On Sun, 27 Jul 2014 17:06:31 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> On 7/26/2014 11:35 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> The point at which it's a problem for me is when someone's imposing
>> their beliefs on someone else.  I despise SCOTUS' recent decision
>> allowing a corporation to hold religious beliefs (say what?) and to
>> impose those beliefs on their employees (in the form of not allowing
>> their corporate- provided health care plan to cover certain forms of
>> contraception, because the 'corporation' believes - inaccurately, I
>> might add - that those drugs are 'sinful' because they cause abortions
>> (which they don't)).
>>
> And, of course, despite the supposed "limited scope" of this, it took
> the lawyers less than 10 seconds to expand that to include every
> bullshit lawsuit currently in the works that involves a company having
> to accommodate **anything** hey didn't like, and SCOTUS less than 24
> hours to not only approve of at least some of those expansions, but to
> create one of their own.
> 
> But, its like.. limited, so, we don't really need to worry, and stuff..

Yep.  As the judges in the minority predicted, even.

Jim
-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message