Reply With Quote
ducks
only in a country who sexually mutilates young males at birth and denies them their bodily human born rights to a complete and full sex life do they turn around and demand that said males are forced to pay for the sex lives of women who are in turn basically encouraged to go out and at no extra cost. all in the name of flipping the gender roles in society and giving women the higher place in society, every american male who stands for this is a castrated, pussified sad son of a and you are my enemy as long as I stand for what's right and good. obamacare, free contraceptives, feminism. pay for my mother ing condoms you sons of mother ing es, i draw the line here and whomever dares to cross this line is a consenting cuckold of the worst kind and will be the first to get tarred and feathered during the revolution.
Awesome story bro
M>S, I promise to personally pay for any and all condoms you would use, as long as you promise to use them every time
Pay for one while I your mexi-wife you traitorous son of a . Shouldn't you be busy finding a dead Iraqi to urinate on out of your little cir cised hole? You little consenting cuckold masochist you.
technically speaking, it isn't the country that mutilates anyone, it's the decision of parents all around the country. Now we could argue that doctors give good/bad advice on the topic, but then that's on the doctors, not really the country.
Once Obamacare kicks in, it will be free cir cisions for everyone. Even girls. I am contemplating getting recir cised.
Well if M>S is against it then I am for it.
M>S droppin' da truth motha in' bombs tbh. i've been recently meditating on the idea about founding a fraternity called "misogynist fraternity" to act as a counterpart against the growing feminism in this country, and every member of our fraternity would refer to himself as a MF member. time for all former MK members to regroup and start fulfilling the sacred duties that we should do imho
More Xanax, nao, UTA!
From the article, this is the case. SCOTUS is not reviewing it, they just threw it back to the lower court for retrial. It's a question of whether religious ins utions can be compelled. Now back to your regularly scheduled arguments with the racist about penis.The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out the case last year, saying the university couldn't challenge the employer mandate before it went into effect. The university argues that employers cannot be compelled to provide health insurance under the Commerce Clause, and that religiously affiliated ins utions in particular should not be made to. The university says that some of its funds could end up indirectly financing abortions under the employer mandate, which would violate its religious principles. (A district judge who heard the case in 2010 seemed skeptical of this argument, however, writing that Liberty had failed to show "how any payments required under the Act, whether fines, fees, taxes, or the cost of the policy, would be used to fund abortion.") The Supreme Court decided last June that individuals could be required to buy insurance under the law or pay a penalty, but did not specifically address the employer question.
I see you have him in the crushing grip of reason.
Anything on the OP?
Um, whut?
A bit more on that. Interesting.Although the Court’s order dealing with unsettled issues over the cons utionality of the new health care law was significant, because the Court could easily have bypassed the Liberty University plea and usually does just that, and yet it did not, its significance also could be exaggerated. The request for the government’s views is not a guarantee that the Court will say anything really new about the Affordable Care Act, that it would even hint at how the case should come out if returned to a lower court, or that it would issue any order that permits the University to make the challenges that were not ruled upon by the Justices, or even by the lower federal court that heard Liberty’s case — the Fourth Circuit Court in Richmond, Va.
When Liberty’s case was before the Fourth Circuit, that Court ruled that it had no jurisdiction to hear the University’s cons utional objections to the ACA’s mandate that individuals must obtain health insurance by 2014, or pay a penalty. That blunted the University’s claims that the individual mandate is uncons utional on a variety of grounds: that it was beyond Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause, and that it violated the rights of the University and its employees to religious freedom and to legal equality. The University also had no chance to make its case against the similar mandate, that larger employers must provide a minimum level of health insurance coverage for their employees, or be penalized.
Recir cised?
Is that anything like a facelift, but for down under?
I didn't know you were old enough to be sagging.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
