|
|
| Re: The Donald vs Ramos (1309667) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 7 |
||
|
| (1309934) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Wed Aug 26 23:47:38 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by Dave on Wed Aug 26 19:41:45 2015. Hobbylobby is a bad decision. Anyone that respects the idea of law should find it repulsive. The thought that an employer can dictate personal medical decisions of their employees is reprehensible at minimum. |
|
|
| (1309941) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by Jeff Rosen on Thu Aug 27 05:21:50 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Aug 26 17:20:48 2015. You guys? |
|
|
| (1309942) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by Jeff Rosen on Thu Aug 27 05:21:58 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Aug 26 17:20:48 2015. You guys? |
|
|
| (1309944) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Thu Aug 27 05:51:18 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by Dave on Wed Aug 26 19:41:45 2015. "Religious Freedom Restoration Acts" are just a fancy way of saying "People and businesses can impose their religious beliefs on other people", something that should NEVER be codified in law in this country. |
|
|
| (1309947) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Thu Aug 27 07:23:38 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by bingbong on Wed Aug 26 23:47:38 2015. Bad decision or not, it's the law of the land. |
|
|
| (1309948) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Thu Aug 27 07:32:52 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by JayZeeBMT on Thu Aug 27 05:51:18 2015. Is that so? If it's so bad, why did the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act pass both houses of Congress with overwhelming majorities? Point in fact, Ted Kenney was one of the driving forces behind RFRA. And Bill Clinton signed it. |
|
|
| (1309949) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Thu Aug 27 07:38:39 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Aug 26 22:38:18 2015. What does that have to do with it? The right of religious liberty has been recognized for over two hundred years in the First Amendment. HHS decided to mandate free birth control insurance coverage following passage of Obamacare in 2010. Naturally, the liberals sided with it over the established principle of religious liberty. |
|
|
| (1309955) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Thu Aug 27 08:38:24 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by Dave on Thu Aug 27 07:32:52 2015. It is now being interpreted differently. We'll see what the courts have to say about it. |
|
|
| (1309960) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Thu Aug 27 09:14:56 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by AlM on Thu Aug 27 08:38:24 2015. Problem there being can we trust thecourts? Lately, I'd say not so much...... |
|
|
| (1309963) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Thu Aug 27 09:38:31 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by Dave on Thu Aug 27 07:23:38 2015. It's time to work on overturning it, legislatively or through the courts . This harms over half the population. |
|
|
| (1309964) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by R2ChinaTown on Thu Aug 27 09:45:27 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by bingbong on Thu Aug 27 09:38:31 2015. So what are you personally doing right now to overturn this "bad" law? |
|
|
| (1309965) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Thu Aug 27 09:45:47 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by bingbong on Thu Aug 27 09:38:31 2015. How can it by overturned by the courts? Only SCOTUS can overturn its own earlier decisions. |
|
|
| (1309966) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Thu Aug 27 09:46:15 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by Dave on Thu Aug 27 07:38:39 2015. Inthis case it goes against the overriding principle of personal liberty. Yunno, the "life liberty and pursuit of happiness thing. Unwanted pregnancies get in the way of that. Back in the days when that was written, early term abortions were legal. |
|
|
| (1309967) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Thu Aug 27 09:46:46 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by R2ChinaTown on Thu Aug 27 09:45:27 2015. What business is it of yours? |
|
|
| (1309968) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Thu Aug 27 09:47:17 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by Dave on Thu Aug 27 09:45:47 2015. Well then we need a better SCOTUS. |
|
|
| (1309969) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by R2ChinaTown on Thu Aug 27 09:51:00 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by bingbong on Thu Aug 27 09:14:56 2015. Can we trust the courts? Do you mean courts like the Supreme Court which came up with two rulings virtually 180 degrees from each other, virtually rewriting intent to justify ACA? You trusted the courts then. Is it only when you disagree with a decision that you can't trust the courts? |
|
|
| (1309970) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Thu Aug 27 09:52:05 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by R2ChinaTown on Thu Aug 27 09:51:00 2015. Apparently that's your opinion of them. |
|
|
| (1309971) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by R2ChinaTown on Thu Aug 27 09:53:55 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by bingbong on Thu Aug 27 09:46:46 2015. You are the one with the flapping gums that "we" need to overturn that law. We includes you. I wanted to know what a seeminglybgreat activist such as yourself leads such an effort. Why so secretive? |
|
|
| (1309972) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by R2ChinaTown on Thu Aug 27 09:54:25 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by bingbong on Thu Aug 27 09:47:17 2015. Hahaha |
|
|
| (1309973) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu Aug 27 09:55:01 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by Dave on Wed Aug 26 19:41:45 2015. What bingbong said:There are no Democrats or liberals seeking to infringe on any individual's rights to practice their religion. What you said: Hillary and other liberals came out in opposition to the Hobby lobby decision. Remember that one? Hobby Lobby is an individual? |
|
|
| (1309974) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by R2ChinaTown on Thu Aug 27 09:56:03 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by bingbong on Thu Aug 27 09:52:05 2015. I'm asking you the question. I accept supreme court decisions. |
|
|
| (1309975) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by R2ChinaTown on Thu Aug 27 09:57:46 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by SMAZ on Thu Aug 27 09:55:01 2015. I thought that the courts already answered that question. Oh, that's right. The decision was written in English. |
|
|
| (1309977) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu Aug 27 10:02:50 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by Dave on Thu Aug 27 07:38:39 2015. The right of religious liberty has been recognized for over two hundred years in the First Amendment.This is what you are saying is recognized as the law of the land?    |
|
|
| (1309978) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Thu Aug 27 10:04:00 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by bingbong on Thu Aug 27 09:46:15 2015. Nothing can override personal liberty (SCOTUS made that clear in Roe v. Wade) but the State does have a legitimate interest in protecting woman's health. SCOTUS ruled in favor of personal (religious) liberties in Hobby Lobby. |
|
|
| (1309980) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu Aug 27 10:04:38 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by Dave on Thu Aug 27 09:45:47 2015. Hobby Lobby wasn't a constitutional decision regarding basic First Amendment rights.It was a statutory interpretation of the federal RFRA. It can be changed by Congress. |
|
|
| (1309981) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Thu Aug 27 10:05:48 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by bingbong on Thu Aug 27 09:47:17 2015. The plaint that's been wailed since the late 1700's! You might recall learning that FDR tried to pack the court in the 1930's because he was so frustrated with its decisions. |
|
|
| (1309983) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Thu Aug 27 10:06:51 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by SMAZ on Thu Aug 27 10:02:50 2015. Where did I say that the right was absolute and could never be set aside? |
|
|
| (1309984) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Thu Aug 27 10:07:32 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by SMAZ on Thu Aug 27 10:04:38 2015. That's true. Where did I say otherwise? |
|
|
| (1309985) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Thu Aug 27 10:10:11 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by SMAZ on Thu Aug 27 09:55:01 2015. According to SCOTUS, yes. |
|
|
| (1309986) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Thu Aug 27 10:11:20 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by R2ChinaTown on Thu Aug 27 09:56:03 2015. No you don't. Your buddies wouldn't be voting again next month to repeal ACA if that was the case |
|
|
| (1309987) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu Aug 27 10:12:31 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by Dave on Thu Aug 27 10:07:32 2015. Where did I say otherwise?one post ago |
|
|
| (1309988) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Thu Aug 27 10:12:52 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by R2ChinaTown on Thu Aug 27 09:53:55 2015. What I'm doing about it is none of your business. |
|
|
| (1309989) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu Aug 27 10:14:33 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by R2ChinaTown on Thu Aug 27 09:57:46 2015. The decision was written in English.You may want to learn that language one day. Speaking in grunts can only get you so far. |
|
|
| (1309990) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Thu Aug 27 10:15:39 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by SMAZ on Thu Aug 27 10:12:31 2015. mkt says:Democrats are also good at taking away rights. That is unless you favor taking away freedom to practice one's religion, individual rights under the second amendment or the 10 Amendment Bingbong says: There are no Democrats or liberals seeking to infringe on any individual's rights to practice their religion Dave says: Hillary and other liberals came out in opposition to the Hobby lobby decision. Remember that one? So the issue is whether Democrats are trying to undermine the 1st Amendment. Bingbong says no, and you say yes, Hobby Lobby. |
|
|
| (1309991) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Thu Aug 27 10:16:39 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by SMAZ on Thu Aug 27 10:12:31 2015. What part of "How can it by overturned by the courts?" didn't you understand? Without Congress amending a law, only SCOTUS can overrule its earlier decisions. |
|
|
| (1309999) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Thu Aug 27 10:40:48 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by AlM on Thu Aug 27 10:15:39 2015. Bingbong says no, and you say yes, Hobby Lobby.I assume you were trying to respond to Dave. |
|
|
| (1310000) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Thu Aug 27 10:50:38 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by SMAZ on Thu Aug 27 10:40:48 2015. Yes. |
|
|
| (1310002) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by ChicagoMotorman on Thu Aug 27 10:55:04 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by SelkirkTMO on Wed Aug 26 19:58:49 2015. What you didn't but should have said, "Smaz, you are wrong for that. We may disagree with ChicagoMotorman on many issues, but you are wrong for saying that." |
|
|
| (1310003) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Thu Aug 27 11:02:44 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by AlM on Thu Aug 27 10:15:39 2015. Despite what John Roberrts may think, corporations are NOT people. Even privately held ones. |
|
|
| (1310005) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Thu Aug 27 11:04:12 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by Dave on Thu Aug 27 10:10:11 2015. That's where they go wrong. |
|
|
| (1310007) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Thu Aug 27 11:06:35 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by bingbong on Thu Aug 27 11:04:12 2015. Except neither your opinion nor mine matters; unless/until SCOTUS reverses itself or Congress amends the law, Hobby Lobby is the law of the land. |
|
|
| (1310011) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Thu Aug 27 11:29:35 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by Dave on Thu Aug 27 11:06:35 2015. Which obviously is fine with you. A decision that ignores science (IUDs are not abortifacients, nor is emergency contraception) is entirely outside any logic in a secular governing system. Add to that the fact that corporations are NOT people and that decision is 100% wrong. Why anyone would accept it and not work in whatever way possible to reverse and eliminate shows their misogyny, a hate as strong as the Klan is racist. |
|
|
| (1310013) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Thu Aug 27 11:38:36 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by bingbong on Thu Aug 27 11:29:35 2015. lol |
|
|
| (1310015) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Thu Aug 27 12:09:03 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by Dave on Thu Aug 27 10:04:00 2015. They ruled that a corporation can hold sway over an individuals right to live as they please, within the confines of their own consciences, NOT the errant belief of an employer. HHS mandated contraceptive coverage as it is basic healthcare for human adults.One should not be able to lie their way to a judgment, correct? That's exactly what happened here. Such is even noted in the decision itself, that the suit itself is based on a bogus claim. Yet they let this continue? It's clearly about misogyny. |
|
|
| (1310021) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Aug 27 12:54:39 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by bingbong on Thu Aug 27 11:02:44 2015. “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise. . .the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;” 1 U.S.C. §1 |
|
|
| (1310022) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Aug 27 12:57:54 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by Dave on Thu Aug 27 10:10:11 2015. And according to Congress. The ruling cited 1 U.S.C. §1 as its justification for treating corporations as individuals. |
|
|
| (1310023) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Thu Aug 27 13:01:42 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Aug 27 12:57:54 2015. That's easy to say when YOU are not the ones being oppressed. |
|
|
| (1310024) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Thu Aug 27 13:04:52 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Aug 27 12:57:54 2015. That is intended to apply to language in law, NOT individual rights conferred to a corporation, and certainly not where doing so serves to oppress the rights of the individual. That is PRECISELY what Hobbylobby does. It is oppression in its purest form. |
|
|
| (1310026) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Thu Aug 27 13:08:07 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by bingbong on Thu Aug 27 13:01:42 2015. Calm the fuck down for once. I am stating a fact, not giving my opinion. |
|
|
| (1310030) | |
Re: The Donald vs Ramos |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Thu Aug 27 13:12:30 2015, in response to Re: The Donald vs Ramos, posted by SMAZ on Thu Aug 27 10:02:50 2015. Thanks for showing yourself as an antisemite. Again. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 7 |
||