Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Birth Control
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="BrownArmy" data-source="post: 1361011" data-attributes="member: 18225"><p>Yet the SCOTUS could have, conceivably, ruled in the totally opposite direction, and what would your view point be then?</p><p></p><p>When the SCOTUS ruled in favor of the ACA, I thought that was a real boneheaded and convoluted opinion.</p><p></p><p>I also disagree with their dismantling of campaign finance reform (in the end, we can argue about Tom vs. Jerry, but money in politics is the first problem we're facing, ymmv...).</p><p></p><p>The 'Hobby Lobby' decision is also ill-conceived. You agree with the context of this decision in terms of the particular case, but I think you fail to realize the ramifications.</p><p></p><p>I asked another poster what he would think if, based on this decision, a (<em>Muslim, Jehovah's Witness, Scientologist</em>) employer refused to pay for (<em>a vaccine with pork ingredients, a life-saving blood transfusion, or PTSD-related treatments with a psychiatrist</em>), etc. I got no answer.</p><p></p><p>Maybe you'll be able to convince me why there's a difference between those religious exemptions and those for HL.</p><p></p><p>Pandora's Box.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BrownArmy, post: 1361011, member: 18225"] Yet the SCOTUS could have, conceivably, ruled in the totally opposite direction, and what would your view point be then? When the SCOTUS ruled in favor of the ACA, I thought that was a real boneheaded and convoluted opinion. I also disagree with their dismantling of campaign finance reform (in the end, we can argue about Tom vs. Jerry, but money in politics is the first problem we're facing, ymmv...). The 'Hobby Lobby' decision is also ill-conceived. You agree with the context of this decision in terms of the particular case, but I think you fail to realize the ramifications. I asked another poster what he would think if, based on this decision, a ([I]Muslim, Jehovah's Witness, Scientologist[/I]) employer refused to pay for ([I]a vaccine with pork ingredients, a life-saving blood transfusion, or PTSD-related treatments with a psychiatrist[/I]), etc. I got no answer. Maybe you'll be able to convince me why there's a difference between those religious exemptions and those for HL. Pandora's Box. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Birth Control
Top