Christianity & Hobby Lobby

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

Yes, its pathetic, and obviously true. Catholics have been enslaving, kidnapping and stealing people (trafficking) since their inception. The Vatican is evil to the core and if the CHURCH is pushing something, you can bet its for a nefarious agenda.

Only the gullible and naive would think that the Vatican has the interest of the little people of planet earth in their hearts and minds.

No I would be gullible and naïve if I believed you did not have an irrational bias from the get go. It's obvious where you are coming form now, thank you. This makes everything clear. Its yet another evil Vatican conspiracy. I do wish some of you people would get original with your hatred, but the old prejudices are the best ones I guess.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
No I would be gullible and naïve if I believed you did not have an irrational bias from the get go.

LOL and you don't?

All your posts I've read in any thread about women is pretty much the same.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

Activism has no business on the bench. The bench is about the law. Period. That you would even support an activist SCOTUS judges shows your contempt for that document and the separation of powers.

BS! The only five judges who ruled this way were all Catholic men. Go figure. Of course this was "activism" from the bench.

Because the Constitution was the reason behind the SCOTUS decision,

No it wasn't.

all of your "no it isn't" protests and evil Catholic conspiracies notwithstanding. You are wrong when you say it wasn't.

Prove it. Show us where in the ruling the Constitution is referred to once. Please who me in the Hobby Lobby defense argument where their lawyers presented a Constitutional argument.

You can't because there isn't one. If Hobby Lobby thought they could win this case on Constitutional merits they would have brought a Constitutional argument, but they didn't. They (SCOTUS) ruled on the RFRA, because that was the basis for that argument that Hobby Lobby, et al, lawyers case rested on and what they brought to the COURT.

So, as you can see I proved it. SCOTUS didn't just mention the First Amendment once, they mentioned it several times and the RFRA is mentioned in the context of it supporting First Amendment civil rights. HL Mentioned the first amendment in their argument. There it is in the original texts I referenced above. You. Are. Wrong.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc
No I would be gullible and naïve if I believed you did not have an irrational bias from the get go.

LOL and you don't?

All your posts I've read in any thread about women is pretty much the same.

Yes, they are--that women should have equal rights and responsibilities under the law just like any other citizen and that they are better than your professional victim nonsense. Color me guilty.

Like most leftists you confuse rights and entitlements. If a law was passed that banned birth control, you would have a point and I would agree that the rights of women(and men--we use and need birth control too) would be violated. Not forcing someone else to buy you what you want it not a violation of your rights in any way. Think about it.

a reply to: NavyDoc

So, as you can see I proved it.

Uh, where? No you didn't. LOL

SCOTUS didn't just mention the First Amendment once, they mentioned it several times and the RFRA is mentioned in the context of it supporting First Amendment civil rights. HL Mentioned the first amendment in their argument. There it is in the original texts I referenced above.

I see no reference or proof. Still waiting for your proof.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Color me guilty.

Already done, et al!

a reply to: NavyDoc

Not forcing someone else to buy you what you want it not a violation of your rights in any way.

First of all, that's not what insurance is all about.

Secondly, contraception is a legitimate government interest on behalf of public health, safety and welfare. Please show me in the Constitution where it says that the government can't enact laws, protecting its interests, that happen to burden someone's sincere beliefs.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

So, as you can see I proved it.

Uh, where? LOL

SCOTUS didn't just mention the First Amendment once, they mentioned it several times and the RFRA is mentioned in the context of it supporting First Amendment civil rights. HL Mentioned the first amendment in their argument. There it is in the original texts I referenced above.

I see no reference or proof. Still waiting for your proof.

I posted it several times in the original documents. Now that you have lot the argument , you are playing the "nope, can't see it game." That's pretty sad and in keeping with intellectual dishonesty. You said "Show us where in the ruling the Constitution is referred to once." You were wrong, they mentioned it several times. You are now being disingenuous.

Where do you think the multiple references to the "free exercise clause" came from?--here's a hint:

The Bill of Rights in the National Archives

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

Where do you think the RFRA get's it's basis and mentions it several times as I clearly pointed out using the original text of the act. Here's another hint--look above.

To say that the SCOTUS ruling did not use the Constitution is very dishonest because it's tight there, multiple times, in the ruling and in the supporting documents including the RFRA.

But now we know why you have the irrational and dishonest stance you do have--it's a big Vatican conspiracy and no fact is going to sway you from that irrational belief system.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

Color me guilty.

Already done, et al!

I thought only evil Christians judge people. Perhaps you project your own prejudices and hatred upon other people. I've noticed that those who scream and wail about tolerance the most are the least tolerant of those they dislike. I see this in action here.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Still waiting for your proof.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

Not forcing someone else to buy you what you want it not a violation of your rights in any way.

First of all, that's not what insurance is all about.

Secondly, contraception is a legitimate government interest on behalf of public health, safety and welfare. Please show me in the Constitution where it says that the government can't enact laws, protecting its interests, that happen to burden someone's sincere beliefs.

Show me in the Constitution that birth control and health insurance are federal duties? If it is not specifically in there, it is not. Look at the 10th Amendment please.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

Still waiting for your proof.

I gave it to you in black and white. You were shown to be incorrect, using the original documents, and now you are trying to weasel out.

a reply to: NavyDoc

I posted it several times in the original documents.

Where? I'm not your secretary, I"m not going on a hunt through your posts.

Where do you think the multiple references to the "free exercise clause" came

How does that relate to the RFRA?

To say that the SCOTUS ruling did not use the Constitution is very dishonest because it's tight there, multiple times, in the ruling and in the supporting documents including the RFRA.

Don't make accusations. Prove it! Show me the Constitutional argument in the SCOTUS ruling that allows for the contraception exemption.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Show me in the Constitution that birth control and health insurance are federal duties? If it is not specifically in there, it is not. Look at the 10th Amendment please.

www.hhs.gov...

Please show me in the Constitution where it says that the government can't enact laws, protecting its interests, that happen to burden someone's sincere beliefs.

a reply to: NavyDoc

I gave it to you in black and white. You were shown to be incorrect, using the original documents, and now you are trying to weasel out.

Now you're being intellectually dishonest. You have NOT proven that the SCOTUS ruling wasn't based on the RFRA and not the Constitution.

You haven't even quoted a single line from the ruling.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

Still waiting for your proof.

ROFLMFAO

The 1st Amendment and the Free Exercise Clause are mentioned referring to the Third Circuit (struck down), and the 10th Circuit Court ruling that the Supreme Court upheld. And in references to other cases.

Specifically on page 2 and page 4......
Your Source

Blind rage is contagious isn't it.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

Show me in the Constitution that birth control and health insurance are federal duties? If it is not specifically in there, it is not. Look at the 10th Amendment please.

www.hhs.gov...

Please show me in the Constitution where it says that the government can't enact laws, protecting its interests, that happen to burden someone's sincere beliefs.

That's not how the Constitution works--please show me in the Constitution where it can enact laws outside it's mandate scope of reasonability. You have to prove that it is authorized by our founding government. The Burdon of proof is on the individual who wants to expand federal power. Here's a hint.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Someone should not have to prove that the Federal government can't do something, the government has to prove it can.

a reply to: xuenchen

Don't send me looking for data to back up your argument. Cite it!

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

I gave it to you in black and white. You were shown to be incorrect, using the original documents, and now you are trying to weasel out.

Now you're being intellectually dishonest. You have NOT proven that the SCOTUS ruling wasn't based on the RFRA and not the Constitution.

You haven't even quoted a single line from the ruling.

I mentioned several. You are playing the blind "no it isn't" game which you will do over and over until I give up with your blind and obvious intellectual dishonesty and go to bed. Then you will crow victory over the evil conservo-Nazis or whatever Huffpo or Move on call us now and think you won an intellectual argument without using an iota of intellect at all.

I posted multiple reverences and linked the original sources. Why don't you have some fortitude and point out to us why those excerpts from the decision do not count? That would be a hell of a lot more honest then just saying "didn't happen." Give us your counterpoint and we can discuss that. Otherwise you are just being intentionally obtuse. They are in my post.

a reply to: NavyDoc

That's not how the Constitution works--please show me in the Constitution where it can enact laws outside it's mandate scope of reasonability. You have to prove that it is authorized by our founding government. The Burdon of proof is on the individual who wants to expand federal power

You can't prove your point. The Establishment Clause prevent Congress from creating laws "respecting" religion. Congress isn't required to be tippy toeing around people beliefs when they make laws. It's up to the people to declare conscious objection if a law offend them.

The RFRA is a law that dictate when and how the government can make laws that step on the toes of religious people. It's not Constitutional.

Someone should not have to prove that the Federal government can't do something, the government has to prove it can.

Naive and gullible?