Page 11 of 169 FirstFirst ... 6789101112131415162161111 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 220 of 3371

Thread: SCOTUS decisions

  1. #201
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    There you go again. I never said anything like "end of the world". I said disasterous and several Justices agree.
    And several justices plus one disagree. The difference is that others on this thread have actually read what those justices wrote and are trained to understand the implications of their opinions. You most likely have not read the opinion and have not taken any courses in constitutional law.

  2. #202
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    Quote Originally Posted by RChildress107 View Post
    Actually this is exactly what you said:



    The bold is the only part that is even remotely accurate. There are several things that will stop your concern over cherry-picking.

    1st: the company must have a sincerely held religious belief that is being infringed upon. As the majority pointed out it would be difficult for large, publicly held corporations to establish a sincere belief. It also prevents company's that are trying to use the religious exception to save money on insurance. The court would consider evidence of sincerity, it doesn't just take the company's word for it.

    2nd: the Court could decide that the government's interest in requiring certain portions of the ACA is compelling and that an exemption would negate that interest.
    and things like this can be gerry-rigged.

    What if Company X sells itself to Corp Y which has a charter saying all those things. Corp Y can participate.

    Again, you know more than four Justices of the Supreme Court who agree with me.

    This is another RW attack on women.

  3. #203
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    I never said it had anything to do with gay people either. Where the fuck did you get that?
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post

    Further, if you can use religion to deny certain aspects of healthcare, why can't you use religion to deny service to gay people? Or single women?
    Just stop

  4. #204
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    My bad I don't memorize what I post., BUT that could come to pass. The door is open.

  5. #205
    I mean you did say gay people and single women. I went back and grabbed the quote to correct myself after I incorrectly put race.

  6. #206
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    and things like this can be gerry-rigged.

    What if Company X sells itself to Corp Y which has a charter saying all those things. Corp Y can participate.

    Again, you know more than four Justices of the Supreme Court who agree with me.

    This is another RW attack on women.
    Those justices do not agree with you. I promise. I know more than you when it comes to this matter, including enough to know that you either haven't read or comprehended the dissent in this case.

  7. #207
    There is a lot of stupid going on in this thread and the whole case just really reinforces how poorly conceived and executed the ACA was.

    Just switch to a single payer system and get rid of all this bullshit about what company doesn't want to provide which benefit because it is prohibited by whatever deity.
    Hungry

  8. #208
    Rusty Larue

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem thru 2020
    Posts
    10,970
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    My bad I don't memorize what I post., BUT that could come to pass. The door is open.
    But you accuse people of misquoting you anyway. You have multiple people on this thread who know what they are talking about telling you that you have no clue what you are talking about.

    Your appeal to authority is laughable when I can go read that authority and see that it doesn't support what you say.

  9. #209
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    My bad I don't memorize what I post., BUT that could come to pass. The door is open.
    That door is not open. The government will win every case where they say we have a compelling governmental interest to preventing discrimination on the basis of race.

  10. #210
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    Quote Originally Posted by RChildress107 View Post
    But you accuse people of misquoting you anyway. You have multiple people on this thread who know what they are talking about telling you that you have no clue what you are talking about.

    Your appeal to authority is laughable when I can go read that authority and see that it doesn't support what you say.
    so you know more than Justices on the Supreme Court. What a shock that you think that?!

  11. #211
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    so you know more than Justices on the Supreme Court. What a shock that you think that?!
    He's not saying that, he's saying you're taking the quotes of the dissent out of context of what they're saying in the broader argument.

  12. #212
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    Quote Originally Posted by Wakeforest22890 View Post
    That door is not open. The government will win every case where they say we have a compelling governmental interest to preventing discrimination on the basis of race.
    I'm not talking about discrimination on race.

  13. #213
    Quote Originally Posted by RChildress107 View Post
    But you accuse people of misquoting you anyway. You have multiple people on this thread who know what they are talking about telling you that you have no clue what you are talking about.

    Your appeal to authority is laughable when I can go read that authority and see that it doesn't support what you say.
    But 4, F-O-U-R, that's one, two, three, four, justices practically quoted him, word for word, thus proving his authority on this specific topic.

  14. #214
    this thread was way better before people started responding to rj

  15. #215
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    I'm not talking about discrimination on race.
    Sorry, keep putting race and sex up there together. The government will win every case where they say they have a compelling government interest in preventing discrimination on the basis of gender.

    Similarly, it's allowable to fire people on the basis of sexual orientation in a lot of states anyway. This case has no impact on that since employers don't need RFRA to do that in at-will states where sexual orientation isn't a protected class.

  16. #216
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    so you know more than Justices on the Supreme Court. What a shock that you think that?!
    So you also know more than justices on the Supreme Court? What a shock that you think that!
    Last edited by PM please.; 06-30-2014 at 02:07 PM.

  17. #217
    Banhammer'd
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    78,116
    Quote Originally Posted by Wakeforest22890 View Post
    Sorry, keep putting race and sex up there together. The government will win every case where they say they have a compelling government interest in preventing discrimination on the basis of gender.

    Similarly, it's allowable to fire people on the basis of sexual orientation in a lot of states anyway. This case has no impact on that since employers don't need RFRA to do that in at-will states where sexual orientation isn't a protected class.
    Show me where I specifically said this.

  18. #218
    Quote Originally Posted by Wakeforest22890 View Post
    That door is not open. The government will win every case where they say we have a compelling governmental interest to preventing discrimination on the basis of race.
    EL-OH-EL. I won't threadjack, I'll just quietly note by objection to this sweeping and inaccurate conclusion, since we've had many, many threads where you guys advocate FOR de jure discrimination solely on the basis of race BY our government.
    Last edited by jhmd2000; 06-30-2014 at 01:52 PM.

  19. #219
    The King of Kong Billy Mitchell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Fun Spot, USA
    Posts
    1,159
    .
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy Mitchell View Post
    oh good rj is back
    .

  20. #220
    WTF happened to this thread? It done blew up.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •