"trader_4" wrote in message news:429dae22-
stuff snipped
Maybe you can explain how baking a cake for a gay client poisons their
religiosity anyway? Is it that feeble that a cake threatens it?
Are you and all the libs, all the gays so feeble that what one
baker in a country of 320 mil does, threatens all of you?
Nice dodge but it doesn't answer the question. I *am* quite concerned when
a baker breaks the law and then hides behind the robes of God to cloak his
bigotry. Want to open a public storefront? Then you've got to obey the
laws. They didn't and were defiant about it. Like that idiot cattle grazer
trying to go from deadbeat to Tea Party hero. No sale.
You might be interested to know what they just found out about another group
of god-botherers - the Hobby Lobbyists. Remember them? They were so
concerned with having anything to do with birth control that they duped the
SC into ruling in their favor because of their "deeply held" convictions as
a company (spit!). Now investigators have discovered that Hobby Lobby's
401K plan has investments in - you guessed it - the very companies that make
the birth control devices that horrify the Hobby Lobbyists so profoundly
that they needed a Supreme Court exemption from having anything to do with
birth control. Apparently funding the manufacture of birth control
technology doesn't bother their ultra-religious consciences.
It's hypocrisy, pure and simple, and it plays on the mistaken belief that
religion can trump the law. Maybe in Iran but not in America. The Hobby
Lobby ruling won't stay put long. It's based on the mistaken belief that
companies can hold religious feelings and now even the Supremes know they
got duped. When was the last time you saw a company praying? The Defense
of Marriage Act didn't last long, either. Good luck to the god-botherers on
getting a Constitutional amendment defining marriage. It will NEVER happen.
Here's the info a reporter dug up about our pious friends, the Hobby Lobby
folks:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickunga...covered-to-be-
investor-in-numerous-abortion-and-contraception-products-while-claiming-reli
gious-
objection/
http://tinyurl.com/ly6nbty
The following is a summation of the companies manufacturing these products
that are held by the Hobby Lobby employee retirement plan, as set forth by
Ms. Redden's remarkable reporting:These companies include Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes Plan B and ParaGard, a copper IUD,
and Actavis Actavis, which makes a generic version of Plan B and distributes
Ella. Other holdings in the mutual funds selected by Hobby Lobby include
Pfizer Pfizer, the maker of Cytotec and Prostin E2, which are used to induce
abortions; Bayer Bayer, which manufactures the hormonal IUDs Skyla and
Mirena; AstraZeneca AstraZeneca, which has an Indian subsidiary that
manufactures Prostodin, Cerviprime, and Partocin, three drugs commonly used
in abortions; and Forest Laboratories, which makes Cervidil, a drug used to
induce abortions. Several funds in the Hobby Lobby retirement plan also
invested in Aetna Aetna and Humana, two health insurance companies that
cover surgical abortions, abortion drugs, and emergency contraception in
many of the health care policies they sell.
It's digusting to see the Supreme Court get a) so hosed by lying litigants
and so tangled up in deciding the unknowable (like how closely one's
religious beliefs are held). Apparently they were asleep in law school
because one of the first things you learn is that no one can testify
truthfully to the operation of another person's mind. There are companies
that screen such investments for companies and people that have REAL
closely-felt beliefs in not supporting certain industries and companies but
apparently HL didn't bother to look.
The irony is that the SCs loony-tune rulings have skewered both liberals and
conservatives and have left other issues "to be decided" by further
litigation (IOW, let the lower courts figure it out). Money = free speech.
Corporations have religious feelings. It's not a tax . . .
What's even funnier is that even though the courts are flooded with
litigation below the level of the SC, the Supremes have managed to trim
their case load substantially over the years. Shirkers.
The worst part of the modern SC is that they rely more and more on amicus
briefs for their basic facts. That's not even as credible as using
Wikipedia because each side presents only their version of the facts. More
than a few law journals and legal websites have noted this tendency and how
often the SC based its rulings on non-factual information contained in
amicus briefs.
Hell, Sotomayor admitted she couldn't tell the difference between 25' and
75' but was asked to decide a case about how far protestors had to keep away
from abortion clinics. That's just outrageous, at least to me. Recuse
yourself, dear, for being stupid. And yet short of impeachment, we're stuck
with her.
--
Bobby G.