I am not sure what your question is? I like the US. I do not like anything I know about Obama's philosophy or policies. I find myself in a similar place with respect to Oregon. All true Are there better places to live? Perhaps, Iceland or New Zealand as suggested to me. Iceland is out, too cold, New Zealand, far too liberal and immigration is screwing it up rappidly. Dang near all the South Pacific has the right to go to New Zealand. But I am not sure what you ask.
Come on, you're playing dumb Denny, I know you're not that dense. All of Crandc's questions were addressing the question of whether or not a person or organization should be able to bypass a law, to the detriment of another party, in the name of religion. This is exactly what happened in this case. Why should it apply to contraception if it doesn't apply to those other things? Now that this precedent has been set, what justification would they have for refusing the things Crandc mentioned? What was irrelevant was your post about how much birth control costs.
She's not talking about having the right to buy a cheeseburger, she's talking about OTHER PEOPLE imposing THEIR religious beliefs onto you. If we make adjustments in our laws for some whacko religion, that violates the principal of separation of church and state. Especially if we only do it for certain religions.
All crandc's questions were bullshit. The court didn't rule on any of them. Nobody is bypassing any law. Should congress and/or the president stomp on our constitutional rights? You're acting like you don't give a shit if they do. One day it will be a republican doing it and I'll be laughing at your change of heart.
The court ruling is not denying anyone birth control or allowing anyone else to deny it. You've got your panties in a bunch over imaginary issues.
In fact, read this. http://thefederalist.com/2014/06/30/6-stupid-arguments-about-hobby-lobby-from-dumb-liberals/
The Hobby Lobby did not impose their beliefs on anyone else. They simply want the business to have the freedom to choose how the business spends the money that the business is required by law to spend. None of crandc's examples are analogous to this situation.
Tweets? Arguing via tweets about a court case is just absurd. It's a little more complicated than that. barfo
Tweets have words to them. You read them one at a time from left to right. The person who wrote the words is included with the text. Feel free to try again. Maybe you'll understand how it works the second try.
I think you answered it, my question was simply: What country do you think would serve you well, since this one is so distasteful? What state do you think would serve you well, since Oregon is so distasteful?
When the SCOTUS starts issuing their opinions in tweets, I guess tweets will be a good way to argue the merits of the case. Until then, I'm going to continue to think that tweeting about a court decision is dumbing the subject down to the point it loses meaning. barfo
I don't know if someone already mentioned it, but already scouts has changed their effective ruling to ALL forms of birth control.http://motherjones.com/politics/2014/07/supreme-court-scotus-hobby-lobby-all-forms-contraception
Interesting answer. As a "Libertarian", you are perfectly willing to tell government to MYOB. But when it comes to an individual bullying another and imposing their beliefs on them....that's OK. Even the Constitution needs to be read with common sense. You can't have "freedom OF religion" unless you also have "freedom FROM religion". I don't even claim to be an atheist and I understand that. In a vacum, this decision may strike you as harmless. In context, it is the court starting down a very dangerous road.
A) That description also applies to the employees' wages. There is nothing in this decision to differentiate the two. B) Individuals have freedom of religion. Applying that to a corporation is absurd.
A) What is at issue here is the type of item that is provided. Insurance is being provided; the employer wants to be permitted to determine the type of insurance, within the framework of the law. How can that correlate to wages, specifically with regard to religious liberty? B) This only applies to closely-held corporations, ie, those privately held by very few individuals. Mandating that a small business owner must abandon their religious principles in order to obtain the protections of incorporating sounds like a violation of the equal protection act.
Totally wrong. Their whole argument centered around freedom of religion. Businesses have to abide by the law, and whether you agree with it or not, the contraception aspect was apart of the law until it was over-turned on RELIGIOUS grounds.
The democrats who disagree with the decision are writing the tweets. And sinobas and crandc are repeating them here.
As a libertarian, I don't think we should have laws that force people to do what they don't want to do, period. Employment is a voluntary situation. Don't like the benefits, go work somewhere else.
