SCOTUS today: 2 HUGE deicisions

[boutons_deux]

you do realize nobody here reads your spam, don't you?

you right-winger would be a lot smarter if you read my stuff, hmmm, maybe just tiny bit smarter since your intellectual capacity is so minuscule

[boutons_deux]

does not care. he's like a cat covering his turds.

whine hole joins the Boutons stalking posse

[boutons_deux]

New Study Helps Explain Why Hobby Lobby Supporters Are So Fiercely Opposed To Birth Control

Throughout the ongoing debate over Obamacare’s contraceptive coverage requirement, a common theme has emerged among many of Hobby Lobby’s supporters:

the idea that ensuring access to affordable birth control is harmful to society because it leads to promiscuity and infidelity.

Several right-wing groups filed amicus briefs in favor of the crafts chain arguing that women simply shouldn’t be having consequence-free sex.

According to new research published in Archives of Sexual Behavior, the at ude that women shouldn’t be having sex can at least partly be traced back to the idea that women are supposed to be economically dependent on men. The researchers suggest that this link may drive conservative religious communities’ insistence on sexual purity.

found that the people who believe that casual sex is wrong also tend to believe that women need a partner to support them financially.

Within that worldview, sex outside of a serious monogamous relationship is simply too risky. If women don’t have “paternity certainty,” then how will they know who they need to rely on to support them and their future child?

The researchers conclude that this outdated at ude toward women’s pregnancy risks and financial needs hasn’t totally gone away, despite the fact that modern contraception, legalabortion rights, and greater workplace equality have created an entirely different society.

“The beliefs may persist due to cultural evolutionary adaptive lag, that is, because the environment has changed faster than the moral system,” the paper concludes. “Religious and conservative moral systems may be anti-promiscuity because they themselves arose in environments where females depended heavily on male investment.”

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014...birth-control/

yes, right-wingers, Hobby Lobby and other such bull is part of the War on Women, War on Vaginas.

( explains why the Christian assholes and pro-lifers don't go after fertility clinics for dumping 1000s of embryos: NO S' VAGINAs INVOLVED. )


iow. it's that old "a good woman is barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen"

[spurraider21]

you right-winger would be a lot smarter if you read my stuff, hmmm, maybe just tiny bit smarter since your intellectual capacity is so minuscule

copy pastes articles
once posted an article without realizing it was satire

[boutons_deux]

copy pastes articles
once posted an article without realizing it was satire

which one was that?

[FromWayDowntown]

Reason #1 SCOTUS Will Regret Hobby Lobby

That separation is what legal and business scholars call the "corporate veil," and it's fundamental to the entire operation. Now, thanks to the Hobby Lobby case, it's in question. By letting Hobby Lobby's owners assert their personal religious rights over an entire corporation, the Supreme Court has poked a major hole in the veil. In other words, if a company is not truly separate from its owners, the owners could be made responsible for its debts and other burdens.

So says Alex Park, writing in Salon today.

"If religious shareholders can do it, why can’t creditors and government regulators pierce the corporate veil in the other direction?" Burt Neuborne, a law professor at New York University, asked in an email.That's a question raised by 44 other law professors, who filed a friends-of-the-court brief that implored the Court to reject Hobby Lobby's argument and hold the veil in place. Here's what they argued:

Allowing a corporation, through either shareholder vote or board resolution, to take on and assert the religious beliefs of its shareholders in order to avoid having to comply with a generally-applicable law with a secular purpose is fundamentally at odds with the entire concept of incorporation. Creating such an unprecedented and idiosyncratic tear in the corporate veil would also carry with it unintended consequences, many of which are not easily foreseen.

This is definitely going to complicate things for the religious extremists on the SCOTUS and empire wide as these lawsuits inevitably proliferate. Putting on the popcorn....now.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/0...?detail=email#

false alarm, if "punctured corporate veil" case hits SCOTUS5, they will obviously, incomprehensibly, undoubtedly, contradictorily rule in favor of corporations

I don't know if that is reason #1, but this notion of recognizing the "rights" of corporations to act in the manner their officers elect does raise some significant legal questions about where the line of demarcation between the corporation and its directors lies, and it will engender some interesting (or, perhaps, alarming) efforts to distinguish the willingness to acknowledge corporate rights in some aspects while denying them in other ways that don't intrinsically benefit the en ies. The bankruptcy example strikes me as an interesting one; there are also some significant questions about why this shouldn't expand the susceptibility of corporations to the jurisdiction of courts in ways that had not been recognized previously.

[boutons_deux]

I don't know if that is reason #1, but this notion of recognizing the "rights" of corporations to act in the manner their officers elect does raise some significant legal questions about where the line of demarcation between the corporation and its directors lies, and it will engender some interesting (or, perhaps, alarming) efforts to distinguish the willingness to acknowledge corporate rights in some aspects while denying them in other ways that don't intrinsically benefit the en ies. The bankruptcy example strikes me as an interesting one; there are also some significant questions about why this shouldn't expand the susceptibility of corporations to the jurisdiction of courts in ways that had not been recognized previously.

I suppose we can assume there are 100s, 1000s of trial lawyers just itching to test it when their contingency fee is big enough.

[FromWayDowntown]

I suppose we can assume there are 100s, 1000s of trial lawyers just itching to test it when their contingency fee is big enough.

I think it's much more likely that the real test to the limits of this notion will come when the well-heeled, tall-building lawyers representing creditors in corporate bankruptcies try to make their clients whole.

[boutons_deux]

On many levels, the Hobby Lobby case is a mess of bad facts, political opportunism, and questionable legal theories that might be laughable had some federal courts not taken them seriously.

Take for instance Hobby Lobby's argument that providing coverage for Plan B and Ella substantially limits its religious freedom.

The company admits in its complaint that until it considered filing the suit in 2012, its generous health insurance plan actually covered Plan B and Ella (though not IUDs).

The burden of this coverage was apparently so insignificant that God, and Hobby Lobby executives, never noticed it until the mandate became a political issue.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/03/hobby-lobby-supreme-court-obamacare

iow, Hobby Lobby suit is PURE FRAUD for political objectives, a LIE, having nothing to with God or their perverted religious beliefs.

[boutons_deux]

Hobby Lobby long term goal: "Mandate" 4 Year Bible Curriculum - that HL writes - in Public Schools

STEVE GREEN: “We're working on 4 year public school bible curriculum. The first year will be a summary of all three of those section. It's history, it's impact and it's story.

Then the next 3 years is going in depth in each of those -- a year for the history, a year for the impact and a year for the story -- in some order... The nation is in danger because of its ignorance of what God has taught. . . . If we don’t know it, our future is going to be very scary ... We were looking - uh- we -- we were talking - - discussed a college curriculum but it's no -- we really want to get -- be into the - um - high school level because we want to reach as many as possible.

Someday, I would argue, it should be mandated. Here's a book that's impacted our world, unlike any other, and you're not gonna teach it? There's -- there's something wrong with that."

The long term goal of Steve Green, President of Hobby Lobby, is to have a 4 year bible curriculum, that they write, be mandated in all public schools. In April of this year, the Mustang School Board approved Green's Bible Curriculum even though, as of June 2014 the curriculum was still in draft form and was still undergoing revisions.

Draft Copy of Steve Green's 4 year Bible Curriculum:

In May, the AP also reported that they got a draft copy of Steve Green's 4 year Bible curriculum:

The curriculum says people should rest on the Sabbath because God did so after six days of creation, and says people risk God's punishment if they do not obey him.~excerpt from draft copy of Hobby Lobby President Steve Green's 4 year bible curriculum obtained by the AP.

While Steve Green has admitted he wants his 4 year bible curriculum to be mandatory but, he realizes that in order to 'creep' his 4 year bible curriculum into the public school system it must start off as an 'elective.' What better way to silence critics than to say 'hey, it's an elective.' And once those critics are silenced, they stop paying attention at which time Steve Green can then 'creep' his stated goal of mandating his 4year bible curriculum into public schools.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/0...Public-Schools

prime example of Christian Taleban supremacist/theocratic objectives. Green family and their s bag ilk are profoundly UN-American, UN-Cons utional as are their enablers the Repug SCOTUS5.

[boutons_deux]

Repugs' wonderful reachout to (unmarried) women continues its astonishing success

Democrats fail in attempt to reverse Hobby Lobby contraceptive ruling

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2014/07...#ixzz37f0HcOm4

[cantthinkofanything]

hmmm...if only there were another low cost solution for not getting pregnant...

[spurraider21]

you literally could be spamming the same exact article, over and over again, in every single thread, and nobody would have noticed. save urself the time of digging up articles

[cantthinkofanything]

you literally could be spamming the same exact article, over and over again, in every single thread, and nobody would have noticed. save urself the time of digging up articles

I have a sneaking su ion that spare time is the only thing boutons has

[boutons_deux]

thanks for reading my "spam", RIF if it includes comprehension.

[Winehole23]

In a statement, the Satanic Temple said that it will use the Supreme Court’s recent Hobby Lobby decision to exempt its believers from state-mandated informed consent laws that require women considering abortions to read pro-life material.


Informed consent or “right to know” laws state that women seeking elective abortions be provided with information about alternatives to the procedure, often couched in language that attempts to personify the fetus. According to the Guttmacher Ins ute, 35 states currently have informed consent laws, and of those, 33 require that the woman be told the gestational age of the fetus.


In some states, that information consists of pro-life propaganda that links abortion to a higher incidence of breast and ovarian cancers, or discusses “post-abortion syndrome,” a mental condition not recognized by any major medical or psychiatric organization.


Because the Satanic Temple bases its belief “regarding personal health…on the best scientific understanding of the world, regardless of the religious or political beliefs of others,” it claims that state-mandated information with no basis in scientific fact violates its “religious” beliefs.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/07/2...abortion-laws/

[boutons_deux]

more and more hitting the fan, thanks Repugs!

Judge: Hobby Lobby Decision Means Polygamous Sect Member Can Refuse To Testify In Child Labor Case

Citing Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court’s decision last June holding that the religious objections of a business’ owners could trump federal rules requiring that business to include birth control coverage in its health plan, a federal judge in Utah held last week that a member of a polygamist religious sect could refuse to testify in a federal investigation into alleged violations of child labor laws because he objects to testifying on religious grounds.

The federal child labor investigation arose from a CNN report investigating claims that Jeffs “ordered all schools closed for a week so children could go to work picking pecans off trees at a private ranch” in Utah. The report included video of “hundreds of children, many of them very small” working on the ranch. When the reporters arrived, CNN also caught video of the FLDS children fleeing the cameras.

Yet, according to an order signed by Judge David Sam, a Reagan appointee to a trial court in Utah, the federal officials investigating this alleged violation of child labor laws will not be able to require an FLDS member named Vernon Steed to provide information that could aid the investigation because Steed objects to giving certain testimony on religious grounds. Steed claims that he’s made “religious vows ‘not to discuss matters related to the internal affairs or organization of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.’” According to Judge Sam’s opinion, that’s enough to exempt him from providing the testimony he does not want to give.

Before Hobby Lobby, it’s unlikely that Steed’s claim would prevail.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...y-child-labor/

yep, Repugs UP EVERYTHING.

money is speech, corporations are people, religion shields me and my crimes.

[boutons_deux]

more abuse of 1st Amendment which guarantees Freedom of Upskirt Photos

Pervs in Texas Can Still Legally Snap Photos Up Women's Skirts, Court Rules




Ensuring that creeps will still be able to slip their camera phones under unsuspecting women's skirts, snap photos, then plaster them all over the Internet, Texas' highest criminal court struck down part of a law that would have banned “upskirt” photos [3] this week.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ruled that banning "improper photography or visual recording," goes against First Amendment freedom of speech rights. It argued that photos taken without permission in public are protected, and went as far as to say that such a ban was "paternalistic" as it would attempt to regulate photographer's thoughts.
In the court’s 8-1 opinion Judge Sharon Keller wrote:

“The camera is essentially the photographer’s pen and paintbrush. A person’s purposeful creation of photographs and visual recordings is en led to the same First Amendment protection as the photographs and visual recordings themselves.”

http://www.alternet.org/gender/pervs-texas-can-still-legally-snap-photos-womens-skirts-court-rules?akid=12266.187590.tsPiAA&rd=1&src=newsletter 1019995&t=7

holy , TX, and its Repug judges, are really really ed up.

[boutons_deux]

cops will kick your ass, destroy you device if you try to take pictures, vids of them, but shooting photos upskirts is "protected speech"

.

[boutons_deux]

Inmate Sues Prison Claiming His Religious Liberty En les Him To Dress Like A Pirate




http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...like-a-pirate/

There was already a case in NY state where an atheist wanted to convoke a town meeting but was denied. Probably a Muslim or Hindo would be denied.

iow, "free speech" and "free religion" are applied selectively, no surprise.

[Winehole23]

It seems of all sources, new litigation may be forth coming from an organization of satanists or satan worshipers known as the “Satanic Temple”. They are planning on using the recent Supreme Court ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby to argue for their own sense of “religious freedom”, making the case that their members who seek abortions in states that have state-mandated informed consent laws that require women considering abortions to read pro-life material, should be exempt from doing that based on religious grounds.


The “pro-life” literature that is required reading by those seeking abortions in the 35 states that currently have “informed consent laws”, try and link abortions to different forms of breast and ovarian cancers and suggest that it also leads to something called “post abortion syndrome”, a supposed mental condition that has not been medically recognized by legitimate members of the medical community. And according to Satanic Temple followers, their beliefs are solely “based on scientific medical facts regardless of the religious or political beliefs of others”. And because some of the findings in state required “pro-life” literature is not based in scientific fact, that their members should be exempt based on “religious freedom.”

http://www.occupydemocrats.com/hobby...rn-the-tables/

[boutons_deux]

As predicted, the right-wing extremist political SCOTUS hacks' ruling on Hobby Lobby opened a veritable Pandora's box

Christian Taleban implementing sharia in FL, other red states to follow

ACLU Condemns Committee Passage of Florida Bill Allowing Agencies to Put Religious and Moral Beliefs over Children's Needs in Foster and Adoption Placements

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2015/03/19/aclu-condemns-committee-passage-florida-bill-allowing-agencies-put-religious-and

[Winehole23]

wrong link

[TeyshaBlue]

It's TPM. Does it matter?

[boutons_deux]

It appears that HL wins its case -- closely-held corporations cannot be required to provide contraception coverage because the RFRA applies to regulations that govern the activities of such en ies and the government failed to show that the ACA mandate is the least restrictive means of advancing its interest in ensuring cost-free access to contraception. Apparently, the opinion is highly-qualified; as the SCOTUSBlog people are saying: the opinion "concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates, that is for blood transfusions or vaccinations, necessarily fail if they conflict with an employer's religious beliefs," and "does not provide a shield for employers who might cloak illegal discrimination as a religious practice."

Notably, Justice Kennedy in a concurring opinion says that the government could pay for the coverage itself.

Under new Obama administration rule, Hobby Lobby employees will get birth control if they want it

But on Friday, the Obama administration made its final ruling on how employers will handle birth control in their health insurance plans — they'll provide it regardless of their moral beliefs. Birth control methods will be covered at no cost to employees, even if their employer objects.

For-profit companies have the option of writing a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) if they wish to object to coverage. Under the new rules, the HHS will notify a third-party insurance company, which will then provide the birth control coverage to the company’s female employee without infringing any additional cost onto the company itself.

“Women across the country should have access to preventive services, including contraception,” HHS Secretary Sylvia Burwell said in a statement. “At the same time, we recognize the deeply held views on these issues, and we are committed to securing women’s access to important preventive services at no additional cost under the Affordable Care Act, while respecting religious beliefs.”

The ACA outlined the parameters of the coverage when the law went into effect in 2012. It required all employers to provide the full range of birth control methods with exceptions to places of worship. Since then — in less than three years — it has saved women across the country $1.4 billion in birth control.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/unde...e+Raw+Story%29