Gay Marriage

[Ms Tree]

I think Ginsburg makes some very valid points.  What exactly does 'closely held' mean?  She cited a company that has over 140k employees that would qualify to be labeled as such.  I guess it follows that since a company is a person that it can also hold a religious belief.  I wonder how the Pope will give it communion or baptize it?  What religious belief will be next on the hit parade?  Transfusions?  Physiology?  Non-natural child birth?
 

Would the exemption the Court holds RFRA demands for employers with religiously grounded objections to the use of certain contraceptives extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations (Christian Scientists, among others)?
 

 
 
Interesting to also note the religious affiliation and gender of the Justices and which way they voted.  I think this was very very bad law.
 
One more reason to get away from corporate health care and go to single payer.

 

[PHXConx]

Not sure I would.  The decision the majority just made in regards to the Hobby Lobby's law suit is pretty sketchy.  They opened the flood gates for all sorts of religious exemptions.  Reading Ginsburg's dissent is pretty interesting.

it did not, in fact the first amendment did that this ruling runs only with the RFRA...
 
the religious freedom restoration act, sponsored by Chuck Schumer (D NY) passed the house (which this was prior to the republican takeover in 1994) unanimously.  Passed the Senate 97-3. and signed into law by Bill clinton...  
 
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:HR01308😡@@R
 
this wasnt a new interpretation of the first amendment this was enforcing a law passed by congress...
 
and this ruling is only about the Contraceptive mandate..
 
It was such a narrow ruling 
 
here Alito writes for the majority 
 

"This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discriminationas a religious practice. United States v. Lee, 455 U. S. 252, which upheld the payment of Social Security taxes despite an employer’s religious objection, is not analogous. It turned primarily on the special problems associated with a national system of taxation; and if Lee were a RFRA case, the fundamental point would still be that there isno less restrictive alternative to the categorical requirement to pay taxes. Here, there is an alternative to the contraceptive mandate."

 
 
This ruling is so narrow you couldn't drive a prius through it...

 

[PHXConx]

I think Congress approved Obamacare, and the Supreme Court upheld it.

supreme court upheld most of it...

 

[PHXConx]

So where did you get your constitutional law degree?
 
Seems I would trust SCOTUS before you.

you mean the same people that upheld jim crow and poll taxes for decades?  

 

[Ms Tree]

it did not, in fact the first amendment did that this ruling runs only with the RFRA...
 
the religious freedom restoration act, sponsored by Chuck Schumer (D NY) passed the house (which this was prior to the republican takeover in 1994) unanimously.  Passed the Senate 97-3. and signed into law by Bill clinton...  
 
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:HR01308😡@@R
 
this wasnt a new interpretation of the first amendment this was enforcing a law passed by congress...
 
and this ruling is only about the Contraceptive mandate..
 
It was such a narrow ruling 
 
here Alito writes for the majority 
 

"This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs. Nor does it provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discriminationas a religious practice. United States v. Lee, 455 U. S. 252, which upheld the payment of Social Security taxes despite an employer’s religious objection, is not analogous. It turned primarily on the special problems associated with a national system of taxation; and if Lee were a RFRA case, the fundamental point would still be that there isno less restrictive alternative to the categorical requirement to pay taxes. Here, there is an alternative to the contraceptive mandate."

 
 
This ruling is so narrow you couldn't drive a prius through it...

I'm sure you'll understand when I say I'll take Ginsburg's opinion over yours.  She does have just a little more experience on the bench than you do.  She said you can drive a truck through the hole.

 

[Ms Tree]

Well, that did not take to long.  Seventy two hours to be exact.
 
Wheaton College asks for exemption in regards to birth control.
 

The dissenters also accused the majority of going back on its word in the Hobby Lobby situation.  The Court had relied upon the availability of birth control services through alternative means as a reason to justify giving for-profit businesses an exemption from the mandate.  By compelling the government to make a further accommodation to Wheaton College, the dissenting opinion said, the Court “retreats from the position” that the alternative was sufficient.
“That action,” Justice Sotomayor wrote for the dissenters, “evinces disregard for even the newest of this Court’s precedents and undermines confidence in this institution.”
 

 
 
What was used to justify the Hobby Lobby exemption is now not sufficient for Wheaton.  WTF?  Apparently that alternative to the mandate that Alito used to justify the decision in Hobby Lobby is not legal for Wheaton.  
 
That Prius just got a whole lot bigger.

 

[PHXConx]

Well, that did not take to long.  Seventy two hours to be exact.
 
Wheaton College asks for exemption in regards to birth control.
 
 
 
What was used to justify the Hobby Lobby exemption is now not sufficient for Wheaton.  WTF? 
 
That Prius just got a whole lot bigger.

this case has nothing to do witih hobby lobby because hobby lobby is a  for profit company 
 
thats why the hobby lobby case as so narrow.  
 
this case though it has to deal with the contraceptive mandate is totally different because wheaton college falls under an entirely different classication when it comes to religious non-profits which is different in the eyes of the ACA.
 
comparing apples to oranges doesnt make the prius any  wider

 

[PHXConx]

the court did a similar injunction last december  for the little sisters of the poor...  long before hobby lobby decision 
 
there are still over 80 lawsuits working their way through the courts just because hobby lobby was first to be ruled on.. doesnt mean that the rest of them lose their day in court.
 
it also doesnt mean that its the "start" of something... hobby lobby was only the start because it was the first to recieve a decision from the court... to say it didnt take long is only a manner of timing from the court not that its a new flood of cases 

 

[Ms Tree]

this case has nothing to do witih hobby lobby because hobby lobby is a  for profit company 
 
thats why the hobby lobby case as so narrow.  
 
this case though it has to deal with the contraceptive mandate is totally different because wheaton college falls under an entirely different classication when it comes to religious non-profits which is different in the eyes of the ACA.
 
comparing apples to oranges doesnt make the prius any  wider

Impressive that you think you are smarter than Kagen, Sotomayor and Ginsburg.  Alito used the work around for non-profits as one of his justifications for the decison in Hobby Lobby.  

 

[signals]

You realize the US legal system is a bit different from the rest of the world right?

Actually...A Republic is a Republic and the laws are pretty much the same. I laugh at this Republic's claim that allows people to believe that we are a "Democracy" and the 'people' elect the president.

 

[PHXConx]

 Alito used the work around for non-profits as one of his justifications for the decison in Hobby Lobby.  

thats what i said you just arent smart enough to catch on...
 
or you are being purposely obtuse...

 

[SparrowHawk]

Hmmm, Gay Marriage and Birth Control?? How does that work? Immaculate Conception?

 

[dorfner]

I'm sure you'll understand when I say I'll take Ginsburg's opinion over yours.  She does have just a little more experience on the bench than you do.  She said you can drive a truck through the hole.

 
Surely we do, Sir. 

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

Another example of the gay agenda, normalizing gay marriage.
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/16/anna-paquin-biseuxal_n_5591364.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular
 
While on HuffPost Live this week, Paquin discussed the reaction to this viral tweet, as well as her own personal views on how the normalization of queer identity will lead to a better world for the community as a whole.
 
The reason I feel like it's important to talk about this stuff is that the more normal and, frankly, mundane and boring this stuff becomes the better it's going to be for everybody who is part of our community."
 
Desensitization, Jamming, Conversion.

 

[Glenn Quagmire]

Stop obsessing over the gays. It leads to abnormal behavior.