PDA

View Full Version : Hobby Lobby case goes to the supreme court....



Imac7065
03-24-2014, 11:27 PM
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/03/24/hobby-lobby-case-goes-before-the-supreme-court

The case is a privately held company suing for the right to deny health care coverage to its employee's based on religious beliefs.


The fact that this even got to the supreme court infuriates me. We have 250 years of precedent stating we have a SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. Hobby Lobby is not a church, it is a privately owned, publicly operated company. Just because the owner of this store has religious beliefs does not mean he is entitled TO ANYTHING... let alone a legal exemption. No one forced this person to open a company, it was a choice. When you make this choice you have to abide by the law, not re write it to suit your own dogma.

If the right wing court sides with this private company it would also allow an Islamic owned company to force all women to wear head dresses and submit to all male employee's will. It would allow Hasidic owned companies the right to deny access to any woman from entering their property. It would even allow that veto'd law in Arizona to become moot as it would federalize the right for any company to deny service to homosexuals as well.

Heck, if this argument is upheld it could infer that a "religious right" includes segregation! How on earth did this nonsense get this far? What country do we live in?

boba
03-24-2014, 11:49 PM
http://i446.photobucket.com/albums/qq190/bobafett94/hate_zps53d9469e.jpg (http://s446.photobucket.com/user/bobafett94/media/hate_zps53d9469e.jpg.html)

Wickabee
03-25-2014, 12:46 AM
Isn't this what the Supreme Court is for?

Imac7065
03-25-2014, 12:54 AM
Isn't this what the Supreme Court is for?

There are multiple levels of courts to throw this out before it gets there... it would have to have been approved by some court, denied by another, then the supreme court has to chose to hear the case. No this is not what the court is for, the court is meant to settle issues that are not already settled. If 250 years of precedent aren't enough anymore then its truly the conservatives running an "activist court"

jlzinck
03-25-2014, 08:11 AM
Blah, blah, blah.... If 250 years of precedent aren't enough anymore then its truly the conservatives running an "activist court"

Where is your outrage of the liberal's favority activist court? 9th circuit court?

All this hate, a true use of this word and not the lazy usage of today, is realy going to give you health problems.

duane1969
03-25-2014, 11:08 AM
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/03/24/hobby-lobby-case-goes-before-the-supreme-court

The case is a privately held company suing for the right to deny health care coverage to its employee's based on religious beliefs.


The fact that this even got to the supreme court infuriates me. We have 250 years of precedent stating we have a SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. Hobby Lobby is not a church, it is a privately owned, publicly operated company. Just because the owner of this store has religious beliefs does not mean he is entitled TO ANYTHING... let alone a legal exemption. No one forced this person to open a company, it was a choice. When you make this choice you have to abide by the law, not re write it to suit your own dogma.

If the right wing court sides with this private company it would also allow an Islamic owned company to force all women to wear head dresses and submit to all male employee's will. It would allow Hasidic owned companies the right to deny access to any woman from entering their property. It would even allow that veto'd law in Arizona to become moot as it would federalize the right for any company to deny service to homosexuals as well.

Heck, if this argument is upheld it could infer that a "religious right" includes segregation! How on earth did this nonsense get this far? What country do we live in?

Do you intentionally create misleading posts or do you actually have no idea what these stories are about and you just toss your own interpretation out there for the joy of it?

A) Hobby Lobby IS NOT suing to deny health coverage to their employees (your claim in the bold red part). They are suing to not have to fund birth control based on religious beliefs. Your failure to grasp this very basic aspect of the court case makes the rest of your rant regarding Islamic companies, Hasidic companies, Arizona and segregation a pointless rant. Did you even bother to read the article that you linked to?

B) Where did you come up with the bright idea that the Supreme Court is right wing? I am assuming you were not paying attention when they redefined marriage to not only mean between a man and a woman and upheld Obamacare as legal.


There are multiple levels of courts to throw this out before it gets there... it would have to have been approved by some court, denied by another, then the supreme court has to chose to hear the case. No this is not what the court is for, the court is meant to settle issues that are not already settled. If 250 years of precedent aren't enough anymore then its truly the conservatives running an "activist court"

Incorrect. You need to re-investigate how court and appeals work. They could be ruled against at every level of lower court and keep appealing it to the higher court all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Star_Cards
03-25-2014, 11:18 AM
I'm not sure exactly were I stand on this. I get that a person or group of people with specific religious beliefs run a business or corporation, but I also don't think that a corporation or business should be able to get a loop hole for something that other businesses or corporations have to provide. I think if religious views can be used to get a corporation out of providing specific things for their employees then some may just say it's against their beliefs if it could be used as ways of saving money and side stepping laws.

On the same note I really don't like a mandate that businesses have to provide specific health coverage either.

Wickabee
03-25-2014, 12:03 PM
There are multiple levels of courts to throw this out before it gets there... it would have to have been approved by some court, denied by another, then the supreme court has to chose to hear the case. No this is not what the court is for, the court is meant to settle issues that are not already settled. If 250 years of precedent aren't enough anymore then its truly the conservatives running an "activist court"

You see, if someone is contesting something, then it's not settled.

Let the system do its job, complain when it screws up. Preemptive whining just makes certain everyone whines at some point.

sanfran22
03-25-2014, 12:11 PM
First off, this is a private business that shouldn't be told that they have to provide anything to anyone. Secondly, what was the intention of Jeffersons "church and state" letter to Danbury baptists? What about Roger Williams?

Wickabee
03-25-2014, 01:14 PM
...and here we have the other side.

*sigh*

sanfran22
03-25-2014, 01:29 PM
...and here we have the other side.

*sigh*

I'm just guessing, but that's probably what this forum is for.... But I guess you don't get that. Carry on....

ajcorleone
03-25-2014, 01:42 PM
My key point is PRIVATE COMPANY. So much for small business.

duane1969
03-25-2014, 01:43 PM
My key point is PRIVATE COMPANY. So much for small business.

Considering Obama thinks the government built all small businesses anyway, he probably figures he has a right to dictate how they run those businesses too.

Wickabee
03-25-2014, 02:01 PM
I'm just guessing, but that's probably what this forum is for.... But I guess you don't get that. Carry on....

I get it. What I don't get is not waiting for an outcome to complain, unless you're the one making a case, in this instance, that is hobby lobby.

ajcorleone
03-25-2014, 02:22 PM
Sad but true. I am sure Obama lovers will have an excuse for this
Considering Obama thinks the government built all small businesses anyway, he probably figures he has a right to dictate how they run those businesses too.

gsj68
03-25-2014, 02:36 PM
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/03/24/hobby-lobby-case-goes-before-the-supreme-court

The case is a privately held company suing for the right to deny health care coverage to its employee's based on religious beliefs.


The fact that this even got to the supreme court infuriates me. We have 250 years of precedent stating we have a SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. Hobby Lobby is not a church, it is a privately owned, publicly operated company. Just because the owner of this store has religious beliefs does not mean he is entitled TO ANYTHING... let alone a legal exemption. No one forced this person to open a company, it was a choice. When you make this choice you have to abide by the law, not re write it to suit your own dogma.

If the right wing court sides with this private company it would also allow an Islamic owned company to force all women to wear head dresses and submit to all male employee's will. It would allow Hasidic owned companies the right to deny access to any woman from entering their property. It would even allow that veto'd law in Arizona to become moot as it would federalize the right for any company to deny service to homosexuals as well.

Heck, if this argument is upheld it could infer that a "religious right" includes segregation! How on earth did this nonsense get this far? What
country do we live in?

"The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a key part of the case, was overwhelmingly passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton to reverse the effects of the Supreme Court's 1990 Employment Division v. Smith (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/494/872/case.html) decision, in which the court decided an American Indian man who took peyote for religious purposes lacked a constitutional right to violate federal drug law.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative Catholic, authored the majority opinion that the RFRA rebuked. In that opinion, Scalia warned that liberally granting exceptions to laws based on religious belief would be “courting anarchy.”
“The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind,” Scalia warned.
Scalia wrote that because courts are constitutionally prohibited from judging the purported centrality of religious beliefs, applying a compelling interest test to laws in cases brought by religious objectors might excuse the lawbreaking of draft dodgers, tax evaders, child abusers, drug users, traffic violators, animal abusers, polluters, employers violating child labor laws and racist businesspeople.
It’s unclear how Scalia’s dire warning will influence his approach to the contraceptive dispute. "

gsj68
03-25-2014, 02:43 PM
Considering Obama thinks the government built all small businesses anyway, he probably figures he has a right to dictate how they run those businesses too.
if you havent noticed they already do,the biggest obstacle to small businesses is the government

b.t.w. is this new avatar week?

Wickabee
03-25-2014, 03:06 PM
Considering Obama thinks the government built all small businesses anyway, he probably figures he has a right to dictate how they run those businesses too.

Really? We're gonna do that again? Come on, man.

duane1969
03-25-2014, 03:45 PM
if you havent noticed they already do,the biggest obstacle to small businesses is the government

b.t.w. is this new avatar week?

Yes it is! So many people get their panties all twisted over a comical "Nuge for Prez" one so I decided to switch it up. You are the first to notice.


Really? We're gonna do that again? Come on, man.

Tongue in cheek moment...

shrewsbury
03-25-2014, 04:30 PM
You are the first to notice.

others noticed, we just stayed quiet about it

Wickabee
03-25-2014, 06:09 PM
others noticed, we just stayed quiet about it

Yeah. I'm trying to turn this new one into you claiming the statue of liberty is a transsexual and also the green lantern, but I'm having trouble putting it all together. Give me time.

duane1969
03-25-2014, 06:59 PM
others noticed, we just stayed quiet about it

The question is, does anyone actually know what it is about...


Yeah. I'm trying to turn this new one into you claiming the statue of liberty is a transsexual and also the green lantern, but I'm having trouble putting it all together. Give me time.

Wick you are funny.

gsj68
03-25-2014, 08:59 PM
The question is, does anyone actually know what it is about...

first thought was something olympics

A.F.P.

jlzinck
03-25-2014, 09:18 PM
One of my most ardent liberal friends posted this and has been bashing he fellow liberals who post the same hyperbolic crap as the OP. He uses common sense. This is why he and I can have real discussions when we have opposite viewpoints.

http://thefederalist.com/2014/03/25/five-false-perceptions-about-the-hobby-lobby-case/

habsheaven
03-25-2014, 09:43 PM
The question is, does anyone actually know what it is about...

New Johnny Cash album cover?

shrewsbury
03-25-2014, 09:57 PM
prosperity?

Imac7065
03-26-2014, 01:50 AM
First off, this is a private business that shouldn't be told that they have to provide anything to anyone. Secondly, what was the intention of Jeffersons "church and state" letter to Danbury baptists? What about Roger Williams?

Roger Williams the man who founded Rhode Island when he left Massachusetts? Not sure what this has to do with now considering that happened before this was even a country? Sure he used the term "separation of church and state", but again, long before we were a country. As for your private business point... regulations have existed on business since the founding of our nation. You have to have a license, you have to pay taxes, you have to have insurance for your business etc etc... these laws have been around for centuries. Health Care may be a new regulation, but it is no different than anything from the past. I personally hate that people have to rely on the place they work for health coverage.

Imac7065
03-26-2014, 01:52 AM
Do you intentionally create misleading posts or do you actually have no idea what these stories are about and you just toss your own interpretation out there for the joy of it?

A) Hobby Lobby IS NOT suing to deny health coverage to their employees (your claim in the bold red part). They are suing to not have to fund birth control based on religious beliefs. Your failure to grasp this very basic aspect of the court case makes the rest of your rant regarding Islamic companies, Hasidic companies, Arizona and segregation a pointless rant. Did you even bother to read the article that you linked to?

B) Where did you come up with the bright idea that the Supreme Court is right wing? I am assuming you were not paying attention when they redefined marriage to not only mean between a man and a woman and upheld Obamacare as legal.



Incorrect. You need to re-investigate how court and appeals work. They could be ruled against at every level of lower court and keep appealing it to the higher court all the way up to the Supreme Court.

You're parsing my words just to attack me.. I don't appreciate that. A) That is what I meant on the denying health care coverage (as the link also explains) and B) no, not every case goes to the supreme court. More than 1000 cases a year are submitted to the court and usually less than 10 are actually heard. Someone on the court (probably Scalia) actively chose to pursue this very black and white case.

Imac7065
03-26-2014, 01:54 AM
My key point is PRIVATE COMPANY. So much for small business.

a company with 50 or more employee's should never be classified as a "small business"... just to be clear to be mandated you need 50 or more employee's despite what you may have heard from Sean Hannity or others.

Imac7065
03-26-2014, 01:56 AM
"The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a key part of the case, was overwhelmingly passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton to reverse the effects of the Supreme Court's 1990 Employment Division v. Smith (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/494/872/case.html) decision, in which the court decided an American Indian man who took peyote for religious purposes lacked a constitutional right to violate federal drug law.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative Catholic, authored the majority opinion that the RFRA rebuked. In that opinion, Scalia warned that liberally granting exceptions to laws based on religious belief would be “courting anarchy.”
“The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind,” Scalia warned.
Scalia wrote that because courts are constitutionally prohibited from judging the purported centrality of religious beliefs, applying a compelling interest test to laws in cases brought by religious objectors might excuse the lawbreaking of draft dodgers, tax evaders, child abusers, drug users, traffic violators, animal abusers, polluters, employers violating child labor laws and racist businesspeople.
It’s unclear how Scalia’s dire warning will influence his approach to the contraceptive dispute. "

It will be Scalia, Roberts, and other right wing justices who will be hypocrites on this point... mark my word. This link only shows more precedent that this case should never have made it to the supreme court.

Wickabee
03-26-2014, 02:42 AM
The same right wing but jobs who said denying gay marriage is unconstitutional? Those whacky, far right looneys?

JustAlex
03-26-2014, 02:56 AM
One of my most ardent liberal friends posted this and has been bashing he fellow liberals who post the same hyperbolic crap as the OP. He uses common sense. This is why he and I can have real discussions when we have opposite viewpoints.

http://thefederalist.com/2014/03/25/five-false-perceptions-about-the-hobby-lobby-case/
Oooh....fun, let me go ahead and tackle it.

" The Green family objects only to, and therefore does not cover, the four forms of contraception whose FDA labels warn they can destroy an embryo and thereby cause an abortion. In other words, Hobby Lobby objects to paying for women’s abortions."

^OK, so they don't like abortion....too bad!

Abortion is legal in the United States of America and their religious beliefs is NOT the law of the land, and therefore has absolutely no ground to stand on.

Why should they push their morality and nonsensical religious beliefs unto their employees?

"David Green’s company explicitly states that it conducts its affairs according to “Biblical principles,”

^Where in the bible does it talk about abortion?

You know what the bible DOES talk about, stoning people for being gay, stoning people for not observing the Sabbath, stoning unruly children, endorsing slavery, endorsing rape, endorsing infanticide, endorsing genocide.

Funny how Hobby Lobby doesn't get into those "Biblical Principles".

"But he has also gleaned some other gems from the Bible, like that whole thing about “honor the Sabbath” and “keep it holy.” “Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work.” (See, Ten Commandments, for more information.) David Green closes every single one of his stores on Sunday, ensuring that each of his nearly 28,000 employees can earn a living while still taking a rest and spending quality time with family."

^OH how Sweet....he cherry picks that part of the bible.....I wonder if he fires employees who use the name of the lord in vain? Does he fire employees for worshiping false idols (any other god)? How about adulterers?

No, I bet he doesn't.

"And his Christian faith also compels him to give his employees a just wage. His full-time employees start at 90 percent above the federal minimum wage. "

^How about he sells his buisness and give all his money to the poor the way Jesus said?

How about he stops making riches on earth and actually SERVE the lord and devote his life to him instead of his business?

Oops....I forgot that in America the REAL god, the one TRUE almighty god is MONEY, BLING, STUFF!

This yahweh character is no match for the insatiable lust of pieces of paper.

"So don’t be duped when you hear activists from Planned Parenthood and friends trying to make David Green and Hobby Lobby public enemy number one. He’s just a guy who started a business from his garage, one that he runs according to moral principles like any other corporate CEO, a guy who is abiding by the law and treating the people for whom he is responsible with care and concern."

^Yeah, a guy who imposes HIS morality unto his employees, a guy who thinks abortion is wrong but stoning gays is OK (And if he says it's not ok, then he's going against the bible, I wonder why he could go against that and not the abortion bit....and again, abortion is not even in the damn bible).

In the end the Hobby Lobby owners are just pathetic hypocritical, self-righteous, cherry-picking evangelicals.....just like the majority of other evangelicals....nothing new here.

JustAlex
03-26-2014, 03:17 AM
Heck, if this argument is upheld it could infer that a "religious right" includes segregation! How on earth did this nonsense get this far? What country do we live in?
I think you should see all of this extremism from the right as a good thing actually....

They are getting desperate, they know full well what's going on.

The U.S is becoming more and more secular and less and less religious.

30% of Americans now consider themselves non-religious, and that number is only growing....it's not a fad, it's a trend.

Religion is dying in America, and I couldn't be happier about that.

Let the far right religious dinosaurs continue their desperate last gasp......the more extreme they go the more people want nothing to do with their nonsense.

That's why they failed in Kansas and Arizona to segregate gays.

Every time they try to do these measures they only alienate moderates.....the only people backing them is their own base which is shrinking everyday.


You know, the far right constantly says that they are in a "Culture war" with secularists.....they are absolutely right about that.

And we (secularists) are winning!

Imac7065
03-26-2014, 06:11 AM
Oooh....fun, let me go ahead and tackle it.

" The Green family objects only to, and therefore does not cover, the four forms of contraception whose FDA labels warn they can destroy an embryo and thereby cause an abortion. In other words, Hobby Lobby objects to paying for women’s abortions."

^OK, so they don't like abortion....too bad!

Abortion is legal in the United States of America and their religious beliefs is NOT the law of the land, and therefore has absolutely no ground to stand on.

Why should they push their morality and nonsensical religious beliefs unto their employees?

"David Green’s company explicitly states that it conducts its affairs according to “Biblical principles,”

^Where in the bible does it talk about abortion?

You know what the bible DOES talk about, stoning people for being gay, stoning people for not observing the Sabbath, stoning unruly children, endorsing slavery, endorsing rape, endorsing infanticide, endorsing genocide.

Funny how Hobby Lobby doesn't get into those "Biblical Principles".

"But he has also gleaned some other gems from the Bible, like that whole thing about “honor the Sabbath” and “keep it holy.” “Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work.” (See, Ten Commandments, for more information.) David Green closes every single one of his stores on Sunday, ensuring that each of his nearly 28,000 employees can earn a living while still taking a rest and spending quality time with family."

^OH how Sweet....he cherry picks that part of the bible.....I wonder if he fires employees who use the name of the lord in vain? Does he fire employees for worshiping false idols (any other god)? How about adulterers?

No, I bet he doesn't.

"And his Christian faith also compels him to give his employees a just wage. His full-time employees start at 90 percent above the federal minimum wage. "

^How about he sells his buisness and give all his money to the poor the way Jesus said?

How about he stops making riches on earth and actually SERVE the lord and devote his life to him instead of his business?

Oops....I forgot that in America the REAL god, the one TRUE almighty god is MONEY, BLING, STUFF!

This yahweh character is no match for the insatiable lust of pieces of paper.

"So don’t be duped when you hear activists from Planned Parenthood and friends trying to make David Green and Hobby Lobby public enemy number one. He’s just a guy who started a business from his garage, one that he runs according to moral principles like any other corporate CEO, a guy who is abiding by the law and treating the people for whom he is responsible with care and concern."

^Yeah, a guy who imposes HIS morality unto his employees, a guy who thinks abortion is wrong but stoning gays is OK (And if he says it's not ok, then he's going against the bible, I wonder why he could go against that and not the abortion bit....and again, abortion is not even in the damn bible).

In the end the Hobby Lobby owners are just pathetic hypocritical, self-righteous, cherry-picking evangelicals.....just like the majority of other evangelicals....nothing new here.

John aka Jlzinck wasn't looking for a reply... he's been trolling me on here and other websites for nearly 2 years now.. sorry you got caught up in it. He's so obsessed with me that he did an internet backround check on me and quotes things I said 10+ years ago lol.. I wish I was making that up but I am not. He's also posted my full name and address on a public website before which I found very offensive.

ajcorleone
03-26-2014, 07:18 AM
Maybe I missed making my point by saying small business. So again PRIVATE. The point is they are not denying health care.
a company with 50 or more employee's should never be classified as a "small business"... just to be clear to be mandated you need 50 or more employee's despite what you may have heard from Sean Hannity or others.

Wickabee
03-26-2014, 10:18 AM
Funny, if that's why we're seeing such extremism from the right, what's with the extreme leftism?

shrewsbury
03-26-2014, 10:40 AM
the extreme leftism?
social justice
forcing health care in the form of taxation
saying they stand for equality, while they dog out the religious
complain about the rich while they stuff their pockets full of money
think they know better than anyone else
equality for marriage, except polygamy (which seems a coincidence that one provides votes while the other would not)
trying to force businesses to pay the same for no skill and skilled positions
complain about other peoples beliefs while they try to force theirs upon you
and the list goes on

Imac7065
03-26-2014, 11:00 AM
social justice
forcing health care in the form of taxation
saying they stand for equality, while they dog out the religious
complain about the rich while they stuff their pockets full of money
think they know better than anyone else
equality for marriage, except polygamy (which seems a coincidence that one provides votes while the other would not)
trying to force businesses to pay the same for no skill and skilled positions
complain about other peoples beliefs while they try to force theirs upon you
and the list goes on

I'm gonna take this point by point...

1) Are you against social justice? lol

2) The United States remains the only 1st world country (IE the G20 and more) to NOT have a government run health care system. In every other country health care is a right, not a privilege.... this is why we remain #1 in spending per capita, but continue to be in the low 30's on health per capita. If you or any other republicans have a better answer than the one that's existed since WW2.. by all means tell us. Medicad is a perfect example of what we can do for all americans, not just the elderly.

3) Who's stuffing their pockets? lol.. please elaborate here. Since Ronald Reagan was elected the mean average income for the middle class (making under 100k a year) has gone up less than 5% with inflation. For the top 1% of earners it's gone up over 3000%. I'm sure you believe this is perfectly ok? In the last 2 years 95% of all earned income in the United States was given to the top 1% of earners... that's not only morally wrong, its disgusting.

4) meh.. could be guilty on this one

5) Are you saying you support polygamy or hate homosexuals here? Got kinda confusing lol

6) Who is forcing what pay? Outside of the minimum wage and a law that prohibits pay discrimination against women... what law regulates working wages? Were you suggesting here that women were the unskilled?

7) I have always lived by the creed "believe and do what you want, just don't try to tell me I have to live your way"...if you want to be gay, congrats, its not for me. Religious? Why not...just don't tell me im gonna burn in hell for not accepting your "god". You want to hate a person for their skin color, religion, or any other preference.. in america you have that right, but keep it to yourself. Is it really that hard? Your rights do not supersede my rights, that's what "religious" people never seem to understand.

You have every right in the world to believe that any non christian is going to hell for not accepting Jesus.. you don't have a right to petition a public school or office to make monuments or teach these ideals though. You have the amazing ability in this country to think, feel, and express whatever you want to... in private. When you take that right and try to do things like prayer in schools, monuments of the 10 commandments in courthouses, asking legislators to recognize this as a "christian nation" or any other silliness.. you've gone too far.

Wickabee
03-26-2014, 11:05 AM
5) Are you saying you support polygamy or hate homosexuals here? Got kinda confusing lol


Wow. Really? Are you 15?

shrewsbury
03-26-2014, 11:36 AM
1) what they describe as social justice, you can bet I am against it, dumbest thing ever
2) I would suggest look at global health and compare that to US health
3) politicians on both sides
4)
5) I support equality not being based on voter demographics
6) the usual divert. you never read any of the previous posts on minimum wage? their is a huge difference between gender equality and pay equality. if you work the same job with the same experience, and same time at company, yes equal pay for all, but otherwise it does not make sense.
7) sounds good, but just talk. if this were true then why force health care? why force business to pay for it? why support one side but not the other?

you can have clubs based on sexuality in public schools, but try religion based clubs and see what you get. people talk equality but only their idea of equality. And all is just a dream. this reminds me of the Human rights treaty put together in 1948 by the UN, it includes every country except three, and do you think these 3 countries are the only ones supporting inequality of human rights? if so, be gay and move to an Arab country, be a women and move to the middle east.
the reason things like this do not work is because people attempt to force their own beliefs and assume it is better without ever knowing other peoples beliefs and is tied to such things as why polio is still around.

Wickabee
03-26-2014, 11:40 AM
Jay, I still kind of want to start some sort of political party with you, but you have to work on your spelling first.

Imac7065
03-26-2014, 11:42 AM
Wow. Really? Are you 15?

I was replying to his sarcasm with my sarcasm

Imac7065
03-26-2014, 11:45 AM
1)
2) I would suggest look at global health and compare that to US health


I did look at global health and cited to you that the US spend the most on health care while placing in the low 30's on results.

The rest of your post would just lead to arguments that have nothing to do with this thread.. but I thought I would answer this on directly.

Wickabee
03-26-2014, 12:12 PM
I was replying to his sarcasm with my sarcasm

That's not sarcasm. Marriage equality would be marriage for all people, polygamists included.

Gay marriage is just gay marriage. It's great your nation is making up its mind on that, but to call allowing one more group "equality" is the exact brand of "social justice" that I think Jay was talking about.

shrewsbury
03-26-2014, 12:34 PM
wick, dont care about spelling on the web

mac, no sarcasm.


The rest of your post would just lead to arguments that have nothing to do with this thread..

a thread is meant to generate discussion, to think it will stay on track is as silly as social justice. (now that was sarcasm)

duane1969
03-26-2014, 02:18 PM
You're parsing my words just to attack me.. I don't appreciate that. A) That is what I meant on the denying health care coverage (as the link also explains) and B) no, not every case goes to the supreme court. More than 1000 cases a year are submitted to the court and usually less than 10 are actually heard. Someone on the court (probably Scalia) actively chose to pursue this very black and white case.

I am parsing nothing. In your very first sentence you blatantly said they are trying to deny health care coverage which is a load of bull. The title to the link you provided clearly says "Corporate personhood and an old warning from Scalia may influence the contraceptive fight." So even the title of your link clarifies that it isn't about denying health care, something I suspect you hope those who don't bother to click links will either overlook or be unaware of.

And I never said EVERY case goes to the Supreme Court. I have no idea where you even came up with that.

And no, the Supreme Court does not hear and decide on less than 10 cases per year. The liberal-biased media may only report on less than 10 a year, because they only want you to hear about the ones that either promote liberal agenda or to complain about ones that support conservative agenda, but the SC hears and decides on MANY, MANY more cases than 10. In 2012 they made 79 rulings, in 2011 they made 78 rulings, in 2010 they made 85 rulings. Heck, just in March of 2014 they have already made 9 rulings.

Also, I am starting to think that you read something and then totally get nothing that you read and then comment about something that wasn't even said. You read an article about Hobby Lobby not wanting to pay for BC...you post a thread claiming they are trying to deny health coverage to their employees and go on a rant about separation of church and state. You read a comment by me pointing out that the SC has ruled favorably on liberal issues...you respond by telling me that not every case goes to the Supreme Court(???).

Wickabee
03-26-2014, 02:47 PM
How many cases are appealed to the Court each year and how many cases does the Court hear?

The Court receives approximately 10,000 petitions for a writ of certiorari each year. The Court grants and hears oral argument in about 75-80 cases.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/faq.aspx#faqgi9

gsj68
03-26-2014, 03:33 PM
It will be Scalia, Roberts, and other right wing justices who will be hypocrites on this point... mark my word. This link only shows more precedent that this case should never have made it to the supreme court.
so let me get this straight, a liberal dem.president signs a law,a conservative s.c.j. warns of the ramifications of the law and now that his warnings are coming true,its the religious rights fault?

gsj68
03-26-2014, 03:36 PM
also like how libs just skip over everything and goes straight to"hates gays"

shrewsbury
03-26-2014, 04:58 PM
so let me get this straight, a liberal dem.president signs a law,a conservative s.c.j. warns of the ramifications of the law and now that his warnings are coming true,its the religious rights fault?

of course!

sanfran22
03-26-2014, 05:20 PM
Roger Williams the man who founded Rhode Island when he left Massachusetts? Not sure what this has to do with now considering that happened before this was even a country? Sure he used the term "separation of church and state", but again, long before we were a country. As for your private business point... regulations have existed on business since the founding of our nation. You have to have a license, you have to pay taxes, you have to have insurance for your business etc etc... these laws have been around for centuries. Health Care may be a new regulation, but it is no different than anything from the past. I personally hate that people have to rely on the place they work for health coverage.

Roger Williams coined the term. It was a term used to protect the church from the state,which I would say, is the same way Jefferson is using it. Not sure why it gets twisted around all the time.

sanfran22
03-26-2014, 05:27 PM
I did look at global health and cited to you that the US spend the most on health care while placing in the low 30's on results.

The rest of your post would just lead to arguments that have nothing to do with this thread.. but I thought I would answer this on directly.

Once again, you are using a flawed poll that takes "social justice" as a big component...


Calculations: The scores for the five performance indicators were gathered via sub-studies.

Calculating Health Level (http://www.marottaonmoney.com/world-health-organization-2000-statistical-report/#healthlevel)
Calculating Health Distribution (http://www.marottaonmoney.com/world-health-organization-2000-statistical-report/#healthdistribution)
Calculating Fairness in Financial Contribution (http://www.marottaonmoney.com/world-health-organization-2000-statistical-report/#financial)
Calculating Responsiveness Level (http://www.marottaonmoney.com/world-health-organization-2000-statistical-report/#responsivenesslevel)
Calculating Responsiveness Distribution (http://www.marottaonmoney.com/world-health-organization-2000-statistical-report/#responsivenessdistribution)


http://www.marottaonmoney.com/world-health-organization-2000-statistical-report/

sanfran22
03-26-2014, 05:30 PM
so let me get this straight, a liberal dem.president signs a law,a conservative s.c.j. warns of the ramifications of the law and now that his warnings are coming true,its the religious rights fault?

Lets not forget that it's a law that only applies to those the president deems.

habsheaven
03-26-2014, 07:00 PM
Once again, you are using a flawed poll that takes "social justice" as a big component...


Calculations: The scores for the five performance indicators were gathered via sub-studies.

Calculating Health Level (http://www.marottaonmoney.com/world-health-organization-2000-statistical-report/#healthlevel)
Calculating Health Distribution (http://www.marottaonmoney.com/world-health-organization-2000-statistical-report/#healthdistribution)
Calculating Fairness in Financial Contribution (http://www.marottaonmoney.com/world-health-organization-2000-statistical-report/#financial)
Calculating Responsiveness Level (http://www.marottaonmoney.com/world-health-organization-2000-statistical-report/#responsivenesslevel)
Calculating Responsiveness Distribution (http://www.marottaonmoney.com/world-health-organization-2000-statistical-report/#responsivenessdistribution)


http://www.marottaonmoney.com/world-health-organization-2000-statistical-report/



Anyone can criticize a study. People in the know, trust the WHO reports. Where's your counter report that shows different results?

37jetson
03-26-2014, 07:20 PM
John aka Jlzinck wasn't looking for a reply... he's been trolling me on here and other websites for nearly 2 years now.. sorry you got caught up in it. He's so obsessed with me that he did an internet backround check on me and quotes things I said 10+ years ago lol.. I wish I was making that up but I am not. He's also posted my full name and address on a public website before which I found very offensive.

Ah Jeremy do your lies ever stop? You know that Jon Zinck did not post your full name and address on a public website. Let's see your proof on this claim, or this just another lie?

Wickabee
03-26-2014, 07:25 PM
John aka Jlzinck wasn't looking for a reply... he's been trolling me on here and other websites for nearly 2 years now.. sorry you got caught up in it. He's so obsessed with me that he did an internet backround check on me and quotes things I said 10+ years ago lol.. I wish I was making that up but I am not. He's also posted my full name and address on a public website before which I found very offensive.

I see you make a lot of these kinds of accusations. Are you ever going to back one up? Honest question. If the answer is "no" I can accept that.

sanfran22
03-26-2014, 07:31 PM
Anyone can criticize a study. People in the know, trust the WHO reports. Where's your counter report that shows different results?

I'm thinking if you actually clicked the link, you'd see a pretty good "counter study". Shows how flawed the study actually is. There should be no place for social justice, and taking accidents, murder, and suicides into consideration for the quality of care.

Wickabee
03-26-2014, 07:44 PM
I'm thinking if you actually clicked the link, you'd see a pretty good "counter study". Shows how flawed the study actually is. There should be no place for social justice, and taking accidents, murder, and suicides into consideration for the quality of care.

Sometimes it helps to take away any chance of hearing "I didn't see it!"

At least it forces new tales to come out.

jlzinck
03-26-2014, 08:00 PM
Just for the record EVERYTHING I have EVER posted about Jeremy have come FROM HIS OWN POSTINGS. Things that were formulated in HIS BRAIN and were typed onto the internet.
He has been caught in outright lies and STILL denies he lied.
But really what can you expect from someone who once said that calling him cheap is LITERALLY like calling a black person the N Word.
I have nothing to hide.
And when I post things I have proof as shown below.

http://i223.photobucket.com/albums/dd238/jlzinck/jeremy_zps7f9dd9f4.jpg (http://s223.photobucket.com/user/jlzinck/media/jeremy_zps7f9dd9f4.jpg.html)

jlzinck
03-26-2014, 08:07 PM
I see you make a lot of these kinds of accusations. Are you ever going to back one up? Honest question. If the answer is "no" I can accept that.

Actually he can't.
He claims to NEVER have ever created an account at The Bench even though he is a banned member there.
THEY list the banned members with their address.
When he claimed he was never a member there I PM'd HIM the information from The Bench banned member section.

Somehow THAT is good enough for him to claim I posted his name in a public forum.

Not my style, I will say anything to "his face" as much as one can do on the interwebs.

habsheaven
03-26-2014, 08:12 PM
I'm thinking if you actually clicked the link, you'd see a pretty good "counter study". Shows how flawed the study actually is. There should be no place for social justice, and taking accidents, murder, and suicides into consideration for the quality of care.

I clicked on the link. Read it all. There was no "counter study". There was an argument made disputing the mechanics of the WHO study. Where is a study showing the US higher in health care ratings? It was a simple question. Where is your study?

Imac7065
03-26-2014, 09:01 PM
That's not sarcasm. Marriage equality would be marriage for all people, polygamists included.

Gay marriage is just gay marriage. It's great your nation is making up its mind on that, but to call allowing one more group "equality" is the exact brand of "social justice" that I think Jay was talking about.

No... polygamy is a male dominated bigoted institution... there is no such thing as a woman with 3 husbands.. hence it's completely different. You might as well argued that marrying a dog is the same as gay marriage.

Imac7065
03-26-2014, 09:04 PM
so let me get this straight, a liberal dem.president signs a law,a conservative s.c.j. warns of the ramifications of the law and now that his warnings are coming true,its the religious rights fault?

Bill Clinton also signed the bill deregulating the banks (IE the ground work of the collapse under Bush) ... it wasn't his bill though, it was the right wing congress' bill lead by Phil Graham... in the late 90's Clinton was forced into a corner because people cared more about him cheating on his wife than the country as a whole. He wanted to take out OBL and was denied the action by congress too.. but we won't go there.

Imac7065
03-26-2014, 09:06 PM
Roger Williams coined the term. It was a term used to protect the church from the state,which I would say, is the same way Jefferson is using it. Not sure why it gets twisted around all the time.

Actually Jefferson despised organized religion and literally re wrote the bible to fit his own personal dogma.. you are incorrect on that point sir.

Imac7065
03-26-2014, 09:09 PM
I see you make a lot of these kinds of accusations. Are you ever going to back one up? Honest question. If the answer is "no" I can accept that.

back up what exactly? That he's trolling me? lol.. he hadn't posted on this site for nearly 2 years before the 2012 election and started seeing I was on here talking politics with everyone. Suddenly he was replying to only my threads.. and continued to only reply to my threads for a good year. I believe a good 80% or more of his posts are on threads I post even to this day in fact. Is that "proof" enough for you sir?

Wickabee
03-26-2014, 09:13 PM
No... polygamy is a male dominated bigoted institution... there is no such thing as a woman with 3 husbands.. hence it's completely different. You might as well argued that marrying a dog is the same as gay marriage.

There is nothing but religion stopping women from having three husbands. Equality would mean legal polygamy for everyone, hence it's no different at all, unless you're religious.

Marrying a dog is not the same. A dog is not a person as in human.

Wickabee
03-26-2014, 09:17 PM
back up what exactly? That he's trolling me? lol.. he hadn't posted on this site for nearly 2 years before the 2012 election and started seeing I was on here talking politics with everyone. Suddenly he was replying to only my threads.. and continued to only reply to my threads for a good year. I believe a good 80% or more of his posts are on threads I post even to this day in fact. Is that "proof" enough for you sir?

I see him troll you no more than you troll him, and you can both take that any way you wish.

You make a lot of personal attacks, and bring up stuff from other boards for all of us to read. It almost always starts with you, and I've got news for both of you.

No one here cares. We don't care who didn't or did donate something to somewhere, we don't care who was or wasn't cheap.

We don't care. Period. Sorry guys.

Wickabee
03-26-2014, 09:18 PM
Actually Jefferson despised organized religion and literally re wrote the bible to fit his own personal dogma.. you are incorrect on that point sir.

Here's something you could back up.

Also, I'm pretty sure separation of church and state is supposed to protect BOTH from EACH OTHER.

shrewsbury
03-26-2014, 10:26 PM
ok
this has turned into junk because a few people.
closed