Shock defeat of majority leader Eric Cantor by Tea Party sends shockwaves through Republican Party

[ClutchClark]

You obviously don't like tough questions.

Ironically this "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" essentially allows corporations to *impose* religious diktats on individuals. And it was Clinton legislation!

Where does it say Islam isn't covered?

Sent from my SM-N900T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I obviously don't like stupid questions. Why would I be required to work for any particular company? As to disqualifications, I've been told not bother to apply because I'm white, don't speak Spanish, wrong nationality(Thailand/Singapore), etc. As to avoiding religious diktats, even if it is possible to impose them, I would just quit and take another job, or start my own business. It's the U.S. not the Communist Soviet Union or China.

Why would I care about Islam? I'm Protestant, should I sue the Catholics for not letting me be a priest?

Since you & UG seem to be on the same page with your post, would you mind telling us what your career was?

And just so I don't misunderstand you--are you saying you see no problem if you are fired from a job you have performed exemplary for much of your life because of your race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, marital status, etc?

I must say, I do not know many people like you and UG, who would simply shrug it off and start over again with no ill feelings.

Cheers

Where do you guys get this people being fired business? All I've seen, is the Supreme Court ruled in Hobby Lobby's favor on the insurance/contraceptive issue. If people don't like working there, they can quit and get another job, nobody is forcing them to stay there.

Haven't been fired, but I've probably been discriminated against for one or more of the reasons listed. So what? I just applied for jobs where I thought I would be satisfied, and haven't had any problem finding work for over 30 years. I guess the difference for me, is that except for a paycheck for services rendered, I don't think anybody owes me anything.

Where do I get it? From your last post when you brought it up ;-)

And since you broached that topic, if an employer can use religious grounds to avoid some laws then whats to prevent them from using religious grounds to avoid any laws they choose?

But you sound like you are fine being discriminated against and walk your talk.

I wonder if that would change if you were not a middle-age, hetero, white male since we are the least discriminated against of any group?

Do you think a person who is none of the above and had children to feed might like the EEO laws that our country legislated in the 1970's because of the discrimination our country once practiced?

You don't mind if one employer is given advantage because of their religion but many people in society do.

Especially other employers who are required to follow the law and incur additional operating costs than their religious competition.

Cheers

Edited July 7, 2014 by ClutchClark

[beechguy]

You obviously don't like tough questions.

Ironically this "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" essentially allows corporations to *impose* religious diktats on individuals. And it was Clinton legislation!

Where does it say Islam isn't covered?

Sent from my SM-N900T using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

I obviously don't like stupid questions. Why would I be required to work for any particular company? As to disqualifications, I've been told not bother to apply because I'm white, don't speak Spanish, wrong nationality(Thailand/Singapore), etc. As to avoiding religious diktats, even if it is possible to impose them, I would just quit and take another job, or start my own business. It's the U.S. not the Communist Soviet Union or China.

Why would I care about Islam? I'm Protestant, should I sue the Catholics for not letting me be a priest?

Since you & UG seem to be on the same page with your post, would you mind telling us what your career was?

And just so I don't misunderstand you--are you saying you see no problem if you are fired from a job you have performed exemplary for much of your life because of your race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, marital status, etc?

I must say, I do not know many people like you and UG, who would simply shrug it off and start over again with no ill feelings.

Cheers

beechguy:

From what I can gather, this particular individual has worked in the US his entire life and has never been an expat worker.

Perhaps he simply doesn't understand that there are very few nations in this world that have enacted anything resembling the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

You work under the rules they impose in the country you are working in. If they want to replace a Non-Muslim American in Saudi Arabia with a Muslim Saudi citizen, they give you 30 days notice and send you home.

End of story.

Agreed Chuck, seeing the overseas side of things could be an eye opener for some. I guess I never felt like anyone owed me more than a paycheck. If they gave insurance and benefits, that's fine, but if they didn't, I supplied my own.

Edited July 7, 2014 by beechguy

[ClutchClark]

I obviously don't like stupid questions. Why would I be required to work for any particular company? As to disqualifications, I've been told not bother to apply because I'm white, don't speak Spanish, wrong nationality(Thailand/Singapore), etc. As to avoiding religious diktats, even if it is possible to impose them, I would just quit and take another job, or start my own business. It's the U.S. not the Communist Soviet Union or China.

Why would I care about Islam? I'm Protestant, should I sue the Catholics for not letting me be a priest?

Since you & UG seem to be on the same page with your post, would you mind telling us what your career was?

And just so I don't misunderstand you--are you saying you see no problem if you are fired from a job you have performed exemplary for much of your life because of your race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, marital status, etc?

I must say, I do not know many people like you and UG, who would simply shrug it off and start over again with no ill feelings.

Cheers

beechguy:

From what I can gather, this particular individual has worked in the US his entire life and has never been an expat worker.

Perhaps he simply doesn't understand that there are very few nations in this world that have enacted anything resembling the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

You work under the rules they impose in the country you are working in. If they want to replace a Non-Muslim American in Saudi Arabia with a Muslim Saudi citizen, they give you 30 days notice and send you home.

End of story.

Agreed Chuck, seeing the overseas side of things could be an eye opener for some. I guess I never felt like anyone owed me more than a paycheck. If they gave insurance and benefits, that's fine, but if they didn't, I supplied my own.

Have been employed overseas by US employers. More specifically, International O&G employers and my European workmates were employed under more favorable contracts than myself.

Like many people, I chose employment that met certain criteria. Retired from first career with a pension. Worked O&G for good money but no security after that. Was a self-employed home builder when time allowed. Now retired.

Personally, chuck I wouldn't waste time working in a country that did not have decent employment laws. Most people would choose employment without discriminatory practices but you two guys are different and thats great.

Cheers

[chuckd]

beechguy:

From what I can gather, this particular individual has worked in the US his entire life and has never been an expat worker.

Perhaps he simply doesn't understand that there are very few nations in this world that have enacted anything resembling the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

You work under the rules they impose in the country you are working in. If they want to replace a Non-Muslim American in Saudi Arabia with a Muslim Saudi citizen, they give you 30 days notice and send you home.

End of story.

Agreed Chuck, seeing the overseas side of things could be an eye opener for some. I guess I never felt like anyone owed me more than a paycheck. If they gave insurance and benefits, that's fine, but if they didn't, I supplied my own.

Have been employed overseas by US employers. More specifically, International O&G employers and my European workmates were employed under more favorable contracts than myself.

Like many people, I chose employment that met certain criteria. Retired from first career with a pension. Worked O&G for good money but no security after that. Was a self-employed home builder when time allowed. Now retired.

Personally, chuck I wouldn't waste time working in a country that did not have decent employment laws. Most people would choose employment without discriminatory practices but you two guys are different and thats great.

Cheers

This is what I said:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You work under the rules they impose in the country you are working in. If they want to replace a Non-Muslim American in Saudi Arabia with a Muslim Saudi citizen, they give you 30 days notice and send you home.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Except in your mind how does that morph into working in a country that does not have decent employment laws?

In Saudi Arabia it's called "Saudiazation".

I can understand your confusion since, as a US based employee during your forays internationally, you would have been covered under the corporate umbrella with local labor laws having little impact on you personally. Sort of like working under a benevolent union umbrella, wasn't it.

[Chicog]

Thanks for your detailed reply Chuck - maybe employment wasn't the best example to use.

Rather than keep juggling threads, I'll wait for someone to open a thread on the Hobby Lobby decision, which is obviously going to lead to further decisions; and Immigration, because it seems to be becoming more of an issue in recent weeks.

I'm not sure these discussions count as "news" though.

Maybe there's room on TV for a Debate or a Politics Discussion forum? Or has that been tried before?

[Ulysses G.]

Maybe there's room on TV for a Debate or a Politics Discussion forum? Or has that been tried before?

Yes. The Bear Pit. The old timers remember.

Edited July 7, 2014 by Ulysses G.

[Chicog]

What happened to it?

[Ulysses G.]

They turned it into a separate website and sold it. Too many arguments. It still exists, but not much action these days.

[Scott]

You are welcome to open topics in Outside The Box.

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/forum/134-outside-the-box/

[NeverSure]

When these "religious persons" start dictating to which laws they choose to adhere, the whole separation of church and state goes out of the window.

Where do you get this "separation of church and state" bit?" It isn't mentioned in the US constitution anywhere. It isn't coded in another law anywhere. How can you premise a post on something that doesn't exist?

"Separation of church and state" is a buzz-phrase invented by people with an agenda to violate the US Constitution and peoples' actual Constitutional rights and this time as usual the Supreme Court knew the law. BTW the Constitution is Law.

When the 13 colonies first formed the federal government they were afraid it would get too much power. They were so afraid that they came back and amended it with the 1st 10 amendments known as The Bill of Rights. This was to secure the rights of the people against this new government. "People," as in individuals.

The rights that individuals were assured included the right to practice the religion of their choice without government interference. This is where the Supreme Court got it right.

The government is precluded from establishing an official state religion.

Peoples' rights to follow the religion of their choice isn't limited to the privacy of their homes. That wouldn't be freedom. They are free to practice it in their own business too. The government can't cram something down their throats at their place of business that violates their religious beliefs. That wouldn't be freedom of religion either.

Stop whining. It's been that way for more than 200 years.

Edited July 7, 2014 by NeverSure

[Johpa]

As for Cantor, he was ousted because he didn't do enough to keep out the Mexicans.

Apparently the WASPs have decided there is no more room in the nation of immigrants for hard working, swarthy immigrants from the South.

I would not call the rather backward masses in Cantor's district WASPs, crackers maybe, but not WASPs. Cantor was both Jewish and urban and when finally given a candidate even slightly more conservative than Cantor they gathered their narrow band DNA and voted for someone far more like themselves.

[NeverSure]

As for Cantor, he was ousted because he didn't do enough to keep out the Mexicans.

Apparently the WASPs have decided there is no more room in the nation of immigrants for hard working, swarthy immigrants from the South.

I would not call the rather backward masses in Cantor's district WASPs, crackers maybe, but not WASPs. Cantor was both Jewish and urban and when finally given a candidate even slightly more conservative than Cantor they gathered their narrow band DNA and voted for someone far more like themselves.

I am always amazed at how hate can blind people. Your statements are wishful thinking unsupported by facts.

No, you wouldn't call them "Crackers." That term refers to the original pioneers of the State of Georgia, as in "Georgia Crackers." It comes from their cracking of bull whips to drive their cattle. Nothing to do with a belief system or politics and certainly nothing to do with Virginia.

The "narrow band" won the election, and now Obama and his Democrats are sincerely afraid of the upcoming elections the first week of November where 33 of 100 Senate seats are up for grabs. It's possible that the Republicans could regain control of the Senate giving them control of both houses of Congress and thereby putting a sock in Obama's mouth. Time will tell.

Cantor's district is not some rural town in the Appalachians. It is not West Virginia. Cantor was not a bit player. Cantor's district is Richmond Virginia which is only about 100 miles S. of Washington DC and is definitely mainstream.

Obama and his Democrats are incredibly unpopular in the polls and we'll have to wait to see if the Cantor defeat was just a tsunami warning.

[Chicog]

As for Cantor, he was ousted because he didn't do enough to keep out the Mexicans.

Apparently the WASPs have decided there is no more room in the nation of immigrants for hard working, swarthy immigrants from the South.

I would not call the rather backward masses in Cantor's district WASPs, crackers maybe, but not WASPs. Cantor was both Jewish and urban and when finally given a candidate even slightly more conservative than Cantor they gathered their narrow band DNA and voted for someone far more like themselves.

Was this before or after Virginia gerrymandered his district?

[Chicog]

When these "religious persons" start dictating to which laws they choose to adhere, the whole separation of church and state goes out of the window.

Where do you get this "separation of church and state" bit?" It isn't mentioned in the US constitution anywhere. It isn't coded in another law anywhere. How can you premise a post on something that doesn't exist?

"Separation of church and state" is a buzz-phrase invented by people with an agenda to violate the US Constitution and peoples' actual Constitutional rights and this time as usual the Supreme Court knew the law. BTW the Constitution is Law.

When the 13 colonies first formed the federal government they were afraid it would get too much power. They were so afraid that they came back and amended it with the 1st 10 amendments known as The Bill of Rights. This was to secure the rights of the people against this new government. "People," as in individuals.

The rights that individuals were assured included the right to practice the religion of their choice without government interference. This is where the Supreme Court got it right.

The government is precluded from establishing an official state religion.

Peoples' rights to follow the religion of their choice isn't limited to the privacy of their homes. That wouldn't be freedom. They are free to practice it in their own business too. The government can't cram something down their throats at their place of business that violates their religious beliefs. That wouldn't be freedom of religion either.

Stop whining. It's been that way for more than 200 years.

Well it hasn't has it Chuck? There have been numerous Supreme Court decisions keeping religion out of state business, e.g. http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/482/578/case.html when Louisiana wanted to mandate the teaching of their mumbo jumbo creationism alongside science.

In fact I even found a reference from 1947:

In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."

Maybe that's where the phrase originated.

So if forcing federal laws to change because of religious beliefs doesn't qualify as a threat to "separation of church and state", what does?

In this particular instance, there is a plan B and a plan C, so the impact is actually minimal.

But the doors this ruling opens are another thing entirely. Lots of lawsuits lining up from what I can read.

[bendejo]

Somewhere on the New York Times website there is an article by David Carr, who interviewed the one (1) journalist who covered the campaign of Cantor's opponent. That's right, no embedded press corps, no news network considered it worth covering, just this one solitary fellow.

My take away, after reading this, is that Cantor lost because of his own arrogance and hubris. He barely campaigned, he knew he'd get re-elected because his campaign fund was multiples of what this unknown twerp had behind him, a no-brainer.

It's been obvious for a long time what a dipstick Cantor is. IMO this is not a referendum on the Tea Party or immigration reform. All of these 24-hour news networks with so little to report, and they need something to fill in between the commercials ("day number nnn and still no sign of the missing plane, but someone in Malaysia said today..."). If there is any 'wake-up call' here it is that winning an election takes more campaign money.

[NeverSure]

When these "religious persons" start dictating to which laws they choose to adhere, the whole separation of church and state goes out of the window.

Where do you get this "separation of church and state" bit?" It isn't mentioned in the US constitution anywhere. It isn't coded in another law anywhere. How can you premise a post on something that doesn't exist?

"Separation of church and state" is a buzz-phrase invented by people with an agenda to violate the US Constitution and peoples' actual Constitutional rights and this time as usual the Supreme Court knew the law. BTW the Constitution is Law.

When the 13 colonies first formed the federal government they were afraid it would get too much power. They were so afraid that they came back and amended it with the 1st 10 amendments known as The Bill of Rights. This was to secure the rights of the people against this new government. "People," as in individuals.

The rights that individuals were assured included the right to practice the religion of their choice without government interference. This is where the Supreme Court got it right.

The government is precluded from establishing an official state religion.

Peoples' rights to follow the religion of their choice isn't limited to the privacy of their homes. That wouldn't be freedom. They are free to practice it in their own business too. The government can't cram something down their throats at their place of business that violates their religious beliefs. That wouldn't be freedom of religion either.

Stop whining. It's been that way for more than 200 years.

Well it hasn't has it Chuck? There have been numerous Supreme Court decisions keeping religion out of state business, e.g. http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/482/578/case.html when Louisiana wanted to mandate the teaching of their mumbo jumbo creationism alongside science.

In fact I even found a reference from 1947:

In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), Justice Hugo Black wrote: "In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state."

Maybe that's where the phrase originated.

So if forcing federal laws to change because of religious beliefs doesn't qualify as a threat to "separation of church and state", what does?

In this particular instance, there is a plan B and a plan C, so the impact is actually minimal.

But the doors this ruling opens are another thing entirely. Lots of lawsuits lining up from what I can read.

When did my name become "Chuck?"

There is no law in the US mandating separation of church and state. It is nowhere mentioned in the law.

"So if forcing federal laws to change because of religious beliefs doesn't qualify as a threat to "separation of church and state", what does?"

First and last, there is no mandate for separation of church and state. The term is used to try to take away peoples' religious freedoms, as in the instant case. (I know, you need to google "instant case.")

The point is that the constitution is there to stop the laws from changing in the first place to where they violate religious freedoms. Thats what the law did, and what the Supreme Court struck down.

You have it backwards in believing the Constitution somehow allows unconstitutional laws to stand.

[NeverSure]

Somewhere on the New York Times website there is an article by David Carr, who interviewed the one (1) journalist who covered the campaign of Cantor's opponent. That's right, no embedded press corps, no news network considered it worth covering, just this one solitary fellow.

My take away, after reading this, is that Cantor lost because of his own arrogance and hubris. He barely campaigned, he knew he'd get re-elected because his campaign fund was multiples of what this unknown twerp had behind him, a no-brainer.

It's been obvious for a long time what a dipstick Cantor is. IMO this is not a referendum on the Tea Party or immigration reform. All of these 24-hour news networks with so little to report, and they need something to fill in between the commercials ("day number nnn and still no sign of the missing plane, but someone in Malaysia said today..."). If there is any 'wake-up call' here it is that winning an election takes more campaign money.

David Carr is a nutso coke addict posing as a serious journalist and he has an agenda.

The only poll or opinion that matters will be that of the voters in November. Cantor learned that by going down in flames after leading the polls by a wide margin.

[Chicog]

When did my name become "Chuck?"

Apologies - too many tabs open!

There is no law in the US mandating separation of church and state. It is nowhere mentioned in the law.

I never said it was. I simply quoted a Supreme Court judge's interpretation, which is probably the origin of the phrase.

The principle is a good one - unless one is religious and seeks to impose their doctrine on others, in which case of course they oppose it.

[chuckd]

When did my name become "Chuck?"

Apologies - too many tabs open!

There is no law in the US mandating separation of church and state. It is nowhere mentioned in the law.

I never said it was. I simply quoted a Supreme Court judge's interpretation, which is probably the origin of the phrase.

The principle is a good one - unless one is religious and seeks to impose their doctrine on others, in which case of course they oppose it.

Since I have been dragged into this discussion kicking and screaming, let me add a few words.

First off, NeverSure is absolutely correct. The separation of church and state exists nowhere in the US Constitution.

Secondly, Chicog's comment that the phrase "probably" originated in a SCOTUS decision is incorrect.

Concerning the legal ramifications of this matter, the term is first found in a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury (CT) Baptist Association in 1802. The pertinent portion of his letter states this:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Supreme Court first applied this personal letter of Jefferson to the thoughts of the framers of the Constitution in an 1879 ruling and it has been hotly debated since that time...and will very likely be hotly debated in the future.

Edited July 8, 2014 by chuckd

[Chicog]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/us/politics/democrats-draft-bill-to-override-contraception-ruling.html?ref=us

And the Dems will no doubt be pushing this one until election time - bound to get blocked by the GOP.

Can't paste any of it - NY Times website.

But here's the gist from another website.

Senate Democrats are poised to introduce legislation as early as Tuesday to reverse the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling which exempted for-profit corporations with religious owners from the Obamacare mandate to cover emergency contraceptives in their insurance plans.

The legislation will be sponsored by Sens. Patty Murray (D-WA) and Mark Udall (D-CO). According to a summary reviewed by TPM, it prohibits employers from refusing to provide health services, including contraception, to their employees if required by federal law. It clarifies that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the basis for the Supreme Court's ruling against the mandate, and all other federal laws don't permit businesses to opt out of the Obamacare requirement.

The legislation also puts the kibosh on legal challenges by religious nonprofits, like Wheaton College, instead declaring that the accommodation they're provided under the law is sufficient to respect their religious liberties. (It lets them pass the cost on to the insurer or third party administrator if they object.) Houses of worship are exempt from the mandate.

Edited July 9, 2014 by Chicog

[NeverSure]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/us/politics/democrats-draft-bill-to-override-contraception-ruling.html?ref=us

And the Dems will no doubt be pushing this one until election time - bound to get blocked by the GOP.

Can't paste any of it - NY Times website.

But here's the gist from another website.

Senate Democrats are poised to introduce legislation as early as Tuesday to reverse the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling which exempted for-profit corporations with religious owners from the Obamacare mandate to cover emergency contraceptives in their insurance plans.

The legislation will be sponsored by Sens. Patty Murray (D-WA) and Mark Udall (D-CO). According to a summary reviewed by TPM, it prohibits employers from refusing to provide health services, including contraception, to their employees if required by federal law. It clarifies that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the basis for the Supreme Court's ruling against the mandate, and all other federal laws don't permit businesses to opt out of the Obamacare requirement.

The legislation also puts the kibosh on legal challenges by religious nonprofits, like Wheaton College, instead declaring that the accommodation they're provided under the law is sufficient to respect their religious liberties. (It lets them pass the cost on to the insurer or third party administrator if they object.) Houses of worship are exempt from the mandate.

It won't get them anywhere. They are relying on proposed legislation which would violate the Constitution, and would be void on its face. They can't "Prohibit the free exercise of religion."

The First Amendment to The United States Constitution, one of ten amendments passed at the same time and collectively known as The Bill Of Rights. These are the rights of the individuals to be free from government in specific areas as delineated:

"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."

The traitors are flat out of luck.

[chuckd]

This is just another Harry Reid publicity stunt. It still has to pass the House even if the Senate is dumb enough to pass it.

It ain't going anywhere in the House.

[Chicog]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/us/politics/democrats-draft-bill-to-override-contraception-ruling.html?ref=us

And the Dems will no doubt be pushing this one until election time - bound to get blocked by the GOP.

Can't paste any of it - NY Times website.

But here's the gist from another website.

Senate Democrats are poised to introduce legislation as early as Tuesday to reverse the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling which exempted for-profit corporations with religious owners from the Obamacare mandate to cover emergency contraceptives in their insurance plans.

The legislation will be sponsored by Sens. Patty Murray (D-WA) and Mark Udall (D-CO). According to a summary reviewed by TPM, it prohibits employers from refusing to provide health services, including contraception, to their employees if required by federal law. It clarifies that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the basis for the Supreme Court's ruling against the mandate, and all other federal laws don't permit businesses to opt out of the Obamacare requirement.

The legislation also puts the kibosh on legal challenges by religious nonprofits, like Wheaton College, instead declaring that the accommodation they're provided under the law is sufficient to respect their religious liberties. (It lets them pass the cost on to the insurer or third party administrator if they object.) Houses of worship are exempt from the mandate.

It won't get them anywhere. They are relying on proposed legislation which would violate the Constitution, and would be void on its face. They can't "Prohibit the free exercise of religion."

The First Amendment to The United States Constitution, one of ten amendments passed at the same time and collectively known as The Bill Of Rights. These are the rights of the individuals to be free from government in specific areas as delineated:

"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."

The traitors are flat out of luck.

The Supreme Court decision wasn't based on the First Amendment. It was based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.

The decision can be read here

I do my homework like a good boy, Neversure.

[Chicog]

This is just another Harry Reid publicity stunt. It still has to pass the House even if the Senate is dumb enough to pass it.

It ain't going anywhere in the House.

It isn't Harry Reid, funnily enough it's some Democrat women (surprise, surprise).

And I did say "bound to get blocked by the GOP".

[chuckd]

This is just another Harry Reid publicity stunt. It still has to pass the House even if the Senate is dumb enough to pass it.

It ain't going anywhere in the House.

It isn't Harry Reid, funnily enough it's some Democrat women (surprise, surprise).

And I did say "bound to get blocked by the GOP".

Nothing gets done by the Democrats in the Senate unless Reid has his hand in it.

He will try to get a floor vote on it to try and embarrass the Republican Senators before the mid-term elections, knowing full well they will vote against it. I'm wondering how some of those Dem Senators in states lost by Obama are going to vote on it. They're all vulnerable in this upcoming election.

Both of the sponsoring Democratic Senators are not up for re-election this term. They have nothing to lose.

[chuckd]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/us/politics/democrats-draft-bill-to-override-contraception-ruling.html?ref=us

And the Dems will no doubt be pushing this one until election time - bound to get blocked by the GOP.

Can't paste any of it - NY Times website.

But here's the gist from another website.

Senate Democrats are poised to introduce legislation as early as Tuesday to reverse the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling which exempted for-profit corporations with religious owners from the Obamacare mandate to cover emergency contraceptives in their insurance plans.

The legislation will be sponsored by Sens. Patty Murray (D-WA) and Mark Udall (D-CO). According to a summary reviewed by TPM, it prohibits employers from refusing to provide health services, including contraception, to their employees if required by federal law. It clarifies that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the basis for the Supreme Court's ruling against the mandate, and all other federal laws don't permit businesses to opt out of the Obamacare requirement.

The legislation also puts the kibosh on legal challenges by religious nonprofits, like Wheaton College, instead declaring that the accommodation they're provided under the law is sufficient to respect their religious liberties. (It lets them pass the cost on to the insurer or third party administrator if they object.) Houses of worship are exempt from the mandate.

It won't get them anywhere. They are relying on proposed legislation which would violate the Constitution, and would be void on its face. They can't "Prohibit the free exercise of religion."

The First Amendment to The United States Constitution, one of ten amendments passed at the same time and collectively known as The Bill Of Rights. These are the rights of the individuals to be free from government in specific areas as delineated:

"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."

The traitors are flat out of luck.

The Supreme Court decision wasn't based on the First Amendment. It was based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.

The decision can be read here

I do my homework like a good boy, Neversure.

Of course the Supreme Court decision was based on the First Amendment.

This entire case was based on the principals of the free exercise of religion.

[NeverSure]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/us/politics/democrats-draft-bill-to-override-contraception-ruling.html?ref=us

And the Dems will no doubt be pushing this one until election time - bound to get blocked by the GOP.

Can't paste any of it - NY Times website.

But here's the gist from another website.

Senate Democrats are poised to introduce legislation as early as Tuesday to reverse the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby ruling which exempted for-profit corporations with religious owners from the Obamacare mandate to cover emergency contraceptives in their insurance plans.

The legislation will be sponsored by Sens. Patty Murray (D-WA) and Mark Udall (D-CO). According to a summary reviewed by TPM, it prohibits employers from refusing to provide health services, including contraception, to their employees if required by federal law. It clarifies that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the basis for the Supreme Court's ruling against the mandate, and all other federal laws don't permit businesses to opt out of the Obamacare requirement.

The legislation also puts the kibosh on legal challenges by religious nonprofits, like Wheaton College, instead declaring that the accommodation they're provided under the law is sufficient to respect their religious liberties. (It lets them pass the cost on to the insurer or third party administrator if they object.) Houses of worship are exempt from the mandate.

It won't get them anywhere. They are relying on proposed legislation which would violate the Constitution, and would be void on its face. They can't "Prohibit the free exercise of religion."

The First Amendment to The United States Constitution, one of ten amendments passed at the same time and collectively known as The Bill Of Rights. These are the rights of the individuals to be free from government in specific areas as delineated:

"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."

The traitors are flat out of luck.

The Supreme Court decision wasn't based on the First Amendment. It was based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993.

The decision can be read here

I do my homework like a good boy, Neversure.

Who needs me? Chuckd is doing a very good job of kicking your tail.

Chicog, When are you going to get over it? Almost 300 posts in this thread across 12 pages, and a full month of whining, and guess what?

Eric Cantor still lost!!

[Chicog]

Of course the Supreme Court decision was based on the First Amendment.

This entire case was based on the principals of the free exercise of religion.

Er... no it wasn't.

Holding: As applied to closely held corporations, the regulations promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services requiring employers to provide their female employees with no-cost access to contraception violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Judgment: Affirmed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Alito on June 30, 2014. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Sotomayor joined, and which Justice Breyer and Justice Kagan joined to all but Part III-C-1. Justice Breyer and Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion.

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/sebelius-v-hobby-lobby-stores-inc/

The decision is an interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and does not address whether such corporations are protected by the free-exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwell_v._Hobby_Lobby

The bicameral Democratic plan to respond to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Hobby Lobby case would effectively narrow the current legal interpretation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

http://blogs.rollcall.com/wgdb/democrats-hobby-lobby-response-would-curtail-religious-freedom-law/?dcz=

[Chicog]

Who needs me? Chuckd is doing a very good job of kicking your tail.

Chicog, When are you going to get over it? Almost 300 posts in this thread across 12 pages, and a full month of whining, and guess what?

Eric Cantor still lost!!

Oh I know that silly, it's just that this is the only news thread that vaguely relates to the Teabaggers, isn't it?

As for tail kicking, you obviously have a strange interpretation, but I know you folk have to stick together so I'll let it go.

[NeverSure]

Who needs me? Chuckd is doing a very good job of kicking your tail.

Chicog, When are you going to get over it? Almost 300 posts in this thread across 12 pages, and a full month of whining, and guess what?

Eric Cantor still lost!!

Oh I know that silly, it's just that this is the only news thread that vaguely relates to the Teabaggers, isn't it?

As for tail kicking, you obviously have a strange interpretation, but I know you folk have to stick together so I'll let it go.

If the "teabaggers" could get any good out of advertising in Thailand, they should hire you as their agent.

“I don't care what you say about me. Just be sure to spell my name wrong.”

- - Barbra Streisand