I don’t get it. Where I live, there’s a Michaels just as close as Hobby Lobby. And that’s if you want a big chain. There’s plenty of smaller outlets. Apparently freedom of choice is complicated to many.
Look at it from the perspective of the Left: if people have choices, then they might choose incorrectly. So it is up to government to remove incorrect choices for the poor benighted peasantry.
I like the comment: “I’ll keep my rosaries off your ovaries if you’ll keep your vagina out of my wallet!”
The atheist community also seem to be going going goofy over it.
Atheists Decry Court’s Grant of Religious Rights to Corporations in Hobby Lobby
[[[“This is a disgrace and an indignity to Americans’ right to be protected from the abuses of other people’s religions,” said American Atheists President David Silverman. “Shame on the Supreme Court, which has effectively told Americans that if you can come up with a religious excuse, you are above the law. This is an injustice of the highest order for separation of religion and government, for equality, and for the constitutional protections guaranteed to all Americans.”]]]
We should ask that idiot how he feels about the rights of American Indians to use peyote.
The Supreme Court in Employment Division v Smith in an opinion authored
by Anton Scalia said ” Religious exercise does not allow you to skirt the law”
in barring the use of peyote as a religious excercise in the application for
unemployment benefits.
Hobby Lobby isn’t getting anything from the government and them providing health insurance to their employees isn’t a government benefit.
It’s funny, because I thought the RFRA was passed precisely because some Indians were blocked from using peyote in religious rituals.
The misinformation campaign has been intense.
It’s called motivating the base. Since they don’t have any real achievements they can use to get voters to the polls, they need some nice faux-outrage do the job. So it’s war on women time again.
In my own state of Colorado, I am seeing this first hand. The incumbent in the US Senate race has nothing he can claim that he did for the state. He can’t defend his vote on Obama-care, and he can’t explain how the economic policies he supported have actually helped people in the state. What he can do though, is point out that his opponent wanted to outlaw some types of birth control and make abortion illegal. It’s the only thing his campaign is able to talk about.
and he will win.
You say that like campaign tactics like that are a good thing. Not sure what we should expect from the party that said Republicans wanted to ban tampons and put black people back in slavery though.
Res ipsa loquitur – you can expect anything.
Given the relative anti-sex, puritanical scolds running around the GOP,
it’s not out of line to expect them to ban tampons and want to return to slavery.
Given the number of republicans who want the country to return to exactly
as it was during the Federalist era, it’s not impolite to point out that women, blacks
and minorities didn’t get to vote and that the bulk of the black population was
living in chains.
It’s no surprise that it’s very hard to sell this kind of attitude to women and black people. It’s okay, the party is mostly full of crazed tea baggers, so,
it’s rather amusing watching the party deal with the people they brought into the tent.
Given the relative anti-sex, puritanical scolds running around the GOP, it’s not out of line to expect them to ban tampons and want to return to slavery.
That is such a moronic comment it’s amazing that you even have the mental capacity to remember to breathe.
“it’s not impolite”
No, you’re right, it isn’t impolite. It stark raving batshit crazy.
Teabaggers, eh? Nice, anti-gay slur tossed right into the pile. I love how “liberals” betray themselves with their words. They’re the least tolerant people in the world. The facade is just a rhetorical device to get what they want.
“it’s not out of line to expect them to ban tampons and want to return to slavery.”
The party that was formed specifically to end slavery? That Republican Party? The one whose first elected President, Abraham Lincoln, abolished slavery? That Republican Party? The party that fought against Jim Crow laws, that Republican Party?
Bull Conner was a Democrat. So was George Wallace. You’re confused about which is the party of discrimination and slavery, and which party is the party of freedom and self-reliance.
No, corporations are not people. They are, however, free assemblies of people deserving the right to trials, due process, warrants, recompense for eminent domain … and thus basically all the rights as if they were people.
And if you’re honestly against that, then you won’t have a problem with me nationalizing the assets of a union or activist group or two.
Corporations are property not people.
Uhh no. Many corporations don’t own any property…
I understand people with poor education probably were never exposed to Latin.
Being the elitist you accuse me of, should I have had a classics education
in Latin and Greek, or should i be a proper rube and
speak Pig Latin?
Neither, given that you can barely manage English.
Nah dude, I don’t think you’re an elitist. You’re a moron, nothing more. I just think it is because you lacked a good education.
You are a progressive elitist. You think you are better than those schmucks who commute to work and pay their taxes and live in red states.
Those who read the classics can be progressive elitists or libertarian elitists.
The United States Code (U.S.C) Title 1, Chapter 1, is also known as the “Dictionary Act” defines “person” as including not only living, breathing human beings, but also legal “persons” such as corporations. Here is the relevant portion:
“In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise—
…
the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;”
…
And that is a holdover from literally thousands of years of common practice, dating back to the Roman Empire. The term “strawman” derives from this practice; a man made out of straw was the corporation. The “corp” part of the word means “body”.
“ou’re honestly against that, then you won’t have a problem with me nationalizing the assets of a union or activist group ”
People have a due process right in Property.
That doesn’t mean that Property has a liberty right in of itself.
The impotent tears of rage, apart from being delicious as ever, are especially incoherent this time — why is it so hard to understand that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (a law) trumps Kathleen Sebelius’s desire to require policies to cover contraception (not a law)? Do they want anarchy? Or, like children, just want what they want by any means necessary? Surely if the political football was in the other end-zone, they’d be scolding, “Tough! If you don’t like it, change the law!” Thus, I invite them to do likewise — repeal the RFRA and add contraceptive coverage to the ACA.
Elections have consequences.
And the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was written by Senator Chuck U. Schumer, D-NY. It passed with a solid bipartisan majority back when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton.
I just went online for the first time this day just a few minutes ago, and already I’ve gotten my big laugh of the day: Douchenozzle Guy as a member of an elite.
He’s probably in the top hundredth of a percent of asshats on the Internet.
This pretty much says it all:
http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=54263
I don’t get it. Where I live, there’s a Michaels just as close as Hobby Lobby. And that’s if you want a big chain. There’s plenty of smaller outlets. Apparently freedom of choice is complicated to many.
Look at it from the perspective of the Left: if people have choices, then they might choose incorrectly. So it is up to government to remove incorrect choices for the poor benighted peasantry.
I like the comment: “I’ll keep my rosaries off your ovaries if you’ll keep your vagina out of my wallet!”
The atheist community also seem to be going going goofy over it.
http://news.atheists.org/2014/06/30/atheists-decry-courts-grant-of-religious-rights-to-corporations-in-hobby-lobby/
Atheists Decry Court’s Grant of Religious Rights to Corporations in Hobby Lobby
[[[“This is a disgrace and an indignity to Americans’ right to be protected from the abuses of other people’s religions,” said American Atheists President David Silverman. “Shame on the Supreme Court, which has effectively told Americans that if you can come up with a religious excuse, you are above the law. This is an injustice of the highest order for separation of religion and government, for equality, and for the constitutional protections guaranteed to all Americans.”]]]
We should ask that idiot how he feels about the rights of American Indians to use peyote.
The Supreme Court in Employment Division v Smith in an opinion authored
by Anton Scalia said ” Religious exercise does not allow you to skirt the law”
in barring the use of peyote as a religious excercise in the application for
unemployment benefits.
Hobby Lobby isn’t getting anything from the government and them providing health insurance to their employees isn’t a government benefit.
It’s funny, because I thought the RFRA was passed precisely because some Indians were blocked from using peyote in religious rituals.
The misinformation campaign has been intense.
It’s called motivating the base. Since they don’t have any real achievements they can use to get voters to the polls, they need some nice faux-outrage do the job. So it’s war on women time again.
In my own state of Colorado, I am seeing this first hand. The incumbent in the US Senate race has nothing he can claim that he did for the state. He can’t defend his vote on Obama-care, and he can’t explain how the economic policies he supported have actually helped people in the state. What he can do though, is point out that his opponent wanted to outlaw some types of birth control and make abortion illegal. It’s the only thing his campaign is able to talk about.
and he will win.
You say that like campaign tactics like that are a good thing. Not sure what we should expect from the party that said Republicans wanted to ban tampons and put black people back in slavery though.
Res ipsa loquitur – you can expect anything.
Given the relative anti-sex, puritanical scolds running around the GOP,
it’s not out of line to expect them to ban tampons and want to return to slavery.
Given the number of republicans who want the country to return to exactly
as it was during the Federalist era, it’s not impolite to point out that women, blacks
and minorities didn’t get to vote and that the bulk of the black population was
living in chains.
It’s no surprise that it’s very hard to sell this kind of attitude to women and black people. It’s okay, the party is mostly full of crazed tea baggers, so,
it’s rather amusing watching the party deal with the people they brought into the tent.
Given the relative anti-sex, puritanical scolds running around the GOP, it’s not out of line to expect them to ban tampons and want to return to slavery.
That is such a moronic comment it’s amazing that you even have the mental capacity to remember to breathe.
“it’s not impolite”
No, you’re right, it isn’t impolite. It stark raving batshit crazy.
Teabaggers, eh? Nice, anti-gay slur tossed right into the pile. I love how “liberals” betray themselves with their words. They’re the least tolerant people in the world. The facade is just a rhetorical device to get what they want.
“it’s not out of line to expect them to ban tampons and want to return to slavery.”
The party that was formed specifically to end slavery? That Republican Party? The one whose first elected President, Abraham Lincoln, abolished slavery? That Republican Party? The party that fought against Jim Crow laws, that Republican Party?
Bull Conner was a Democrat. So was George Wallace. You’re confused about which is the party of discrimination and slavery, and which party is the party of freedom and self-reliance.
No, corporations are not people. They are, however, free assemblies of people deserving the right to trials, due process, warrants, recompense for eminent domain … and thus basically all the rights as if they were people.
And if you’re honestly against that, then you won’t have a problem with me nationalizing the assets of a union or activist group or two.
Corporations are property not people.
Uhh no. Many corporations don’t own any property…
I understand people with poor education probably were never exposed to Latin.
Being the elitist you accuse me of, should I have had a classics education
in Latin and Greek, or should i be a proper rube and
speak Pig Latin?
Neither, given that you can barely manage English.
Nah dude, I don’t think you’re an elitist. You’re a moron, nothing more. I just think it is because you lacked a good education.
You are a progressive elitist. You think you are better than those schmucks who commute to work and pay their taxes and live in red states.
Those who read the classics can be progressive elitists or libertarian elitists.
The United States Code (U.S.C) Title 1, Chapter 1, is also known as the “Dictionary Act” defines “person” as including not only living, breathing human beings, but also legal “persons” such as corporations. Here is the relevant portion:
“In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise—
…
the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;”
…
And that is a holdover from literally thousands of years of common practice, dating back to the Roman Empire. The term “strawman” derives from this practice; a man made out of straw was the corporation. The “corp” part of the word means “body”.
“ou’re honestly against that, then you won’t have a problem with me nationalizing the assets of a union or activist group ”
People have a due process right in Property.
That doesn’t mean that Property has a liberty right in of itself.
The impotent tears of rage, apart from being delicious as ever, are especially incoherent this time — why is it so hard to understand that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (a law) trumps Kathleen Sebelius’s desire to require policies to cover contraception (not a law)? Do they want anarchy? Or, like children, just want what they want by any means necessary? Surely if the political football was in the other end-zone, they’d be scolding, “Tough! If you don’t like it, change the law!” Thus, I invite them to do likewise — repeal the RFRA and add contraceptive coverage to the ACA.
Elections have consequences.
And the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was written by Senator Chuck U. Schumer, D-NY. It passed with a solid bipartisan majority back when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and signed into law by Bill Clinton.
I just went online for the first time this day just a few minutes ago, and already I’ve gotten my big laugh of the day: Douchenozzle Guy as a member of an elite.
He’s probably in the top hundredth of a percent of asshats on the Internet.