2 of 4
2
SCOTUS Abandons Sanity, Rules in Favor of Hobby Lobby
Posted: 01 July 2014 10:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7613
Joined  2007-03-02

I find it really sad and troublesome, even worse than that, when “religious rights/beliefs” trump Constitutional Rights of individuals/groups of people.  I really do hope we can change and even stop this in the very near future, because if we don’t/can’t where will it end?

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2014 10:22 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6159
Joined  2009-02-26
Mriana - 01 July 2014 10:13 AM

I find it really sad and troublesome, even worse than that, when “religious rights/beliefs” trump Constitutional Rights of individuals/groups of people.  I really do hope we can change and even stop this in the very near future, because if we don’t/can’t where will it end?

The problem is that reason cannot prevail here.  This is scripture and unalterable for any earthly reason.  Wars have been fought over these issues for centuriess.

 Signature 

Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind.
W4U

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2014 10:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7613
Joined  2007-03-02

That’s the other part that bothers me, because next the strict, far right, Jews and Muslims may start trying to claim “Jewish Rights” and “Islamic Rights”.  I can see that leading to several battles, not just in courts.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2014 12:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 19 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  364
Joined  2014-03-12
LoisL - 01 July 2014 10:01 AM

Right wingers want small government—just small enough to fit inside a woman’s uterus.

And, that all uterus’s are the sole property of the government.

 Signature 

“expectation is the mother of disappointment”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2014 12:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 20 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  364
Joined  2014-03-12
Write4U - 01 July 2014 10:22 AM
Mriana - 01 July 2014 10:13 AM

I find it really sad and troublesome, even worse than that, when “religious rights/beliefs” trump Constitutional Rights of individuals/groups of people.  I really do hope we can change and even stop this in the very near future, because if we don’t/can’t where will it end?

The problem is that reason cannot prevail here.  This is scripture and unalterable for any earthly reason.  Wars have been fought over these issues for centuriess.

Actually, scripture is constantly and conveniently re-interpreted to suit the the person, usually a man, preaching to his herd.

 Signature 

“expectation is the mother of disappointment”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2014 01:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 21 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7613
Joined  2007-03-02
Handydan - 01 July 2014 12:54 PM
Write4U - 01 July 2014 10:22 AM
Mriana - 01 July 2014 10:13 AM

I find it really sad and troublesome, even worse than that, when “religious rights/beliefs” trump Constitutional Rights of individuals/groups of people.  I really do hope we can change and even stop this in the very near future, because if we don’t/can’t where will it end?

The problem is that reason cannot prevail here.  This is scripture and unalterable for any earthly reason.  Wars have been fought over these issues for centuriess.

Actually, scripture is constantly and conveniently re-interpreted to suit the the person, usually a man, preaching to his herd.

That it is.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2014 06:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 22 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

Quoting Lois:

Right wingers want small government—just small enough to fit inside a woman’s uterus.

I think you’ve gotten it almost correct, Lois.  Except rather than ‘uterus’, I get the feeling that they would substitute ‘vagina’.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 01 July 2014 11:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 23 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  364
Joined  2014-03-12

I think all of this is most shocking because so many of us thought that a woman’s rights about their bodies had pretty much been settled. Not only do the rights of the unborn trump women’s rights, now the rights of the religious trump women’s rights. I really don’t believe for one second that any government would ever even consider telling a man what he can and can’t do with his own body.

In this time and this country, women are still somehow the property of men.

[ Edited: 01 July 2014 11:05 PM by Handydan ]
 Signature 

“expectation is the mother of disappointment”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2014 01:42 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 24 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  834
Joined  2014-06-20
Write4U - 30 June 2014 09:48 PM

If corporations have the same rights as individual people, I pose the question if individual people have all the rights of corporations?

I am not that familiar with law but it seems to me corporations enjoy certain priviliges designed to stimulate the economy.  Can individuals now claim all the rights and privileges which corporations enjoy?

I have a feeling that corporations enjoy greater freedoms and priviliges than individuals, which to me sounds unconstitutional.

The most important privilege corporations enjoy is that they can’t be incarcerated as individuals can be. No matter what is done in the name of a corporation, the only damages that can be awarded are monetary. That is a tremendous advantage to the people running corporations. The individuals in charge can go on to form another corporation that also gives them immunity to incarceration. Yes, individuals CAN be incarcerated for what they do under cover of corporate protection, but almost none face that punishment.  If they do it’s usually at a country club “prison”. Witness: The 2007 banking, mortgage and stock brokerage scandal.

Remember, corporations are protected by politicians.

 Signature 

[color=red“Nothing is so good as it seems beforehand.”
― George Eliot, Silas Marner[/color]

Profile
 
 
Posted: 02 July 2014 06:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 25 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  447
Joined  2012-02-02

This shit just gets better and better!  Christian leader Hobby Lobby has been funding for a decade accused of sexual harassment and described by fellow Christians as “anti-woman.”

For a decade or so, Hobby Lobby and its owners, the Green family, have been generous benefactors of a Christian ministry that until recently was run by Bill Gothard, a controversial religious leader who has long promoted a strict and authoritarian version of Christianity. Gothard, a prominent champion of Christian home-schooling, has decried the evils of dating, rock music, and Cabbage Patch dolls; claimed public education teaches children “how to commit suicide” and undermines spirituality; contended that mental illness is merely “varying degrees of irresponsibility”; and urged wives to “submit to the leadership” of their husbands. Critics of Gothard have associated him with Christian Reconstructionism, an ultrafundamentalist movement that yearns for a theocracy, and accused him of running a cultlike organization. In March, he was pressured to resign from his ministry, the Institute in Basic Life Principles, after being accused by more than 30 women of sexual harassment and molestation—a charge Gothard denies.

Hobby Lobby ruling being used as an excuse to push for discrimination against gays.

This week, in the Hobby Lobby case, the Supreme Court ruled that a religious employer could not be required to provide employees with certain types of contraception. That decision is beginning to reverberate: A group of faith leaders is urging the Obama administration to include a religious exemption in a forthcoming LGBT anti-discrimination action.

Their call, in a letter sent to the White House Tuesday, attempts to capitalize on the Supreme Court case by arguing that it shows the administration must show more deference to the prerogatives of religion.

“We are asking that an extension of protection for one group not come at the expense of faith communities whose religious identity and beliefs motivate them to serve those in need,” the letter states.

 Signature 

“There will come a time when it isn’t ‘They’re spying on me through my phone’ anymore. Eventually, it will be ‘My phone is spying on me’.” ― Philip K. Dick

The Atheist in the Trailer Park

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 July 2014 09:45 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 26 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  173
Joined  2011-11-06

I didn’t really follow the case beyond being aware it took place; however, I’ve heard the company has had previous investments (or something) in contraceptive companies…is that true? If so, I do not see, at all, how their case could hold water in court.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 July 2014 10:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 27 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  364
Joined  2014-03-12
FinallyDecided - 04 July 2014 09:45 AM

I didn’t really follow the case beyond being aware it took place; however, I’ve heard the company has had previous investments (or something) in contraceptive companies…is that true? If so, I do not see, at all, how their case could hold water in court.

The reason the ruling does not hold water is because the Supreme Court has now officially awarded additional freedoms to one religious ideology over other religious ideologies and has therefore violated the first amendment. And, they did it with the leverage of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act put in place by the GOP as well as W. Bush’s appointees, Alito and Roberts who were groomed for the court by corporate donors to increase the power of corporate America.

[ Edited: 04 July 2014 10:49 AM by Handydan ]
 Signature 

“expectation is the mother of disappointment”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 July 2014 10:52 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 28 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  134
Joined  2014-04-27
Handydan - 04 July 2014 10:46 AM
FinallyDecided - 04 July 2014 09:45 AM

I didn’t really follow the case beyond being aware it took place; however, I’ve heard the company has had previous investments (or something) in contraceptive companies…is that true? If so, I do not see, at all, how their case could hold water in court.

The reason the ruling does not hold water is because the Supreme Court has now officially awarded additional freedoms to one religious ideology over other religious ideologies and has therefore violated the first amendment. And, they did it with the leverage of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act put in place by the GOP as well as W. Bush’s appointees, Alito and Roberts who were groomed for the court by corporate donors to increase the power of corporate America.

I think they should be impeached on grounds of sexual discrimination. Get them out!

 Signature 

Religion is doing good things in fear of bad consequences. Morality is doing good things because they are good things.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 July 2014 11:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 29 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4576
Joined  2008-08-14
Handydan - 04 July 2014 10:46 AM

The reason the ruling does not hold water is because the Supreme Court has now officially awarded additional freedoms to one religious ideology over other religious ideologies and has therefore violated the first amendment. And, they did it with the leverage of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act put in place by the GOP as well as W. Bush’s appointees, Alito and Roberts who were groomed for the court by corporate donors to increase the power of corporate America.

What part of the ruling favors one religion over the other? I must have missed that?

 Signature 

Row row row your boat gently down the stream.  Merrily Merrily merrily merrily life is but a dream!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 July 2014 11:25 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 30 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  364
Joined  2014-03-12
VYAZMA - 04 July 2014 11:04 AM
Handydan - 04 July 2014 10:46 AM

The reason the ruling does not hold water is because the Supreme Court has now officially awarded additional freedoms to one religious ideology over other religious ideologies and has therefore violated the first amendment. And, they did it with the leverage of the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act put in place by the GOP as well as W. Bush’s appointees, Alito and Roberts who were groomed for the court by corporate donors to increase the power of corporate America.

What part of the ruling favors one religion over the other? I must have missed that?

Religions that are anti contraceptive.

 Signature 

“expectation is the mother of disappointment”

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 4
2