'd like to think that my posting on this topic has been reasoned and considered, rather than knee-jerk reactionary, so I was a little concerned by your initial take on this thread. I'm now strongly suspecting that you simply didn't read my posts. --Bob

My apologies if you thought I was lumping you in on this topic, Bob. In fact, it was your posts on this topic that got me interested enough to read my friend's link on FB. Otherwise, I would've assumed it was just another topic to try to rile up the respective political bases which didn't affect me much. And while you did point out much of the stuff in my first concern above, I didn't in my little pea brain tie it in to an act that went all the way back to 1993.

But if you look at the posts that came between my quoting of the link and my response to lb, you can see the reason for my eyeroll. I only posted the link because it looked as if we might have a reasoned discussion on the issue, rather than descend to straw men and ad hominem attacks. That didn't happen, to say the least.

It's still more civil and reasoned than 99% of what I see on Twitter and FB, though.