This strawman argument is beneath you. You clearly understand that this is about a group of hypocritically conservative, largely Catholic middle to older aged men have allowed their questionable religious beliefs (such as they are ) to trump the rights under law of lower income women. It is nothing more than judicial activism playing out to appease religious zealotry. It is nothing more than another chipping away at the fair & progressive policies that empowered many in this country over the last 50-70 years.

Just like the even more heinous union busting case decision that also came down...but is conveniently being ignored.

Kindly point to where the constitution gives you most rights you enjoy today. As noted countless times above you can't. Hell, this case is largely bs as I understand that Hobby Lobby actually provided most of the same insurance coverage until just before it was time to file their case & scream religious persecution (or as many here call it, playing the victim card). They didn't have a problem until yet another group of conservative religious zealots told them they (as the least restrictive type of legal actor here) should....for the greater right wing good.

Ask Scalia & his merry band of original intent con men where they get most of their logic and basis for finding heretofore imaginary constitutional standing for corporation's rights as a citizen or to permit the practice of their religious beliefs to the detriment of actual flesh and blood Americans. They can't, and therefore will long be known as a group of the worst Justices in American history.

The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.

This may be the worst part of the whole decision. They have to actively state that this ruling should not be applied to anything else. What makes this any different? Even they seem to know that this ruling is illogical since it shouldn't apply to anything else.

The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.

You are the boards #1 Chus stalker, by a country mile.

Actually, you're the boards one and only Chus stalker.

not shockingly it appealed to your limited intellect and you responded with an emoticon.

Each case is decided upon their merits, or lack of merit.

Quite telling that you've resorted to trolling now, also a result of a mind with nothing in it.

If I have such limited intellect, but you constantly follow me around, aren't you exhibiting the same behavior that you claim to despise?



These are gifs, not emoticons. Try again.

The guy whose sole purpose is to troll, doesn't like it when others troll him?

You just can't stop responding to me! I say jump and Chus says, "" How high, sir?"

SomeGuy says, take a seat, champ.

I don't think you know how the system works.

Court cases use previous decisions as ways to guide future decisions. The fact that they have to explicitly state "DO NOT USE THIS AS A BASIS FOR ANYTHING ELSE" kind of gives that away.

Warning: Our decision is not good enough to be used as any type of guide for anything else.

The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.

So there is nothing you can cite other than your personal bigotry toward Catholics?

The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.

I'm honestly surprised that you feel that I should have to pay for your condoms.

If you read the entire decision, you might understand why that was written.

And, not all cases are based upon old decisions.

For the record, a substantial portion of my own family is Catholic. An uncle/bishop actually served in the Vatican. On the rare occasions I invest in public faith gatherings, they're in a pretty damned large Archdioceasan building. So to claim bigotry is laughable.

I just choose not to say thank you & willingly follow along with conservatives who hypocritically preach one thing (be it from the pulpit or courthouse) and then in their own dealings do another. Put it this way, don't piss on my leg and tell me it's rain & expect me to believe it.

The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.

I don't use condoms. Like Ronnie Mund, I raw dog it.

Explain it to me why the Supreme Court made a correct decision using logical grounds but that same logic would be wrong to use with any other case.
You are the king of arguing against points that were never made. Previous cases factor in on all current cases unless there is no precedent. Decisions get reversed or changed but it certainly is a factor.

The victims are the American People and the Republic itself.

Previous cases do not factor in every decision.

I'm a big dumb shitlib baby

The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

Rick, forgive my ignorance, but which religious beliefs are violated by denying insurance coverage for birth control?

I mean, which religion are we talking about here? I can't figure it out.

The same ones that were violated by forcing the executives of Hobby Lobby to pay for it. It goes in both directions. If birth control is a religious issue then being for or against it is a religious issue.
My religious beliefs think birth control is acceptable.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.

I don't think that's a correct answer.

Which religion was violated by denying paid coverage of contraceptives?

For the record I personally don't have any religious beliefs and really don't have a dog in this fight at all. I'm just not understanding your claim that religious beliefs were violated by denying coverage of contraceptives.

The menstrual cycle changes among Hassidic Jewish women was something as well.

Which religion was violated by denying paid coverage of contraceptives?

For the record I personally don't have any religious beliefs and really don't have a dog in this fight at all. I'm just not understanding your claim that religious beliefs were violated by denying coverage of contraceptives.

Here's what I can't understand. Hobby Lobby's chief complaint was that being required to provide IUD's and Plan B would violate their religious freedom. But at the same time Hobby Lobby doesn't have an issue with covering vasectomies under their health insurance plan. Granted their not being required to cover vasectomies but that merely begs the question of why one type of birth control is okay but another is not.

Many that is true, but an incomplete statement.