In Monday’s ruling for Hobby Lobby the Supreme Court only upheld the religious values that Catholics would agree with. They upheld religious rights relating to birth control, something Catholics agree with. The specifically excluded religious objecting to Jehovah Witnesses over blood transfusions and religious objections to vaccinations. So only Catholics have religious rights in America.

    • Sea Lawyer says:

      “Correct” is all a matter of opinion, isn’t it? And where opinions are concerned, the relevant point is which opinion is shared by the majority of those who’s opinions count.

      • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

        What do the majority of your brain cells tell you about the reasoning of the majority opinion?

        • Sea Lawyer says:

          Compared to Ginsburg complaining about how unfair it is that women pay more for healthcare services (contraception being considered healthcare is itself debatable, when its purpose is to prevent the normal functioning of the body), when there are greater costs to providing healthcare to women?

          At least the majority concerned themselves with the issue at hand (the RFRA), and not tangengental issues used to provide justification for supporting what has historically been a pet cause.

          • Sea Lawyer says:

            or even tengential ones…

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            HEY SL==I’ve forgotten how religulous you are…. if I ever knew.

            What else is healthcare EXCEPT interfering in the normal functioning of the body? Ha, ha.===way to reveal the basis of your reasoning (sic!).

            Can you copy and paste the subject of the first two combined prepositional phrases? or provide one now? ie: what point are you trying to make?

            The Courts job is to interpret the RFRA as it interacts with other laws and most importantly and CONTROLLING the Constitution.

            About the most irrelevant tangent they over articulated and relied on was the notion that the religious belief was “sincerely held.” Who gives a shit? That is completely irrelevant. ALL religious stupidity is sincerely held. See???—Religion is right in the description!!!

            YOUR right to have full access to healthcare is restricted because of Catholic Religious Tenets of Faith. Thats NOT freedom from Religion but rather just the opposite or the imposition of religion on those who want to be free.

            Agree or not?

          • Sea Lawyer says:

            “YOUR right to have full access to healthcare is restricted because of …”

            Yes, I keep seeing this same specious argument repeated. Is my full access to the benefits of home ownership restricted because my employer won’t buy me a house?

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            Excellent come back SL–just analyze it a bit more completely. The pros and the cons, weigh/contrast/evaluate==reach a conclusion.

            Yes–if part of your compensation package is a house can the employer require you to erect a shrine within the house and pray to the Virgin Mary 5 tines a day?

            In other words, how much will the gubment allow an employer’s personal religious preferences to be part of the employment relationship? Different people will draw the line at different locations.

            MY ARGUMENT THOUGH—is that the employer here is a corporation. How does a corporation maintain that they have a religious conviction? THAT is what makes this a very bad basis for the decision. What real people may be free or responsible in different ways from a corporation.

            To me, a law that requires a corp to pay for birth control does not AFFECT the religious practice/beliefs/observations of the corporate share holders AT ALL. Instead, this ruling allows corps to control OTHER people, not themselves.

            The employment relationship is not written on a blank piece of paper. There is a long history to it, lots of case law, lots of competing societal interests, and until now the Constitutional Right not to have some other persons religious beliefs forced on you.

            You have initially disagreed with this view of the case, but can you at least see that those are the dynamics of the case?

          • Sea Lawyer says:

            A corporation could be solely owned by a single person, or as in this case a single family. I don’t see how having a corporation involved matters, because any smart business owner would incorporate simply for reasons of liability. And in fact, the whole point of contention in the dissent isn’t that this is a corporation in general, but that this particular corporation wants to make a profit; because the non-profit ones are already exempted.

  1. bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

    I’ll read her dissent with interest, but on my own: this is a continuation of state supported religious notions being forced on we the people under the very injurious notion that corporations are people too.

    Bad ideas make for bad law. Corporations are not people, they don’t have religious freedom and cannot exercise the same.

    Likewise but a bit more extended, the payment of money by taxation or health premium payment is not “an activity” that otherwise attaches to a PERSON.

    The court also does not understand FREEEEEEEDOM: leaving other people alone. Once you pay for healthcare, you don’t make any finer distinctions. An invasion of religious exercise is something that you are forced to do, not what happens to money once you pay it over to someone else for some other purpose.

    These distinctions are not that subtle. Just five Catholic Boys doing what they were taught before their alter.

    Intellectual morons and frauds.

    ……………..and so it goes.

    • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

      Yep, the summation is all I can stand to read.

      5/4 decisions always suck.

    • dusanmal says:

      “The court also does not understand FREEEEEEEDOM: leaving other people alone” – Left does not understand that. The whole problem originates in attempt to FORCE people to do/pay for something by the power of Government. Perfect example is poster of one of protesters: leave my boss from my health decisions (and such). That is what this ruling points to. You work, you get paid… YOU pay for your needs, leave your boss out of it. You pay for food as you please, it is not mandatory “food coverage” your boss must pay. Please get the same for healthcare in general and birth control/abortion – get paid for your work and than go by yourself and purchase healthcare and birth control and/or abortion yourself. No one moralized and limited that aspect. Limited is Government forcing a person (Corporation can be a SINGLE human being) to specifically pay for something they find repugnant and than pay salary over it is violating that person.
      Freedom is you go find work and negotiate pay for it and than you distribute that pay between your needs as you freely see fit.
      So, why not mandatory “food purchase” by employers to employees? Is food less important than birth control?

      • Phydeau says:

        Not that I expect you to understand this, but it’s about *selective* enforcement. Hobby Lobby isn’t saying they don’t want to cover *any* health insurance. They want to pick and choose and not cover something that is generally recognized as “coverable” because of their religious beliefs. And as many people have pointed out, once you open *that* door, any “closely held corporation” can exclude whatever they want.

        Law is hugely about precedent… when the Supreme Court says “don’t use this as a precedent” you know that they’re admitting they’re doing something bad… like Bush v Gore.

        Nakedly partisan Republicans. No matter the Supreme Court has a bad reputation nowadays. 🙁

        • NewFormatSux says:

          Oh the horror, a business deciding what benefits they will provide to employees.

          And the ‘generally recognized as coverable’ means whatever the HSH secretary determines. Congress did not pass these requirements.

          • Phydeau says:

            Yes, NFS, people should be able to expect a certain level of medical benefits.

            You don’t realize it, but you’re making the argument for single payer. Let businesses do what they do best, not administer health care plans! 😉

    • NewFormatSux says:

      So a Jewish deli can be forced to offer pork products?

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Too simple.

        Imagine if you will that healthcare is a matter of life and death (sic!) to many people whereas kosher is a matter of taste.

        Do you really get convinced by the surface of things?

        • NewFormatSux says:

          The principles at issue make those cases similar. Just because you think the case is something else doesn’t make it so.

          • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

            NFS—again===read a little closer. I agree the fact that I disagree is almost irrelevant.

            …………but I gave reasons and analysis.

            See the difference?

            Its SCIENCE vs Dogma.

            Silly Hoomans.

  2. Tim says:

    Do Catholics have some beef with Satan, or what?? Racist.

  3. K-U-N (Kill US Now) says:

    This is EXACTLY what you get when LAWYERS (a.k.a. “politicians”) try to practice MEDICINE!!! It all get’s fucked up pretty quickly.

    So perhaps maybe now you’d care to consider this little bit of reality: Neither the legal nor medical professions call what they do as “work” — they call it PRACTICING! Now just try and take a wild guess WHO (WHAT) they are practicing on. Are you starting to feel a bit like a guinea pig yet?

    … And still! Most of you dumb-ass “pigs” want someone to PAY for this shit (just as long as it’s not YOU)! And I suppose that too is perfectly sound reasoning for a “pig” — whose head is burried in it’s masters (dumb-ass) crap all day and night.

  4. I want to be vaccinated against Catholic adoration of the pope.

    • Tim says:

      FunVax — Dod Vaccine against religious fundamentalism:

      ** whether fakery or typical, the brainscams are purported not to fit the subject matter. I believe the presentation to be plausible, though.

    • RE@DER says:

      To Cure a Displaced Uterus in a Woman:
      Place a wax ibis on coals and allow the smoke to penetrate the sex organs.

      There’s some dude in Denver that can fix your girl up with bong smoke. He only takes cash or trade for unused scripts.

      There is a shouting in the southern sky in darkness, There is an uproar in the northern sky, The Hall of Pillars falls into the waters. The crew of the sun god bent their oars so that the heads at his side fall into the water, Who leads hither what he finds?

      I lead you forth to drive away the god of Fevers and all possible deadly arts.

      • Tim says:

        I heard that you can scrub her persqueeter out with pinecones and donkeyfat.

        Sekhmet Netjert is on Yahoo!

  5. NewFormatSux says:

    Failure to understand the reasoning is what leads to such incorrect posts. How about ‘least intrusive’?

    Let’s not kid ourselves. The purpose of this regulation was not to provide birth control. It was to spit on Catholics.

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      It would be spitting on Catholics only if Catholics were required to use the drugs at issue. The FREEEEEEEDOM issue in play here of Catholics able to act for themselves as they believe right was not at issue at all.

      What is at issue is the right/power of Catholics to force their religion on other people. Right you are===lots of idiot religious types do view that as being spit on. But they are stupid…… why are you?

      Easy point of law: closely held corps aren’t people and they don’t have religious beliefs.

      Either the Catholic Caliphate is being established as our guns are holstered, or the Supremes are gonna have to do some fancy double speak to avoid that consequence.

      Really stupid in a world that is already over populated.

      Silly Hoomans.

  6. NewFormatSux says:

    Oh and considering that Hobby Lobby was already providing insurance that covered birth control, your Catholics-only claim carries no water. Other denominations object to ‘abortion drugs’ as well.

    • Phydeau says:

      Good point, other right-wing Christians obsessed with controlling women’s bodies undoubtedly agree with this ruling. But it’s the Catholics who are famous for being against birth control.

      • NewFormatSux says:

        Yet the plaintiff was already covering birth control. So clearly this case could not have been about birth control.

        • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

          NFS—the Catholics also call the foetus a person which the law and medicine do not.

          So…. no…. as a matter of fact medicine does define two of the methods at issue as contraceptive measures while Hobby Lobby and the Supremes called them abortificants.

          What you call something makes a difference.

          • NewFormatSux says:

            Actually medicine does.
            Again, the case can’t be about birth control if Hobby Lobby is providing birth control.

          • Phydeau says:

            The Supreme Court on Tuesday confirmed that its decision a day earlier extending religious rights to closely held corporations applies broadly to the contraceptive coverage requirement in the new health care law, not just the handful of methods the justices considered in their ruling.

            The justices did not comment in leaving in place lower court rulings in favor of businesses that object to covering all 20 methods of government-approved contraception.


            Looks like it’s open season on all types of birth control. Shame on those naughty sluts for wanting to have consequence-free sex!

            Let’s see what Hobby Lobby ends up banning, NFS. But lots of right-wingers out there are against birth control in general. The more the better I say, it’s clearly a fringe position.

          • NewFormatSux says:

            Well yes, there are other cases in which birth control is the issue. But it can’t be the issue here as Hobby Lobby is covering birth control.

            Note, Hobby Lobby does not have the power to ban anything. They are merely being allowed to continue to practice their religion in peace.

          • Tim says:

            Could you direct me to the branch with the most sluts… just so i know not to buy dowel rods and glue there.

  7. Nor says:

    Look up the definition of Theocracy… and we amazed how well it fits what is happening in this country.

  8. NewFormatSux says:

    A blood transfusion is an actual medical requirement. The ability to have children is not a medical defect.

  9. NewFormatSux says:

    Obama’s own appointees rule against him on cell phone searches, and he loses 9-0 on recess appointments. All these 9=0 losses suggest that the Constitutional lawyer doesn’t know what he’s doing. Or more likely, he is making a big power grab. Either way, his opinions of what is constitutional should be considered irrelevant.

    • RE@DER says:

      Snowden is paying a big price. We always operated on the make the guilty pay concept. Now they seem to want to be martyrs. Sell books based on no imagination. Jail people on made up charges. I stole a crutch from a cripple. I’m a continetal op.

  10. NewFormatSux says:

    >The Courts job is to interpret the RFRA as it interacts with other laws and most importantly and CONTROLLING the Constitution.

    And in this case there was no law, simply a declaration from HHS. Nowhere does the Affordable Care Act mandate the coverage of birth control. So once again, you are confused on the issues but are telling others they are confused/wrong/evil/

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

      What does the RFRA mandate?…….. Again…… laws do not appear on a blank page…… there is a whole history of practice, case law, and other laws that apply as well.

      If the slap head stupid position you take was valid, it would have been used by the Supremes…… aka ….. they are kinda slap stupid (aka religulous) themselves.

  11. STFU! says:

    Perhaps THIS might help some of you iDiots who don’t understand the problem:

    Fast-forward to 3:38 if you want to get at the heart of it (or have attention deficit disorder [ADD] caused by you’re being raised in an instant-gratification phone-headed online society).

  12. Tim says:

    ring around the rosey
    pocket full of posey
    achews achews
    no rubbers for you.

    i guess they’ll get bubonic plague again. i had bubonic plague once {i got better}.

  13. NewFormatSux says:

    So the issue here is that the RFRA requires accommodation of religion. So a regulation that impinges on religious freedom, must do so in the least restrictive way possible. The stated purpose of the regulation was to provide birth control coverage. The Supreme Court declared that there were other ways they could have done so, and thus they are in violation of RFRA.

    Now of course the real reason was to force Catholics to violate their religious beliefs, but they couldn’t say that in court.

  14. Sheldon Richman hits the nail on the head with his analysis of the court’s decision.

  15. jpfitz says:

    Separate church from state run healthcare. Some women need birth control pills for medical reasons not related to contraception.

    So keep your goddamn god outta medicine.

    • Sea Lawyer says:

      The owners of Hobby Lobby did not object to providing birth control pills that function pre-conception. Their objection was paying for post-conception pills that, in their view, cause an abortion.

      • Phydeau says:

        Yes, in their view, which was scientifically wrong. The supremes (Alito specifically) want us to accommodate religious views that are scientifically wrong.

        So the next company can legally withhold coverage for vaccinations if their sincerely held religious belief is that vaccinations cause people to become tools of Satan.

        And the next company can withhold coverage for organ transplants because their sincerely held religious belief is that it steals the soul of the organ donor, who can’t rest in heaven until their entire body is dead.

        It’s all BS, of course, but if it’s their sincerely held religious belief, how can we refuse???

        • Phydeau says:

          Anyone? Bueller?

          • Ferris says:

            Religion is for Pedro and the like minded to defend against contraceptionbeing part of population control. The church wants more Pedros in the pews when the basket is passed round. Fuckin church has gilded churches in Towns below the lowest poverty levels. I say educate and free condoms for all in puberty.

  16. NewFormatSux says:

    China is now forcing Uyghur Muslims not to observe Ramadan, going into houses to ensure that fasting is not being observed. Liberals salivate at the thought of doing that to Catholics.

    • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

      I wonder…… would this help you NFS, and any Supreme that might read this forum:

      Imagine someone comes into your house and finds $100 hidden in a sock in the air vent over your bed and they steal that money. You file a police report and go on with your life.

      Do you get it???

      Ha, ha. I’m damn near masturbating in your face. so… the question is: in the above scenario, have your religious rights been interfered with?

      The answer is……………..NO!

      Because MONEY has nothing to do with God.

      I know this will be a stretch for you, but imagine that taxation is just like theft==> yea verily the gubment steals your money. That money goes into a pile and all sorts of unholy god defaming BS happens after that. Its the nature of gubment, its how life operates…….. but …. no violation of your religious freedom.

      Do you see that now?

      So…. further imagine the stolen money is used to buy women contraceptive or even abortificatants. Same deal: the collection and spending of money cannot by definition violate any religious rights.

      Easy Peasy.

      Next: defining and applying the difference between contraception and abortion.

      …………………all leading to: Why are they Called the Supremes? All I hear is cacaphonia.

      Yes, the emPHAsis is on caca. Its how I amuse myself before I drink beer.

      Silly Hoomans. Money does not violate religion, unless money is your god.

      • NewFormatSux says:

        Somehow I don’t think anyone on the Supreme Court would be helped by your post, except in a Billy Madison way. If they read it, the vote might have been 9-0 instead of 5-4.

        • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

          Words flow forth willy-nilly.

          Your reasoning is?

      • NewFormatSux says:

        Latest poll shows majority support the Supreme Court decision. That should settle it for you.

        • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

          With an average IQ of 100, the majority of Americans/people….. aren’t too bright.

          That why we have:

          1. Sports
          2. Religion
          3. Republicans
          4. Patriotism
          5. Reality TV
          6. Income Inequality
          7. Lack of vacation ethic
          6. Support for an Activist Conservative Court

          ……………… long a list as you might wish.

          But yeah…. I do support majority rule.

        • bobbo, we think with words, and flower with ideas says:

          yes jp==I was in that ballpark but thought of patriotism first. Nationalism is the better choice…………………………..???? Hmmmm… whats the difference again?

          Before I google:

          Patriotism–love of country. Nothing wrong with that in a vacuum with certain contextual restraints applied.

          Nationalism–wanting your own country to rule over other countries?

          ….so we have to add jingoism–your country right or wrong.

          doing the google:

          Patriotism definition, devoted love, support, and defense of one’s country; national loyalty. /// love should be reserved for people.

          Nationalism definition, an extreme form of this, especially marked by a feeling of superiority over other countries.

          jin·go·ism== extreme patriotism, especially in the form of aggressive or warlike foreign policy /// so, my shading of meaning was off. Was I thinking of Chauvinism?

          Chauvinism==excessive or prejudiced loyalty or support for one’s own cause, group, or gender /// Oh…its more than Nations States.

          Fun to think about words, what they mean, how and what we think with them.

          • jpfitz says:

            I love my country. I don’t have to agree with certain aspects of my country. I can be Patriotic. I am not Nationalistic.

            “When talking about nationalism and patriotism, one cannot avoid the famous quotation by George Orwell
            , who said that nationalism is ‘the worst enemy of peace’. According to him, nationalism is a feeling that one’s country is superior to another in all respects, while patriotism is merely a feeling of admiration for a way of life. These concepts show that patriotism is passive by nature and nationalism can be a little aggressive.
            Patriotism is based on affection and nationalism is rooted in rivalry and resentment. One can say that nationalism is militant by nature and patriotism is based on peace.


          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and junior culture critic says:

            Hey jp: well copied. (smile!)

            I agree with what you post. So… in that regard, wouldn’t patriotism be the better word for the list? More of an effortless even minless pop vulture thing rather than putting some thought into what it takes to beat the other guys?

          • jpfitz says:

            No, Patriotism shouldn’t be on the list. Nationalism should. I have many disagreements with others when watching a sporting event and I’m not rooting for the American. I’m called a traitor or told that the American is superior just because their from my country. Well, sports isn’t the best example of nationalism, or feeling ones homeland is superior, no matter the actions of said country.

            What cha mean “well copied”. Copy is copy. I didn’t take credit for the text. Just goggled, maybe good googling?

          • jpfitz says:

            Patriotism can be a great feeling. Love is lovely.

    • RE@DER says:

      The poet, the artist, the sleuth – whoever sharpens our internal perception tends to be anti social; rarely “well-adjusted,” he cannot go along with currents and trends. A strange bond often exists among anti-social types in their power to see environments as they really are. This need to internal interface, to confront environments with a certain anti-social power, is manifest in the famous story, “The Emperor’s New Clothes” “Well adjusted” courtiers, having vested interests, saw the Emperor as beautifully appointed. The anti-social brat, unaccustomed to the old environment, clearly saw that the emperor “ain’t got nothin’ on.”
      – _The Medium Is The Massage_

      I’m a sleuth and they are covering things up. The place is quiet for a 4th of July. Dead economy! Court can declare US bankrupt. It’s like 1934 in the USA. You used to be able to paper it over and now all the papers are folding up or downsizing. Book stores are history. More empty Main streets. More chain stores and web links. Get rid of more jobs and more spying on the public. Gross still stuck in Cuba for undermining glorious communist state, which is a huge failure. They have a plan and are expanding. Internet growth?

      Future internet protocol upgrading will expand addressable space on line from 2 to the 32 power to
      2 to the 128 power—
      the equivalent of an internet the size of a golf ball to an
      internet the size of the
      sun.(Power of Moore’s Law
      in the World of Geotechnology)

      Jails are growing to the size of the moon. Public in the dark treated like mushrooms and North Koreans. Mars is the money shot. We’ll be there by 2026. Cuba might have dial up connections by then.

  17. NewFormatSux says:

    If birth control is not your boss’s business, why do you expect him to pay for it?

    • bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

      Said “boss” wants to “give” with the BIG PRINT but steal it back with the small print.

      Bosses dont “want” to pay employees at all. Nada. Nothing. Zero. They do it only because workers won’t show up if not paid.

      In todays F*cked Up America: part of any employers compensation package is a package of healthcare services, usually an insurance package of some description. So, the Employer promises to pay by way of Health Care, but steals it back by way of limitations of coverage.

      Seems rather obvious. If YOU don’t want an abortion, then don’t have one. THAT, and ONLY THAT, is your religious FREEEEEEEDOM. Leave other people alone to exercise THEIR religious FREEEEEEDOM.

      THAT would have been the least restrictive option.

      Only 5 of the Supremes potentially would disagree with this more acute analysis….. and they sing off key. Bush v Gore, Corps are People, Money is Speech. They are about as bad as Congress.

      …………….you gotta feel for Obama.

      • Help Me Out says:

        You (probably) value life.
        You (probably) do not value religion.

        It must be that opposition to abortion (especially out of convenience) is not solely based on religion.

        You’re a smart guy (?). Finish this sentence:

        “Abortion of convenience is OK because…”

    • Phydeau says:

      More and more, looks like NFS is in favor of single-payer health insurance… good for you NFS! It’s the best and cheapest way. 🙂

  18. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo says:

    Based on the same insight I have posted, that is rejected by the Supremes, here is a quiz for you to evaluate whether or not your religious FREEEEEEEDOM is under attack:

    hint: its not.

  19. RE@DER says:

    Afonso de Albuquerque explained to his armies why the Portuguese wanted to capture Malacca:

    “The king of Portugal has often commanded me to go to the Straits, because…this was the best place to intercept the trade which the Moslems…carry on in these parts. So it was to do Our Lord’s service that we were brought here; by taking Malacca, we would close the Straits so that never again would the Moslems be able to bring their spices by this route…. I am very sure that, if this Malacca trade is taken out of their hands, Cairo and Mecca will be completely lost.” – The Commentaries of the Great Afonso de Albuquerque

    The history of spices and the variety of life.

  20. Captain Obvious says:

    The rights of the corporation over the individual. A private company can’t ban fire arms from it’s premises because it’s a constitutional violation. Two individuals of the same sex who want to marry causes a ruckus.

    Right wing collectivism gone wild.

  21. NewFormatSux says:

    Note the vote was 7-2 in favor of the idea that corporations can exercise religious freedom.

    “In Justice Ginsburg’s view of the matter, an incorporated kosher deli could be forced to carry non-kosher goods; an independent Catholic hospital with a lay board could be required to provide abortions; a closely-held market owned by Seventh-day Adventists could be required to open on Saturdays; and an incorporated retail store owned by Muslims could be forced to carry liquor.”

    • bobbo, Big Brained Apes with Lizard Emotions is an Evolutionary Dead End says:

      You don’t see those retail examples as different in some way from part of a compensation package that also touches on the Religious Freedom of the employees?

      Well—it is “like” that===just as evreything is like anything else.

      What the court does sadly is not recognize how it is NOT like that, then value the pros and cons, weigh the interests. They do make a judgment though, but without even mentioning much less discussing the case against forcing religious values on to employees…….. the case is structurally a bit weak.

      • NewFormatSux says:

        It’s not up to a court to weigh pros and cons and make value judgments.

        • bobbo, Big Brained Apes with Lizard Emotions is an Evolutionary Dead End says:

          Oh NFS—doesn’t the case at issue show that that is unavoidable?

          NO right is absolute, they all have to be balanced to one degree or another off all the other rights.

          That is a value judgment.

          Pop Quiz: Name a right that is or should be absolute.

        • NewFormatSux says:

          No, it doesn’t show that at all. Congress could have said that ObamaCare is exempt from the RFRA. They chose not to do that. So the Supreme Court applied the RFRA, the law passed by Congress, and held it to be supreme over an administrative regulation. It is Congress that can weigh pros and cons, subject to the Constitution.

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and junior culture critic says:

            How the gubment spends your money does not impact religious FREEEEEEDOM at all.

            There is nothing to balance.

  22. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Help Me Out spending his life denying the help he has already been given quizzes the Quisling and says:
    7/4/2014 at 11:13 am

    You (probably) value life. //// Yep, balanced among other interests, but it is high on the list making it valued. Its value, as this is where you are going, is strongest in the middle, less at either end, and value over the continuum by consciousness.

    You (probably) do not value religion. //// I do value the good parts of all of them. Sadly, those good points are not what define them, one from another.

    It must be that opposition to abortion (especially out of convenience) is not solely based on religion. /// I think it is. You see, I hold life to be balanced against other interests, making opposition to abortion an ABSOLUTE value only comes from religion.

    You’re a smart guy (?). //// Smart or dumb, everyone enjoys finishing a sentence…..sic… as all too many fumble this job when it reveals anti-dogmatic conclusions or otherwise pushes their nascent intellect into new territory.

    Finish this sentence:

    “Abortion of convenience is OK because…” //// Its not OK.

    How to stick this pig?
    1. FREEEEEEEEEEEEDDOM===leaving other people alone.
    2. Its not the morality of the decision reached, but rather the morality of who is allowed to make the decision
    3. In a Libertarian/Existential universe, or even those tyranized by a God as opposed to his earthbound agents: people should be allowed to make and suffer decisions and consequences of their own actions.
    4. Innocent life is taken all the time in the service of other interests. Think of the Draft.
    5. The earth is already overpopulated. Short sighted not to be encouraging abortions just as general policy.

    I could go on but I would start to dither.

    • Tim says:

      — We can’t be consumed by our petty differences any more. We will be united in our common interest. Perhaps it’s fate that today is the 4th of July, and you will once again be fighting for our freedom. Not from tyranny, oppression, or persecution, but from annihilation. We’re fighting for our right to live, to exist; and should we win the day, the 4th of July will no longer be known as an American holiday, but as the day when the world declared in one voice, ‘We will not go quietly into the night! We will not vanish without a fight! We’re going to live on, we’re going to survive.’ Today we celebrate our independence day!”

      President Thomas Whitmore
      July 4th, 1996

      keep ’em outta the frogs’ butts, people. peace.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        ……….and then they went back to their petty differences, because: Global Warming.

    • NewFormatSux says:

      >people should be allowed to make and suffer decisions and consequences of their own actions.

      Says the supported of Bloomberg who supports seat belt laws.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and junior culture critic says:

        I do support seat belt and helmet laws….even 16 oz size limits on sugar water.

        Ahem: No right is absolute. Every right has to be balanced off all the other rights.

        If we were a people that would allow motorcyclists to die on the side of the road for not wearing a helmet, then I would be against helmet laws.

        ………………. but we aren’t. We value LIFE above the value of FREEEEEEEDOM to be reckless and irresponsible.

        See that?…………………… balance in all things. In this case…. more about the pragmatism and MY freedom not to pay for your stupidity.

        Yea, verily!

  23. judgehooker says:

    Would someone please take the keyboard away from Bobbo?

    • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist and junior culture critic says:


      Be as specific and personal as you like.

      ……. it can’t hurt me, but might make me a better person.

      Isn’t that what we all want for each other?

  24. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Viable Fetus arguing for an absolute right says:
    7/8/2014 at 8:07 pm

    Please don’t kill me out of convenience. //// I could be wrong, but I think states can control to the point of outlawing the abortion of viable fetus’s==the whole tri-mester arrangement.

    This “implies” you have no objection to abortions before the fetus is viable?????? ((somehow I doubt it–requiring a name change)).

    but to be absolute would mean you would allow no exception for the health of the mother. So–why should the fetus be given priority over a full fledged tax paying adult?


Bad Behavior has blocked 19492 access attempts in the last 7 days.