Supreme Court justice; RBG; displays ignorance of Constitution

[SocialistSlayer]

I never said contraception is murder.  Abortion is though.  And that has nothing to do with any supposed faith. That had to do with scientific fact. 

 

And the size of the corporation had no baring on the importance of the people running that Corp in comparison odd is employees.  Does somehow the bigger the group of people make them have less rights? 

How come companies like Google can actively promote. Campaign for. And pay for lgbt "rights" if the company has no rights?  Especially if they have employees apposed to it. 

And since these companies have no rights. Can the government force them to hire anyone and everyone. To make certain products For certain prices?

Or do they now have constitutional rights? 

 

Any way I'm still waiting for a gym membership and a personal trainer to be a right. And my employer be forced to pay for it.  And while we are at it protein and other supplements seem like another health care right I should have. 

It's amazing how many rights the left can think of while simultaneously trying to destroy the right to free agency

I see where you're coming from, I think. You've got some very libertarian ideas about how businesses should behave and at least you're consistent that every boss of any faith should be able to choose what to do with their business. I still hold to the opinion that because this was a narrow ruling that it showed the supreme court favoring one religion over others. Part of majority's opinion outright said this decision shouldn't extend to other religious objections other religions might have.

I said it before. I don't necessarily find this case all that big of a deal. It's not an atack on women or whatever. I'm more worried about the impact decisions like this (and citizens united) will have in the future. It's all building up to something awful.

I do find it odd that the essentially ruled that religious rights are seemingly of higher importance than just rights in general.  But I don't think it should be construed to be preference of one religion. It could be any religion that causes you to have that belief. 

But if I were you I would not worry about this case to much.  The court has a long history of limiting freedom broadly and making exemptions (like this) narrowly