Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#31103 Jul 6, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
So it wasn't a First Amendment case. Why was it so hard for you to admit that?
Two other points. First, you totally misinterpret the scope of that case. The SCOTUS did not say that the Federal Government can't tell employers what kind of benefits they must offer. The decision says nothing of the sort. The decision says that if the government tells employers what kind of benefits they must offer, and if that directive clashes with a close corporation's sincerely held religious belief, then under the RFRA, the religious belief wins. That's it.
Second, under your baseball scenario, the game wouldn't be over because the runner who scored didn't do so before the third out was made at second. Carumba, even baseball is too complicated for you.
RFRA is not set in stone and can be amended or repealed by Congress where as a Constitutional Amendment Change requires alot more than just Congress.
Canton

Canton, OH

#31104 Jul 6, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, I didn't know that. And didn't the Koch brothers buy those $20,000 Obama fundraising dinner tickets when he ran for reelection?
Oh, that's right, it wasn't the Koch brothers, it was those poor and middle-class people that attended those dinners.
And do those fundraiser plates come with a free side of Supreme Court Justices? Big Daddy Koch's did. See the difference? Even if you did, you would just twist the words in desperation. Typical rightwing ploy. We see it on here all the time. In fact, when you aren't posting links to the Heritage Foundation, you get busted changing people's words often.
Pope Che Reagan Christ

Detroit, MI

#31105 Jul 6, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>No you are so confused and do you realize the 2nd Amendment was the last of the Bill of Rights to be incorporated down the state level in 2010 by the SCOTUS which for years you liberals were restricting people's 2nd Amendment right in liberal places like Chicago, Illinois which the liberals did and proved the are for restricting citizens rights and the problem with the RFRA is if congress wants to alter the RFRA they can since it is Federal Law where as a Constitutional Amendment that requires Constutitional Convention something that Liberal Democrats oppose too and the thing about the RFRA is was proposed & sponsered by Liberal Democrat Chuck Schumer(D-NY) which that there should be a Red Flag and that there is a Liberal Motive for sure and you yourself made clear that the 1st amendment is too Conservative something Liberals hate like yourself including the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution is what you are saying.
Don't go all Unabomber on us, Indy. Holy cow. I haven't made a single political statement on this subject. All I have done was state the simple facts about that case. Your anti-liberal paranoia is making you crazy.
Pope Che Reagan Christ

Detroit, MI

#31106 Jul 6, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>RFRA is not set in stone and can be amended or repealed by Congress where as a Constitutional Amendment Change requires alot more than just Congress.
Yeah. What's your point?
Canton

Canton, OH

#31107 Jul 6, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely. Just ask the owners of Chick-Fil-A and what happened to their sales after the media reported they were against SSM.
Is that why the CEO got all wishy washy about his statements?

http://time.com/27940/chick-fil-a-dan-cathy-g...

Typical flakey right winger. His little Jesus got chucked out the window when he saw what might come from his caveman statements.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#31108 Jul 6, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>Don't go all Unabomber on us, Indy. Holy cow. I haven't made a single political statement on this subject. All I have done was state the simple facts about that case. Your anti-liberal paranoia is making you crazy.
Today's Liberalism is based on bigotry is its problem and the Liberals know all about the Unabomber just ask Liberal Democrat Bill Ayers who perfected it.

The Weather Underground Organization (WUO), commonly known as the Weather Underground, was an American radical left organization founded on the Ann Arbor campus of the University of Michigan. Originally called Weatherman, the group became known colloquially as the Weathermen. Weatherman organized in 1969 as a faction of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) composed for the most part of the national office leadership of SDS and their supporters. Their goal was to create a clandestine revolutionary party for the overthrow of the U.S. government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Undergro...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#31109 Jul 6, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah. What's your point?
You just made my point about the Liberal Thinking.
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#31110 Jul 6, 2014
Canton wrote:
<quoted text>
Is that why the CEO got all wishy washy about his statements?
http://time.com/27940/chick-fil-a-dan-cathy-g...
Typical flakey right winger. His little Jesus got chucked out the window when he saw what might come from his caveman statements.
And at the end of the article, it stated they will still adhere to their Christian values including not opening up on Sunday.

They didn't back down because of any boycott or loss of business. At the heart of the controversy, they had record profits for the chain. As the article points out, the public assumed that they were using discriminatory practices particularly with their employees.

The thing about liberals is that they are all for free speech provided it's only their free speech.
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#31111 Jul 6, 2014
Canton wrote:
<quoted text>
And do those fundraiser plates come with a free side of Supreme Court Justices? Big Daddy Koch's did. See the difference? Even if you did, you would just twist the words in desperation. Typical rightwing ploy. We see it on here all the time. In fact, when you aren't posting links to the Heritage Foundation, you get busted changing people's words often.
HTF could anybody buy a SC seat? Can you explain that one?

Big money is in both parties, not just the Republicans. As I pointed out so often, there are plenty of wealthy Democrats in this country. DumBama set records in political campaign contributions and it certainly didn't happen by the homeless, SNAP's cards people and Obama phone users. Where do you think all that "Obama money" came from anyway?
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

#31112 Jul 6, 2014
Anonymous, I am having trouble following your argument.
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>...do you realize the 2nd Amendment was the last of the Bill of Rights to be incorporated down the state level in 2010 by the SCOTUS...
We were talking about a Supreme Court decision, where you were incorrectly asserting it was decided based on the 1st Amendment instead of the RFRA, and now you are talking about the 2nd Amendment?
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>the problem with the RFRA is if congress wants to alter the RFRA they can since it is Federal Law
That's true, but the RFRA is the basis for the Hobby Lobby decision.
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>...if congress wants to alter the RFRA they can since it is Federal Law where as a Constitutional Amendment that requires Constutitional Convention...
No, a Constitutional Amendment does not require a Constitutional Convention. It requires a 2/3 vote of both the House and Senate, and then ratification by the States.
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>...the thing about the RFRA is was proposed & sponsered by Liberal Democrat Chuck Schumer(D-NY)...
You are wrong about this, too.
"The bill was introduced by Howard McKeon of California and Dean Gallo of New Jersey on March 11, 1993."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedo...
(McKeon & Gallo are both Republicans.)
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>...the thing about the RFRA is was proposed & sponsered by Liberal Democrat Chuck Schumer(D-NY) which that there should be a Red Flag and that there is a Liberal Motive for sure...
It was passed unanimously by the House, and with only 3 dissenting votes in the Senate.

Where is all your misinformation and paranoia coming from?
xxxrayted

Maple Heights, OH

#31113 Jul 6, 2014
Pope Che Reagan Christ I wrote:
<quoted text>
So it wasn't a First Amendment case. Why was it so hard for you to admit that?
Two other points. First, you totally misinterpret the scope of that case. The SCOTUS did not say that the Federal Government can't tell employers what kind of benefits they must offer. The decision says nothing of the sort. The decision says that if the government tells employers what kind of benefits they must offer, and if that directive clashes with a close corporation's sincerely held religious belief, then under the RFRA, the religious belief wins. That's it.
And that has nothing to do with the First Amendment?

Provisions[edit]
This law reinstated the Sherbert Test, which was set forth by Sherbert v. Verner, and Wisconsin v. Yoder, mandating that strict scrutiny be used when determining whether the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, guaranteeing religious freedom, has been violated. In the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Congress states in its findings that a religiously neutral law can burden a religion just as much as one that was intended to interfere with religion;[1] therefore the Act states that the “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.”[3] The law provided an exception if two conditions are both met. First, the burden must be necessary for the “furtherance of a compelling government interest.”[3] Under strict scrutiny, a government interest is compelling when it is more than routine and does more than simply improve government efficiency. A compelling interest relates directly with core constitutional issues.[4] The second condition is that the rule must be the least restrictive way in which to further the government interest. The law, in conjunction with President Bill Clinton's Executive Order in 1996, provided more security for sacred sites for Native American religious rites.[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedo...

Key words here:

"mandating that strict scrutiny be used when determining whether the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution"

"A compelling interest relates directly with core constitutional issues."
Be Aware

Centerburg, OH

#31114 Jul 6, 2014
Of the two, I would vote Kasich,but seems both can spend taxpayer money way too easily.Kasich vote to check out windturbines before investing 300 million gives me hope.
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

#31115 Jul 6, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
And that has nothing to do with the First Amendment?
No the general issues involved do involve the First Amendment. However, the Hobby Lobby decision wasn't decided based on the First Amendment, but on the RFRA. That is very obvious from reading the decision, as has been spelled out above.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#31116 Jul 6, 2014
Old Guy wrote:
Anonymous, I am having trouble following your argument.
<quoted text>
We were talking about a Supreme Court decision, where you were incorrectly asserting it was decided based on the 1st Amendment instead of the RFRA, and now you are talking about the 2nd Amendment?
<quoted text>
That's true, but the RFRA is the basis for the Hobby Lobby decision.
<quoted text>
No, a Constitutional Amendment does not require a Constitutional Convention. It requires a 2/3 vote of both the House and Senate, and then ratification by the States.
<quoted text>
You are wrong about this, too.
"The bill was introduced by Howard McKeon of California and Dean Gallo of New Jersey on March 11, 1993."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedo...
(McKeon & Gallo are both Republicans.)
<quoted text>
It was passed unanimously by the House, and with only 3 dissenting votes in the Senate.
Where is all your misinformation and paranoia coming from?
Because the US Constitutions Bill of Rights do not pretain to the states and only to the Federal Government which the Liberal Democrats knew and is how they restricted the Rights of the Blacks in the South after the Civil War and it was a series of SCOTUS cases that incorporated the US Constitution's Bill of Rights down to the state level and yes it was a 1st Amendment issue under case law and you are also wrong about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which was Introduced in the House as H.R. 1308 by Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on March 11, 1993 and right in the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedo...

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#31117 Jul 6, 2014
Old Guy wrote:
Anonymous, I am having trouble following your argument.
<quoted text>
We were talking about a Supreme Court decision, where you were incorrectly asserting it was decided based on the 1st Amendment instead of the RFRA, and now you are talking about the 2nd Amendment?
<quoted text>
That's true, but the RFRA is the basis for the Hobby Lobby decision.
<quoted text>
No, a Constitutional Amendment does not require a Constitutional Convention. It requires a 2/3 vote of both the House and Senate, and then ratification by the States.
<quoted text>
You are wrong about this, too.
"The bill was introduced by Howard McKeon of California and Dean Gallo of New Jersey on March 11, 1993."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedo...
(McKeon & Gallo are both Republicans.)
<quoted text>
It was passed unanimously by the House, and with only 3 dissenting votes in the Senate.
Where is all your misinformation and paranoia coming from?
Another thing the 103 congress that passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was under Democrat Control of both houses and talk about misrepresentation of the facts.

103rd United States Congress

Senate Majority: Democratic Party

House Majority: Democratic Party

Duration: January 3, 1993 – January 3, 1995

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/103rd_United_Sta...
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

#31118 Jul 6, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>you are also wrong about the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which was Introduced in the House as H.R. 1308 by Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
"Along with Dean Gallo of New Jersey, McKeon introduced the Religious Freedom Restoration Act on March 11, 1993. McKeon is a member of the Republican Study Committee."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_McKeon

"103RD CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H.R. 1308
To Protect the free exercise of religion.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 11, 1993

[co-sponsors]

Mr. MCKEON, and Mr. GALLO introduced the following bill, which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary."

http://prop1.org/legal/rfra.htm
Old Guy

Cincinnati, OH

#31119 Jul 6, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Another thing the 103 congress that passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act was under Democrat Control of both houses and talk about misrepresentation of the facts.
103rd United States Congress
Senate Majority: Democratic Party
House Majority: Democratic Party
Duration: January 3, 1993 – January 3, 1995
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/103rd_United_Sta...
Yes, but there were only 3 nay votes on the Act, all cast in the Senate: Harlan Matthews (D), Robert Byrd (D), and Jesse Helms (R). Only one Congressional Republican voted against it. Explain to me how this is some kind of liberal conspiracy.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#31120 Jul 6, 2014
Old Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
"Along with Dean Gallo of New Jersey, McKeon introduced the Religious Freedom Restoration Act on March 11, 1993. McKeon is a member of the Republican Study Committee."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_McKeon
"103RD CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H.R. 1308
To Protect the free exercise of religion.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 11, 1993
[co-sponsors]
Mr. MCKEON, and Mr. GALLO introduced the following bill, which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary."
http://prop1.org/legal/rfra.htm
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights

Guarantee of free exercise of religion
This provision has been incorporated against the states. See Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of...

H.R.1308
Latest Title: Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993
Sponsor: Rep Schumer, Charles E.[NY-9](introduced 3/11/1993) Cosponsors (170)
Related Bills: S.578
Latest Major Action: 11/16/1993 Became Public Law No: 103-141.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z... :@@@S
Canton

Canton, OH

#31121 Jul 6, 2014
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
HTF could anybody buy a SC seat? Can you explain that one?
Big money is in both parties, not just the Republicans. As I pointed out so often, there are plenty of wealthy Democrats in this country. DumBama set records in political campaign contributions and it certainly didn't happen by the homeless, SNAP's cards people and Obama phone users. Where do you think all that "Obama money" came from anyway?
We're not talking about campaign donations for a politician. We're talking about Supreme Court Justices Thomas and Scalia attending exclusive Koch Brother meetings and the undeniable fact that the Supreme Court suddenly began siding with corporations a whole lot more.
Pope Che Reagan Christ I

Cuyahoga Falls, OH

#31122 Jul 6, 2014
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Today's Liberalism is based on bigotry is its problem and the Liberals know all about the Unabomber just ask Liberal Democrat Bill Ayers who perfected it.
The Weather Underground Organization (WUO), commonly known as the Weather Underground, was an American radical left organization founded on the Ann Arbor campus of the University of Michigan. Originally called Weatherman, the group became known colloquially as the Weathermen. Weatherman organized in 1969 as a faction of Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) composed for the most part of the national office leadership of SDS and their supporters. Their goal was to create a clandestine revolutionary party for the overthrow of the U.S. government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Undergro...
That has nothing to do with what we were discussing. I have discovered that if you can't post a Wikipedia link, you are completely incapable of a discussion.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Springboro Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Who NOT to date in Dayton, Ohio the females and... 51 min Mike 1
Looking for Prentice Richardson (Aka Buddy) (Apr '12) 10 hr hitchiker 7
Concealed carry in Boro's schools - not a matte... (Jul '13) 10 hr last measure 69
Our recommendation: Springboro voters should sa... (Feb '08) 11 hr Doug Wiedeman 31,264
Charter school complaints prompt wider probe 14 hr Fan of Leon The Man 1
The 25 Most Dangerous Cities in the U.S. Are Mo... (Nov '10) 15 hr WARRIOR 19,207
This is your lucky Monday! 21 hr Fan of Leon The Man 2
•••
•••
•••

Springboro Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••
•••

Springboro People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Springboro News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Springboro
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••