SCOTUS Little Sisters

SCOTUS Little Sisters (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

KenDckey -> SCOTUS Little Sisters (3/23/2016 7:11:35 PM)
http://news.yahoo.com/u-high-court-confronts-obamacare-contraceptives-challenge-041333712.html Seems the court is split equally on the case If I were the religious organizations, without regard to religion, I would just close shop, fire all the employees, and let well enough alone. There is no legal mandate to provide health care, foster care, etc to anyone that I know of. And it would eliminate a lot of issues with the law.

Real0ne -> RE: SCOTUS Little Sisters (3/23/2016 7:41:13 PM)
on the bright side its clear we do not have a court of law, but nothing more than another political arm of gubblemint. (if thats a bright side) "An evenly split ruling, with the court's four liberals backing the Obama administration against the four conservative justices, would leave in place lower-court rulings" So arent you happy that you are part of this democratic process? [8\|]

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: SCOTUS Little Sisters (3/23/2016 9:57:15 PM)
quote: Seems the court is split equally on the case You'll be seeing those words a lot.

DaddySatyr -> RE: SCOTUS Little Sisters (3/23/2016 10:13:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey If I were the religious organizations, without regard to religion, I would just close shop, fire all the employees, and let well enough alone. There is no legal mandate to provide health care, foster care, etc to anyone that I know of. And it would eliminate a lot of issues with the law. Let me put on my "Religious Groups' Spokesman's Hat": You're right. There is no legal mandate. Our mandate comes from a much higher authority that commanded us: quote: ORIGINAL Matthew 22: 37-40 Douay-Rheims Bible "Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets." Michael

JVoV -> RE: SCOTUS Little Sisters (3/23/2016 10:28:38 PM)
There was another split decision today as well. Something about wives being 'forced' to cosign loans for their husbands.

DaddySatyr -> RE: SCOTUS Little Sisters (3/23/2016 10:35:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JVoV There was another split decision today as well. Something about wives being 'forced' to cosign loans for their husbands. I have no clue about this decision, but I can't help but wonder if it's based upon the same tenets that obligate a man to pay the debts of his new wife that were accrued prior to their having even met or the one that allows a woman to charge $20,000 worth of furnishings for her new love nest by simply signing *Mrs. Joe Schmoe* (instead of her own name) when they're legally separated and the legal system attaches the default to him? Michael

JVoV -> RE: SCOTUS Little Sisters (3/23/2016 10:40:24 PM)
https://www.rt.com/usa/336771-supreme-court-split-decision/ quote: Legal experts warned that the US Supreme Court would be unable to decide a number of cases as a consequence of Justice Antonin Scalia’s death. On Tuesday, the first split decision arrived. The case of Hawkins v. Community Bank of Raymore won’t send waves throughout the US, but the outcome of a 4-4 ruling by the Supreme Court shows just how complicated deadlocked issues could be moving forward. Since the decision was a tie and delivered in the name of the whole court, the vote count was not officially released, nor is it known which justice voted for which side. Read more Flowers are seen in front of the Supreme Court building in Washington D.C. after the death of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, February 14, 2016. © Carlos Barria5 major SCOTUS cases affected by Scalia's death Referring to the last decision on the issue rendered by the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eight District, the justices wrote only: “The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.” As a result, no nationwide precedent has been set, and the Supreme Court leaves intact the lower court’s decision. The case itself revolved around whether spouses can be held as guarantors for bank loans. In 2008, the Community Bank of Raymore in Missouri approved $2 million in residential development loans to a local company, on the condition that the wives of the two men who owned the business also signed the guarantee. The women, Valerie Hawkins and Janice Patterson, agreed to do so. After the company failed to make payments on the loans in April 2012 and the bank declared them to be in default, it demanded payment from both the business and the two women who were co-guarantors. Hawkins and Patterson sued the bank, claiming that they were discriminated against simply because they were married to the men seeking the loans, and that the bank violated the US Equal Credit Opportunity Act, which bans discrimination against applicants based on marital status. Ehhh, OK so it was Tuesday. I'm probably still behind oon stuff.

ThatDizzyChick -> RE: SCOTUS Little Sisters (3/24/2016 5:03:13 AM)
quote: There was another split decision Call me psychic.

thompsonx -> RE: SCOTUS Little Sisters (3/24/2016 9:02:27 AM)
ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Let me put on my "Religious Groups' Spokesman's Hat": You're right. There is no legal mandate. Our mandate comes from a much higher authority that commanded us: Perhaps you would be happier living there instead of here? ORIGINAL Matthew 22: 37-40 Douay-Rheims Bible "Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets." Wasn't there one about "give unto ceaser what is ceasars?

thompsonx -> RE: SCOTUS Little Sisters (3/24/2016 9:13:03 AM)
ORIGINAL: KenDckey http://news.yahoo.com/u-high-court-confronts-obamacare-contraceptives-challenge-041333712.html Seems the court is split equally on the case If I were the religious organizations, without regard to religion, I would just close shop, fire all the employees, and let well enough alone. There is no legal mandate to provide health care, foster care, etc to anyone that I know of. And it would eliminate a lot of issues with the law. You do not seem to understand what is going on. OPTING OUT The Christian groups object to a 2013 compromise offered by the Obama administration that allowed groups opposed to providing insurance covering birth control to comply with the law without actually paying for the required coverage. Groups can certify they are opting out of the mandate by signing a form and submitting it to the government. The government then asks insurers to pick up the tab for contraception. The challengers contend the accommodation violates their religious rights by forcing them to authorize coverage for employees even if they are not paying for it. http://news.yahoo.com/u-high-court-confronts-obamacare-contraceptives-challenge-041333712.html The jesus phreques don't want to pay and they do not want anyone else to pay. The court has ruled in hobby lobby that they do not have to pay. All they have to do is notify the govt in writing that they don't want to pay and opt out. That is not enough for them they want to prevent anyone else from paying for that coverage for their employees.

Phydeaux -> RE: SCOTUS Little Sisters (3/24/2016 9:43:11 AM)
No, they do not want to have to participate in the violation of their religious rights one iota. Good for them.

mnottertail -> RE: SCOTUS Little Sisters (3/24/2016 9:50:11 AM)
They are not participating. Render therefore unto Caesar those things which are Caesar's. That adjuration was pretty clear. If you don't believe ol Jeebus, who you gonna believe if you are xtian? Maybe these religious nutsuckers need to read the bible and the constitution.

thompsonx -> RE: SCOTUS Little Sisters (3/24/2016 10:23:17 AM)
ORIGINAL: Phydeaux No, they do not want to have to participate in the violation of their religious rights one iota. Good for them. That is what "opt out" means. Why do you think they have some right to stop someone else paying for their empolyees insurance? Do you believe a jesus phreque employer has the authority to tell their employees how to live their lives?

KenDckey -> RE: SCOTUS Little Sisters (3/24/2016 10:52:38 AM)
I don't think they told their employees that they couldn't purchase their own insurance Thompsonx. Where did you get that information?

thompsonx -> RE: SCOTUS Little Sisters (3/24/2016 11:05:44 AM)
ORIGINAL: KenDckey I don't think they told their employees that they couldn't purchase their own insurance Thompsonx. Where did you get that information? Stop being obtuse...I did not say that. You do not seem to understand what is going on. OPTING OUT The Christian groups object to a 2013 compromise offered by the Obama administration that allowed groups opposed to providing insurance covering birth control to comply with the law without actually paying for the required coverage. Groups can certify they are opting out of the mandate by signing a form and submitting it to the government. The government then asks insurers to pick up the tab for contraception. The challengers contend the accommodation violates their religious rights by forcing them to authorize coverage for employees even if they are not paying for it. http://news.yahoo.com/u-high-court-confronts-obamacare-contraceptives-challenge-041333712.html

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125