The Christian right seeks cultural and political domination

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: NavyDoc
My CCW of the day is a G29 in 10mm. Gun enough for ya?

I have a felling Buzzy could handle your, erm, 'pistol'.

Just sayin.

holy cow, you guys sound EXACTLY like a cheesy script at the end of a Mod Squad episode

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

You should be aware that the government is scrambling to accommodate all the 1000's of women who are disenfranchised by this ruling with the "free stuff" that the ACA still requires.

And why? Having 16 options rather than 20 options is not a disaster and why should the government or the insurance be obligated to provide something that people have been providing for themselves for along time?

This "scrambling" is nothing more than hyperbole.

ANd again, If I refuse to buy you something, your rights are not violated.

Non sequitur. None of this is about contraception methods or free stuff. You wanna pick a contraception fight, start your own thread.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

You should be aware that the government is scrambling to accommodate all the 1000's of women who are disenfranchised by this ruling with the "free stuff" that the ACA still requires.

i am thinking that the millions of elderly and sick that lost their coverage and doctors from aca and are dying waiting for it to get "fixed" wiegh more with need than an after morning pill. Ironic how this supposed right to these things are for those that actually have jobs and can pay for the results of fornication for pleasure. Kind of ironic. A lady in Nevada just died after losing coverage and after not being able to get coverage through aca sued. But died first. She should have gotten pregnant or something I guess

a reply to: manna2

Perhaps you and NavyDoc could spearhead a thread on the wrongs of the ACA. It would be so original! But this thread isn't about the ACA. It's about "dominionists", and their covert agenda.

I don't need a PURITAN McCarthy either,they will have as much fun as the current President getting something done.
I DO NOT want to make ANYONE adhere to stupid edicts from above,we figured that out in the dark ages.WE also have guns to keep them honest and it has worked once so far.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Serdgiam

Did you find my response satisfactory?
I neither caved, NOR capitulated. I was given enough information to reconsider my alarm and render it back to a simmer.

And now if we can just back that simmer down to a warming light level. (I couldn't think of a cooking term lower than simmer).

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: manna2

Perhaps you and NavyDoc could spearhead a thread on the wrongs of the ACA. It would be so original! But this thread isn't about the ACA. It's about "dominionists", and their covert agenda.

Well, government and its issues are all intertwined, yes? If we are going to bring up the HL decision as part of the great theocratic threat, then logically all aspects of what brought us there are fair game, IMHO.

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

You should be aware that the government is scrambling to accommodate all the 1000's of women who are disenfranchised by this ruling with the "free stuff" that the ACA still requires.

And why? Having 16 options rather than 20 options is not a disaster and why should the government or the insurance be obligated to provide something that people have been providing for themselves for along time?

This "scrambling" is nothing more than hyperbole.

ANd again, If I refuse to buy you something, your rights are not violated.

Non sequitur. None of this is about contraception methods or free stuff. You wanna pick a contraception fight, start your own thread.

Shrug. You are the one who said that people had their rights violated because they had contraception denied them and the government was "scrambling" to cover them.

How exactly did this decision infringe upon anyone's rights?

originally posted by: manna2

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: NavyDoc
My CCW of the day is a G29 in 10mm. Gun enough for ya?

I have a felling Buzzy could handle your, erm, 'pistol'.

Just sayin.

holy cow, you guys sound EXACTLY like a cheesy script at the end of a Mod Squad episode

LOL. You just dated yourself and me for getting the reference.

a reply to: NavyDoc

This ruling has, in fact, violated 1000's of women's 14th Amendment rights of Equal Protection, albeit temporarily. Hence the governmental scrambling.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

This ruling has, in fact, violated 1000's of women's 14th Amendment rights of Equal Protection, albeit temporarily. Hence the governmental scrambling.

The law has to be legal first.

Otherwise it don't count.

And Hobby Lobby is self insured.

No insurance companies involved.

And HHS has instructed insurance companies to provide side coverage for those religious exemptions.

Don't know if that applies to Hobby Lobby.


And to Buzzy:

You mentioned Romney as a threat.

Does that make Harry Reid a bigger threat since he's in a high powerful position?

Reid is a Mormon like Romney.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

This ruling has, in fact, violated 1000's of women's 14th Amendment rights of Equal Protection, albeit temporarily. Hence the governmental scrambling.

See, but I disagree with the concept that a right not subsidized is a right denied. If I don't buy you a radio station, your right to free speech is not harmed a single tiny bit. Therein lies the disconnect.

a reply to: NavyDoc

It really doesn't matter if you disagree. The Supreme Court ruled the ACA, including the contraception mandate, was constitutional a while ago.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

It really doesn't matter if you disagree. The Supreme Court ruled the ACA, including the contraception mandate, was constitutional a while ago.

But SCOTUS ruled FOR Hobby Lobby so I guess it doesn't matter if you disagree with that decision then? I guess you'd better pack it in then, by your own logic or are you one of those who only thinks the SCOTUS is inviolate if they rule how you like?

This is one of the many problems when government mandates things that they shouldn't. When they mandate one private entity to provide for another private entity, then who's rights get trampled? One's first amendment rights or the other's 14th amendment rights? The comes down to the fundamental truth that this whole issue and issues like this are started by an overreaching nanny state that exceeds Constitutional bounds.

Again, please tell me how me not buying you a computer violates your free speech rights?

a reply to: NavyDoc


Look. we both disagree with SCOTUS rulings and certain laws. It doesn't matter that we do. If you want to debate those concepts, make another thread. I won't debate contraception methods with you in this thread. It's off topic.

The fact that Hobby Lobby owner is a fundie dominionist is not.

originally posted by: NavyDoc
LOL. Ironic post is ironic. It's amusing how leftists fight hate and intolerance by being hateful and intolerant.

LOL. I find it hilarious that "Rightists" spend so much time convincing themselves that others are persecuting them that they lose their ability to distinguish Humor from Hate Speech.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: NavyDoc

This ruling has, in fact, violated 1000's of women's 14th Amendment rights of Equal Protection, albeit temporarily. Hence the governmental scrambling.

This IS a ridiculous ruling.

Hobby Lobby provides health insurance. They, of course, pay for Viagra, and even said they pay for sterilization. Which, I am going to assume, means vasectomies. I have doubts they mean sterilization of women.

They do pay for some forms of birth control, but have selected a few they "believe" causes abortion, even though science says that's false.

So, because the owner of this company simply BELIEVES something, he has the right to deny his female employees AND their doctor.

And, as previously stated, he has no problem buying from companies that not only promote abortion, but sometimes force it.

This is NOT about being denied "free stuff".

a reply to: Annee

Yep. It also seems to me that SCOTUS has also disenfranchised other's religious beliefs, who also may own closely held corporations, by ruling the "religious" objection only extends to the contraception mandate and excludes, say, a Scientologist business owner who wants to refuse to pay for depression medication.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Be careful Buzzy, the rumor is you weigh the same as a duck.

i am working on an idea to bring this into the 21st century using technology. I have taken a digital scale and configured it using the idea of weightlessness in water....for ducks because they float and stuff. Youneed a pool of water about 8-12 ft deep. Place the scale at the bottom and secure the intended party to weigh to the scale at the bottom. Because of the effect of buoyancy caused from oxygen in the lungs you have to wait for about tenminutes until after the bubbles stop to get an accurate reading. From the witches i have tested it on it seems to be working correctly. Oh, this ties into the thread too, because all Christians in politics are dominionists. And domionists are southern baptists... and they came from the puritans who first designed the duck scale technology.oh, btw I am trying to incorporate my duck scale into a dunk tank, like you find at local fundraisers and stuff and throw baseballs at a target to release the contaption. You know, for the coming community functions after the dominionists take over everything.

As an owner of 3 business perhaps I can claim religious affiliation and aversion to FOOLS.

I can think of a few ATS members that I'd send on their way; especially when they start their religious hyperbolic rants.

Also it would be nice not to have to do business with those that have let their ideology get in the way of their common sense.