This is the debate we should be having. The hobby lobby decision is only horrible in its outcome, which is not how courts should be making decisions.

holy shit the pattern on my rug was moving all weird and shit after the video

But when rich people buy things they don't need it's okay for us to snark at them, right? See, e.g., Mitt Romney's car elevator

DUDE you are blowing my mind.

Like the Abrhamaic god vs the egyptian/greek gods?
Maybe it could be like Clash of the Titans except all these disparate gods are teaming up against this "new dark unstoppable force"?

you said it was a shit job in a shit economy. I was explaining why it was a pretty decent job and preempting your comment that the lack of birth control made it shitty too

Well its not a de-facto preference of one faith to another. It's a de jure preference (there is a law, the RFRA) of religious beliefs over laws that "burden" one's religious beliefs. So a qualifying business whose owners HAVE a religious belief can receive protection under RFRA that an atheist business does not get…

well we'll just agree to disagree then

those legs though

"could of" is commonly used in the gullah community. Do you go around your office telling your co-workers "hey, it's ask, not AXE"

wow, racist much? In my community, POC say "could of"

Thats only a prelim ruling. The non-profits will probably win. "likelihood of victory on the merits" is only one part of the test, and is not usually dispositive. The big factor is "irreparable harm" which they take pretty serious. So if its a 1% chance of winning but a REALLY big harm that could be suffered, the…

I think that's apples and oranges (birth control and discrimination), but I agree that building a religious exemption into a discrimination act definitely muddies the waters a lot for the class of people you are trying to create and protect.

The non-profits will probably win. "likelihood of victory on the merits" is only one part of the test, and is not usually dispositive. The big factor is "irreparable harm" which they take pretty serious. So if its a 1% chance of winning but a REALLY big harm that could be suffered, the court will give the 99% loser…

Read the guy who replied to me. It's pretty straightforward in the Court's decision. I'll post it below.

I'd also read the SCOTUSblog analysis because that is by lawyers and not suffering journalists who are desperate for clicks and need to create a "religion versus rights" rage-narrative. Amy Howe (Sup Ct. lawyer)…

Sure. My point was that its called soccer not football.

I could of.

Yes the federal government has the power to impose laws concerning civil rights. The constitutional basis for imposing those laws have nothing to do with need or equality.

Yes. That is a more accurate description. Thank you for clarifying.

there is no "exception for being an overwhelmingly needed law" in the constitution. Where did you go to law school? Barbados?