Pennock's Fiero Forum
  Totally O/T
  Satanic Temple seeks religious exemption from abortion-related laws (Page 1)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Email This Page to Someone! | Printable Version

This topic is 2 pages long:  1   2 
Previous Page | Next Page
next newest topic | next oldest topic
Satanic Temple seeks religious exemption from abortion-related laws by rinselberg
Started on: 07-28-2014 07:40 PM
Replies: 40 (634 views)
Last post by: Rickady88GT on 07-31-2014 07:15 PM
rinselberg
Member
Posts: 13153
From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA)
Registered: Mar 2010


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 137
Rate this member

Report this Post07-28-2014 07:40 PM Click Here to See the Profile for rinselbergClick Here to visit rinselberg's HomePageClick Here to Email rinselbergSend a Private Message to rinselbergEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Citing the Supreme Court's recent decision in the Hobby Lobby case, the Satanic Temple is seeking exemption from state-mandated informed consent requirements on women seeking abortions.

http://america.aljazeera.co...tan-hobby-lobby.html
IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
Fats
Member
Posts: 5442
From: Wheaton, Mo.
Registered: Jan 2012


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 73
Rate this member

Report this Post07-28-2014 08:07 PM Click Here to See the Profile for FatsClick Here to Email FatsSend a Private Message to FatsEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Good for them.

Brad
IP: Logged
carnut122
Member
Posts: 9122
From: Waleska, GA, USA
Registered: Jan 2004


Feedback score:    (9)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 83
Rate this member

Report this Post07-28-2014 08:24 PM Click Here to See the Profile for carnut122Send a Private Message to carnut122Edit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
I'm sure it's just the first of many such claims based on the Hobby Lobby decision.
IP: Logged
Jonesy
Member
Posts: 4667
From: Bama
Registered: Oct 2009


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 104
Rate this member

Report this Post07-28-2014 08:27 PM Click Here to See the Profile for JonesySend a Private Message to JonesyEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Now this story could get interesting.. Not that i condone Satanism (or any other religion for that matter).. But if they let the Christians do it, wouldn't they have no real choice but to let the Satanist do it as well? I mean religion is religion, you can't pick and choose what religions get certain rights and which ones don't.. Could make for an interesting story if they deny the Satanists the same religious business freedoms they awarded the Christian run Hobby Lobby.

I get a strange feeling this is just the start.. Many businesses will probably start trying to exempt themselves from "whatever" due to religious beliefs.. And since a business has the same rights as an individual person, individual people will be able to do this as well right?

Then you can get really into it.. What about people who do not have any religion of any kind.. And i don't mean Atheists, as they are basically just a anti-religion, religion, lol.. Would someone with no religious beliefs at all not be able to do what hobby lobby did? If not, wouldn't that be discrimination?

This could get pretty crazy in time.

[This message has been edited by Jonesy (edited 07-28-2014).]

IP: Logged
Red88FF
Member
Posts: 7793
From: PNW
Registered: Jan 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 130
Rate this member

Report this Post07-29-2014 12:35 AM Click Here to See the Profile for Red88FFSend a Private Message to Red88FFEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Jonesy:

Then you can get really into it.. What about people who do not have any religion of any kind.. And i don't mean Atheists, as they are basically just a anti-religion, religion, lol.. Would someone with no religious beliefs at all not be able to do what hobby lobby did? If not, wouldn't that be discrimination?

This could get pretty crazy in time.



Nah, never happen. But it dam well should.
IP: Logged
2.5
Member
Posts: 43166
From: Southern MN
Registered: May 2007


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 184
Rate this member

Report this Post07-29-2014 10:18 AM Click Here to See the Profile for 2.5Send a Private Message to 2.5Edit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
"seeking exemption from state-mandated informed consent requirements "

-

Why would you seek exemption from that? So their stance is what, that they are offended that people be informed?

-

"According to the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, there are 35 states that require some kind of counseling before a woman can receive an abortion - 27 states detail specific information the woman must receive, and 26 states also have a waiting period (usually 24 hours) from the time the woman receives the information to the time she can abort. "Nearly all states that require counseling require information about the abortion procedure and fetal development."

But, according to the Satanists, this information violates their religious beliefs"

Pathetic.

[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 07-29-2014).]

IP: Logged
2.5
Member
Posts: 43166
From: Southern MN
Registered: May 2007


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 184
Rate this member

Report this Post07-29-2014 10:21 AM Click Here to See the Profile for 2.5Send a Private Message to 2.5Edit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post

2.5

43166 posts
Member since May 2007
 
quote
Originally posted by Jonesy:

Then you can get really into it.. What about people who do not have any religion of any kind.. And i don't mean Atheists, as they are basically just a anti-religion, religion, lol.. Would someone with no religious beliefs at all not be able to do what hobby lobby did? If not, wouldn't that be discrimination?

This could get pretty crazy in time.



No one should be forced to pay for any bit of someone elses abortion. Not crazy to me.

IP: Logged
jaskispyder
Member
Posts: 21510
From: Northern MI
Registered: Jun 2002


Feedback score:    (22)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 205
Rate this member

Report this Post07-29-2014 10:34 AM Click Here to See the Profile for jaskispyderSend a Private Message to jaskispyderEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
Heck, I see more corporations becoming Christan Scientists.... that way they can get out of paying for health care insurance. Just another loop-hole ...
IP: Logged
TK
Member
Posts: 10011
From:
Registered: Aug 2002


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 200
Rate this member

Report this Post07-29-2014 10:45 AM Click Here to See the Profile for TKSend a Private Message to TKEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
I think the problem is what the SC allowed to be the rationalization. There isn't any. They accept goose-bumps as a reason to opt out of something. I don't have a problem with people or "corporations as people" not wanting to fund or promote something but it should have ended with "because we don't want to" rather than allowing people to add 'for religious reasons.'

That's the can of worms right there. Now the SC is the sole final word on whether you are religious enough to be able to opt-out or deny some benefit.
IP: Logged
2.5
Member
Posts: 43166
From: Southern MN
Registered: May 2007


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 184
Rate this member

Report this Post07-29-2014 10:51 AM Click Here to See the Profile for 2.5Send a Private Message to 2.5Edit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by jaskispyder:

Heck, I see more corporations becoming Christan Scientists.... that way they can get out of paying for health care insurance. Just another loop-hole ...


Probably whatever gets us an a "single payer" (government) system, I think thats the overall plan anyway right? Sadly.
IP: Logged
jaskispyder
Member
Posts: 21510
From: Northern MI
Registered: Jun 2002


Feedback score:    (22)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 205
Rate this member

Report this Post07-29-2014 10:52 AM Click Here to See the Profile for jaskispyderSend a Private Message to jaskispyderEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by 2.5:


Probably whatever gets us an a "single payer" (government) system, I think thats the overall plan anyway right? Sadly.


Yup, that is the plan, I would say.
IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
Red88FF
Member
Posts: 7793
From: PNW
Registered: Jan 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 130
Rate this member

Report this Post07-29-2014 11:16 AM Click Here to See the Profile for Red88FFSend a Private Message to Red88FFEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by jaskispyder:

Heck, I see more corporations becoming Christan Scientists.... that way they can get out of paying for health care insurance. Just another loop-hole ...


And it is just the beginning. The flaws in the legislation are even more abundant than the lies they told the public about it. This is just another way to flush the turd.
IP: Logged
Rickady88GT
Member
Posts: 10628
From: Central CA
Registered: Dec 2002


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 202
Rate this member

Report this Post07-29-2014 12:58 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Rickady88GTClick Here to Email Rickady88GTSend a Private Message to Rickady88GTEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
If they claim religious "reasons " they have to provide proof that their religion actually has a stance on the matter. Then provide a compelling argument that the law is harmful.
IP: Logged
Formula88
Member
Posts: 53788
From: Raleigh NC
Registered: Jan 2001


Feedback score: (3)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 554
Rate this member

Report this Post07-29-2014 01:43 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Formula88Send a Private Message to Formula88Edit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by jaskispyder:

Heck, I see more corporations becoming Christan Scientists.... that way they can get out of paying for health care insurance. Just another loop-hole ...


Not likely. Corporate lawyers would have read and understood the Hobby Lobby decision enough to know if it would or wouldn't apply.
IP: Logged
TK
Member
Posts: 10011
From:
Registered: Aug 2002


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 200
Rate this member

Report this Post07-29-2014 04:42 PM Click Here to See the Profile for TKSend a Private Message to TKEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Rickady88GT:

If they claim religious "reasons " they have to provide proof that their religion actually has a stance on the matter. Then provide a compelling argument that the law is harmful.


Rick, how do you provide "proof"? One person's proof is another person's opinion. Much of biblical theology is opinion and interpretation with little if any literal words backing it up. I don't see how the courts can decide one over the other. It's just as easy for the courts to say someone is wrong in their interpretation. After that they decide if one set of text is more valid than another?

I think SC really screwed up big time here.

[This message has been edited by TK (edited 07-29-2014).]

IP: Logged
Rickady88GT
Member
Posts: 10628
From: Central CA
Registered: Dec 2002


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 202
Rate this member

Report this Post07-29-2014 07:35 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Rickady88GTClick Here to Email Rickady88GTSend a Private Message to Rickady88GTEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by TK:


Rick, how do you provide "proof"? One person's proof is another person's opinion. Much of biblical theology is opinion and interpretation with little if any literal words backing it up. I don't see how the courts can decide one over the other. It's just as easy for the courts to say someone is wrong in their interpretation. After that they decide if one set of text is more valid than another?

I think SC really screwed up big time here.



Yes the SC did a major screw up by ruling the obama care law constitutional. Now things will be more complicated.
As far as interpretation of religious dogma goes, it was not difficult for HL to argue that abortion is wrong and some birth controls abort babies. So therefore it would be unconstitutional to force them to pay for killing babies.
In this case, the satanic "church" will have to provide an equally compelling argument as HL did.
IP: Logged
Jonesy
Member
Posts: 4667
From: Bama
Registered: Oct 2009


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 104
Rate this member

Report this Post07-29-2014 08:56 PM Click Here to See the Profile for JonesySend a Private Message to JonesyEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by 2.5:


No one should be forced to pay for any bit of someone elses abortion. Not crazy to me.


I should have clarified i wasn't just talking about abortion.. I mean abortion could just be the start, i'm sure companies can find lots of other things they would like to get exempt from due to "religious beliefs", and find ways to make it work.. Lawyers are good at that.

Which is what i meant by it could get crazy in time.

[This message has been edited by Jonesy (edited 07-29-2014).]

IP: Logged
TK
Member
Posts: 10011
From:
Registered: Aug 2002


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 200
Rate this member

Report this Post07-29-2014 11:31 PM Click Here to See the Profile for TKSend a Private Message to TKEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Rickady88GT:


Yes the SC did a major screw up by ruling the obama care law constitutional. Now things will be more complicated.
As far as interpretation of religious dogma goes, it was not difficult for HL to argue that abortion is wrong and some birth controls abort babies. So therefore it would be unconstitutional to force them to pay for killing babies.
In this case, the satanic "church" will have to provide an equally compelling argument as HL did.


And who do they provide proof to? Now the Supreme Court will decide what is compelling and what isn't at a theological level. Do we want them to have that power? I don't.
IP: Logged
Rickady88GT
Member
Posts: 10628
From: Central CA
Registered: Dec 2002


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 202
Rate this member

Report this Post07-30-2014 12:19 AM Click Here to See the Profile for Rickady88GTClick Here to Email Rickady88GTSend a Private Message to Rickady88GTEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by TK:


And who do they provide proof to? Now the Supreme Court will decide what is compelling and what isn't at a theological level. Do we want them to have that power? I don't.


OK, we agree on this but who is higher than the SC? I don't know of any other avenue to resolve this or other issues like this? I am open to idea's if you have any?
They did listen to HL, and side in their favor.
We dont have a perfect system, so we have to get by with what we have. And fight for what we believe.
IP: Logged
Formula88
Member
Posts: 53788
From: Raleigh NC
Registered: Jan 2001


Feedback score: (3)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 554
Rate this member

Report this Post07-30-2014 12:37 AM Click Here to See the Profile for Formula88Send a Private Message to Formula88Edit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
From a legal standpoint, I would think the religion would first have to be recognized as a religion by the U.S. government, which would probably mean it needs to qualify for 501(c)(3) tax exempt status. If they don't have that, they court would likely rule they don't have legal standing to file the grievance.

http://www.irs.gov/Charitie...283%29-Organizations


IP: Logged
TK
Member
Posts: 10011
From:
Registered: Aug 2002


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 200
Rate this member

Report this Post07-30-2014 12:39 AM Click Here to See the Profile for TKSend a Private Message to TKEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Rickady88GT:


OK, we agree on this but who is higher than the SC? I don't know of any other avenue to resolve this or other issues like this? I am open to idea's if you have any?
They did listen to HL, and side in their favor.
We dont have a perfect system, so we have to get by with what we have. And fight for what we believe.


They are pretty much it. So now when someone or some corporation attempts to opt out of something and it goes to court it can get to the SC and they will decide what are often theological questions. IMHO this is bad.

 
quote
Originally posted by Formula88:
From a legal standpoint, I would think the religion would first have to be recognized as a religion by the U.S. government, which would probably mean it needs to qualify for 501(c)(3) tax exempt status. If they don't have that, they court would likely rule they don't have legal standing to file the grievance.

http://www.irs.gov/Charitie...283%29-Organizations



It's an option but it totally violates the open-ended 1st amendment. Tax exemption isn't theology. The whole point is that no one gets to tell you what your faith is or how to approach it. Now the SC can and will.

[This message has been edited by TK (edited 07-30-2014).]

IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
Formula88
Member
Posts: 53788
From: Raleigh NC
Registered: Jan 2001


Feedback score: (3)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 554
Rate this member

Report this Post07-30-2014 02:04 AM Click Here to See the Profile for Formula88Send a Private Message to Formula88Edit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by TK:

It's an option but it totally violates the open-ended 1st amendment. Tax exemption isn't theology. The whole point is that no one gets to tell you what your faith is or how to approach it. Now the SC can and will.



From the complaint:
 
quote
The communication of Political Information to me imposes an unwanted and substantial burden on my religious beliefs.

They'll have to show how the mandated informational material is a burden on their religious beliefs.


IP: Logged
Rickady88GT
Member
Posts: 10628
From: Central CA
Registered: Dec 2002


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 202
Rate this member

Report this Post07-30-2014 02:16 AM Click Here to See the Profile for Rickady88GTClick Here to Email Rickady88GTSend a Private Message to Rickady88GTEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by TK:


It's an option but it totally violates the open-ended 1st amendment. Tax exemption isn't theology. The whole point is that no one gets to tell you what your faith is or how to approach it. Now the SC can and will.




We are doomed to be governed by lawyers. That does not soud like life will get any easier.
As far as the Gov. dictating religion, I think the HL case is totally tax related and nothing to do with doctrine. The obama care law is interweaved in tax codes and imposes tax penalties on those that dont comply. IRS agents have been added to the payroll to investigate claims and insubordination.
I guess you can say that HL fought for a tax exemption, and won.
IP: Logged
rinselberg
Member
Posts: 13153
From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA)
Registered: Mar 2010


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 137
Rate this member

Report this Post07-30-2014 02:20 AM Click Here to See the Profile for rinselbergClick Here to visit rinselberg's HomePageClick Here to Email rinselbergSend a Private Message to rinselbergEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
When the Supreme Court takes on the case

This images is larger than 153600 bytes. Click to view.
IP: Logged
Fats
Member
Posts: 5442
From: Wheaton, Mo.
Registered: Jan 2012


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 73
Rate this member

Report this Post07-30-2014 03:52 AM Click Here to See the Profile for FatsClick Here to Email FatsSend a Private Message to FatsEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

When the Supreme Court takes on the case

This images is larger than 153600 bytes. Click to view.


OK, that's funny.

Brad
IP: Logged
jaskispyder
Member
Posts: 21510
From: Northern MI
Registered: Jun 2002


Feedback score:    (22)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 205
Rate this member

Report this Post07-30-2014 07:51 AM Click Here to See the Profile for jaskispyderSend a Private Message to jaskispyderEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Formula88:

From a legal standpoint, I would think the religion would first have to be recognized as a religion by the U.S. government, which would probably mean it needs to qualify for 501(c)(3) tax exempt status. If they don't have that, they court would likely rule they don't have legal standing to file the grievance.

http://www.irs.gov/Charitie...283%29-Organizations



Hmm, seems to contradict the 1st amendment, but you are talking about tax exempt..... which is different.

IP: Logged
FlyinFieros
Member
Posts: 1599
From: US
Registered: Oct 2012


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 63
User Banned

Report this Post07-30-2014 09:25 AM Click Here to See the Profile for FlyinFierosSend a Private Message to FlyinFierosEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Rickady88GT:
it was not difficult for HL to argue that abortion is wrong and some birth controls abort babies. So therefore it would be unconstitutional to force them to pay for killing babies.

Which birth control causes abortions? It's my understanding even 'morning after' pills prevent pregnancy in the first place.

If your statement is medically valid, why reject all birth control if it's only "some"?

[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 07-30-2014).]

IP: Logged
Rickady88GT
Member
Posts: 10628
From: Central CA
Registered: Dec 2002


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 202
Rate this member

Report this Post07-30-2014 10:45 AM Click Here to See the Profile for Rickady88GTClick Here to Email Rickady88GTSend a Private Message to Rickady88GTEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros:

Which birth control causes abortions? It's my understanding even 'morning after' pills prevent pregnancy in the first place.

If your statement is medically valid, why reject all birth control if it's only "some"?



What is your understanding of the HL case?
The reason I ask is because HL did not object to "all" birth control. They still provide most forms of it. They objected the forms that abort babies. If you want to know what they are, I am sure you could do a little research to find out.
The Catholic Church is the one known for protesting all forms of birth control, but for different reasons.
IP: Logged
Formula88
Member
Posts: 53788
From: Raleigh NC
Registered: Jan 2001


Feedback score: (3)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 554
Rate this member

Report this Post07-30-2014 11:02 AM Click Here to See the Profile for Formula88Send a Private Message to Formula88Edit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros:

Which birth control causes abortions? It's my understanding even 'morning after' pills prevent pregnancy in the first place.

If your statement is medically valid, why reject all birth control if it's only "some"?



Birth control that acts on the embryo after fertilization by causing it to not implant in the uterus terminates the pregnancy after conception.
They only objected to the forms that work after conception. They had no problem with ones that prevent conception from happening.
IP: Logged
Pyrthian
Member
Posts: 29569
From: Detroit, MI
Registered: Jul 2002


Feedback score: (5)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 342
Rate this member

Report this Post07-30-2014 12:02 PM Click Here to See the Profile for PyrthianClick Here to Email PyrthianSend a Private Message to PyrthianEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
I will never get Satanists.....
in order to believe in Satan, you have to believe in God, and all the rest.
Satan is a part of the God of Abraham mythology.

so, yes, being Satanism is a subset of Christianity, I cannot see any reason why they would not be subject to the same benifits, subsidies, and handouts that the Christians get.
IP: Logged
rinselberg
Member
Posts: 13153
From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA)
Registered: Mar 2010


Feedback score: (2)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 137
Rate this member

Report this Post07-30-2014 01:36 PM Click Here to See the Profile for rinselbergClick Here to visit rinselberg's HomePageClick Here to Email rinselbergSend a Private Message to rinselbergEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Pyrthian:
I will never get Satanists.....
in order to believe in Satan, you have to believe in God, and all the rest.
Satan is a part of the God of Abraham mythology.

so, yes, being Satanism is a subset of Christianity, I cannot see any reason why they would not be subject to the same benifits, subsidies, and handouts that the Christians get.

Hypothesis : The Satanic Temple is comprised mostly of atheists with a secular agenda who want to band together for group activities and communications and bond together, instead of just hanging out as atheistic and agnostic individuals. They are basically an organized group of secular humanists. The "Satanic" aspect is more tongue-in-cheek than real. For most of them, just a humorous affectation that boosts their mainstream and local media profile.

I don't want to try to support my hypothesis with Google searches right now. Not sure if or when I could get around to that.
IP: Logged
PFF
System Bot
frontal lobe
Member
Posts: 9042
From: brookfield,wisconsin
Registered: Dec 1999


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 166
Rate this member

Report this Post07-30-2014 01:43 PM Click Here to See the Profile for frontal lobeClick Here to Email frontal lobeSend a Private Message to frontal lobeEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by jaskispyder:

Heck, I see more corporations becoming Christan Scientists.... that way they can get out of paying for health care insurance. Just another loop-hole ...




For clarification, Hobby Lobby never attempted to get out of paying for health care insurance. They were willingly complying with that part of the abomination of a law that is the Affordable Care Act.

They had a specific objection to being forced to provide payment for 2 specific items.

It wasn't enough for the socialist president and democrat party that voted this abomination onto the country, that Hobby Lobby was willing to go along with almost every single part of it except for what their conscience just could not tolerate. It had to be ALL.
Which is a hilariously hypocritical standard, considering the president himself doesn't even want to comply with major or entire portions of currently existing laws, but many seem to be ok with that somehow.
IP: Logged
2.5
Member
Posts: 43166
From: Southern MN
Registered: May 2007


Feedback score: (1)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 184
Rate this member

Report this Post07-30-2014 01:44 PM Click Here to See the Profile for 2.5Send a Private Message to 2.5Edit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg:

Hypothesis : The Satanic Temple is comprised mostly of atheists with a secular agenda who want to band together for group activities and communications and bond together, instead of just hanging out as atheistic and agnostic individuals. They are basically an organized group of secular humanists. The "Satanic" aspect is more tongue-in-cheek than real. For most of them, just a humorous affectation that boosts their mainstream and local media profile.

I don't want to try to support my hypothesis with Google searches right now. Not sure if or when I could get around to that.


..and poke fun at and redicule what they dont believe.
IP: Logged
FlyinFieros
Member
Posts: 1599
From: US
Registered: Oct 2012


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 63
User Banned

Report this Post07-30-2014 04:08 PM Click Here to See the Profile for FlyinFierosSend a Private Message to FlyinFierosEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by 2.5:
..and poke fun at and redicule what they dont believe.

Agreed. More or less social trolls.
IP: Logged
FlyinFieros
Member
Posts: 1599
From: US
Registered: Oct 2012


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 63
User Banned

Report this Post07-30-2014 04:24 PM Click Here to See the Profile for FlyinFierosSend a Private Message to FlyinFierosEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Rickady88GT:
What is your understanding of the HL case?

Close to zero. Trying to gain an understanding though.

 
quote
Originally posted by Rickady88GT:
The reason I ask is because HL did not object to "all" birth control. They still provide most forms of it.

Ah gotcha.

 
quote
Originally posted by Formula88:
Birth control that acts on the embryo after fertilization

Did a bit of research. I think this is a bit misleading. It's like two factor. First, birth control must fail and fertilization occur. Supposedly there's a 99.9% chance that wont happen. If it does happen, then there's further interference to prevent implantation of the fertilized egg. So are they just opposed to the chance it happens? It doesn't appear to me it's designed to allow fertilization then abort the embryo, which seems to be common conception. Thoughts?
IP: Logged
Formula88
Member
Posts: 53788
From: Raleigh NC
Registered: Jan 2001


Feedback score: (3)
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 554
Rate this member

Report this Post07-30-2014 06:15 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Formula88Send a Private Message to Formula88Edit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros:

Did a bit of research. I think this is a bit misleading. It's like two factor. First, birth control must fail and fertilization occur. Supposedly there's a 99.9% chance that wont happen. If it does happen, then there's further interference to prevent implantation of the fertilized egg. So are they just opposed to the chance it happens? It doesn't appear to me it's designed to allow fertilization then abort the embryo, which seems to be common conception. Thoughts?


"that" "it" are a bit vague. What are you referring to?

http://www.usatoday.com/sto...after-iuds/11768653/
The types of birth control affected are:
 
quote
• Plan B "morning-after pill"

• Ella "morning-after pill"

• Hormonal and copper intrauterine devices (IUDs)


These methods act on a fertilized egg after the point of conception. It's pretty clear cut based on the SCOTUS decision and how the affected birth controls work. Anything that prevents a sperm from fertilizing an egg was never in question.

http://www.planb.ca/how.html

 
quote
How the day after pill Plan B Works

Plan B is simple to use

And remember the sooner you take it the more effective it is.

How does plan B work? plan B is two pills which you take together. If taken within 72 hours, it prevents pregnancy by doing one of three things:

Temporarily stops the release of an egg from the ovary
Prevents fertilization
Prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus

plan B is a day after pill, not an abortion pill—if you take plan B you will not be terminating a pregnancy.

If you are already pregnant and take plan B, there’s no evidence that plan B will harm you or the fetus.

[This message has been edited by Formula88 (edited 07-30-2014).]

IP: Logged
Rickady88GT
Member
Posts: 10628
From: Central CA
Registered: Dec 2002


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 202
Rate this member

Report this Post07-30-2014 07:46 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Rickady88GTClick Here to Email Rickady88GTSend a Private Message to Rickady88GTEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros:

Did a bit of research. I think this is a bit misleading. It's like two factor. First, birth control must fail and fertilization occur. Supposedly there's a 99.9% chance that wont happen. If it does happen, then there's further interference to prevent implantation of the fertilized egg. So are they just opposed to the chance it happens? It doesn't appear to me it's designed to allow fertilization then abort the embryo, which seems to be common conception. Thoughts?

To be honest with you, neither yours or my opinions or definitions on this topic matter at this point. The SC has made an irreversible decision in favor of HL's arguments. In effect they have decided that some birth control acts as an abortion. And that the Gov can not force them to pay for abortions.
IP: Logged
Rickady88GT
Member
Posts: 10628
From: Central CA
Registered: Dec 2002


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 202
Rate this member

Report this Post07-31-2014 12:34 AM Click Here to See the Profile for Rickady88GTClick Here to Email Rickady88GTSend a Private Message to Rickady88GTEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros:
.


BTW your avatar is cool

IP: Logged
FlyinFieros
Member
Posts: 1599
From: US
Registered: Oct 2012


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 63
User Banned

Report this Post07-31-2014 08:56 AM Click Here to See the Profile for FlyinFierosSend a Private Message to FlyinFierosEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by Formula88:
"that" "it" are a bit vague. What are you referring to?

Sorry, fertilization.

 
quote
Originally posted by Rickady88GT:
To be honest with you, neither yours or my opinions or definitions on this topic matter at this point. The SC has made an irreversible decision in favor of HL's arguments.

I realize I’m late to this game but I still think my opinion matters.

Is Obamacare irreversible?

 
quote
Originally posted by Rickady88GT:
BTW your avatar is cool

Thanks. I find myself dazing off into it.
IP: Logged
Red88FF
Member
Posts: 7793
From: PNW
Registered: Jan 2006


Feedback score: N/A
Leave feedback





Total ratings: 130
Rate this member

Report this Post07-31-2014 01:32 PM Click Here to See the Profile for Red88FFSend a Private Message to Red88FFEdit/Delete MessageReply w/QuoteDirect Link to This Post
 
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros:
I realize I’m late to this game but I still think my opinion matters.

Is Obamacare irreversible?



Yes, everyone's opinion on this will matter, that is what will give our self serving politicians the intestinal fortitude to reverse this Obama'nation.

Despite what the left would like you to believe, yes it is totally reversible. Obama mama care can and will be flushed for the excrement that it is.
IP: Logged
Previous Page | Next Page

This topic is 2 pages long:  1   2 
next newest topic | next oldest topic

All times are ET (US)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Back To Main Page

Advertizing on PFF | Fiero Parts Vendors
PFF Merchandise | Fiero Gallery | Ogre's Cave
Real-Time Chat | Fiero Related Auctions on eBay



Copyright (c) 1999, C. Pennock