Dear God you’re pathetic. You asked a question, I answered it, with references to actual evidence. But rather than actually deal with the evidence, you just dismiss it, not because it wasn’t relevant, but because it contradicted your view. That’s just … well, I guess that’s where you’re at now. Sad.
Not “my view.” It contradicted the facts of the case, as found by a trial court, and undisturbed on appeal.
Your desparate attempt to paint the Hobby Lobby owners as lying about their faith is the only pathetic thing here, Hamlet.
Bullshit, and you [should] know it. Their “sincerity of belief” wasn’t even challenged, yet alone a subject of the litigation. No court heard the evidence about their prior coverage of the same medications they objected to after the case was filed or their investments in companies that make those medications. Those points weren’t “contradicted by the facts of the case”, they weren’t even raised.
Why am I not surprised you’d now stoop to … misleading … people.
I don’t think they lied about their faith, but nice strawman. I think they’re hypocritical people whose “sincere” belief are extraordinarily convenient.
There was a trial. The government had every right to challenge their sincerity. Instead, they conceded the point. The trial court, as a result of that concession, found that they were sincere.
And the government was correct to concede their sincerity, because they were not assholes.
What does that even mean?
They did not lie, but their beliefs were somehow hypocritical?
Thomas v. Review Board. That does not matter. It’s not for you to dispute where they draw the line.
So shut it.
Without considering the evidence I provided. If it helps you, here’s a comparison: Did OJ’s fleeing in the Bronco with cash, a gun, and a disguise magically not happen because it wasn’t introduced in his criminal trial?
Again, to help you out, the answer is no. It did happen. And, regardless of whether or not it was introduced in court, it’s still evidence. Which is what you asked for. And I provided.
Is the concept of flexibility in religious beliefs somehow beyond you? I figure, as a Catholic, you would have no little experience in having some religious beliefs that you occasionally sin against, yet you hold “sincere” if it fits your purpose. The owner’s religious belief that they would be sinning by providing contraception to their employees wasn’t important enough before they could sue about it. And their belief that providing money that could lead to contraception use, or even it’s very creation, wasn’t a big enough violation of their sincere belief. Until they could sue about it, that is.
It’s not that hard to follow.
Which was my point I made to RNATB about the stupidity of expanding the “sincerity of belief” test to for-profit corporations. It’s a test that is, in effect, almost completely useless.
You’ve made it abundently clear that you’re insulated from the consideration of any evidence that might contradict your position, so I’m not surprised you have to resort to this.
Crap. That’s utter crap. OJ’s flight was not introduced at his murder trial because he was on trial for murder, not reckless use of an SUV. The government would have been happy to introduce it, but the rules of evidence prohibited it. Think back: during your career as a prosecutor, maybe someone mentioned “rules of evidence” to you? The things you probably tried to undermine every day? It’ll come back to you.
In sharp contrast, in this trial, the sincerity of the underlying belief was a required element. The plaintiffs had to allege their belief was sincere; the government had every opportunity to challenge that claim or not. The government chose to stipulate to it’s truth.
No. I hold beliefs sincere not out of any calculation as to whether they fit my purpose-- unless by “purpose” you mean the application of an informed conscience in discerning God’s will.
It’s true that committing a sin is not dispositive as to whether a particular belief was sincere. We can imagine a man who cheats on his wife, but readily acknowledges his behavior is sinful. So what?
No, their testimony was that they were unaware that their plans covered those specific types of contraception. And there is consistency in what they said with what their religious teachings hold: they did not object to all contraceptives, after all, but just to the four out of twenty that potentially acted by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg.
Do you not know that this was their testimony?
Or are you now going to backtrack and say they were lying, after denying that you were accusing them of lying?
Can you even try to stay on point? Or is every response from you going to be some irrelevant tangent so you can fling your vague, baseless insults?
The point I made was that admission into a court of law isn’t a requirement to consider something evidence. You really, desperately want to cling to this idea that, since it wasn’t introduced in court, it suddenly didn’t happen, but that’s simply not true. I provided evidence calling the sincerity of their religious beliefs into question, in answer to your question. You are free, as you surely will, to handwave it away. But that doesn’t suddenly make it not evidence.
So it’s hypocritical. And convenient. That was my point.
Because it wasn’t important enough to them to find out. Well, until they wanted to attack the ACA that is. Just like it wasn’t important enough for them to make sure they didn’t provide money to actually make the contraception they object to. Well, until they wanted to sue.
Like I said, convenient.
But at least you’re making progress; we’re actually talking about the evidence, rather than you idiotically trying to dismiss it because you didn’t ask me specifically for a response. So I’ll just repeat what I said years ago: " the legal test is whether or not their religious belief is sincerely held, not whether it is not whether their beliefs are consistent with their own actions, reasonable, rational, not hypocritical, not politically motivated, or sane. So a company like Hobby Lobby, which gives millions of investment dollars to contraceptive makers, directly gives people who buy contraception money to do so, does a great deal of business with a country that has mandatory abortions, and didn’t have a problem covering some of the very same drugs before Obamacare was passed gets to claim, and win, that their religious beliefs are sincere."
Fine. I am bookmarking this post. You agree they pass the legal test for sincerity.
I’ve said that all along. You’re just too busy being an argumentative, overly-legalistic prick to have caught on.
You aren’t going to believe this…The International Order of St. Hubertus whose members of the worldwide, male-only society wear dark-green robes emblazoned with a large cross and the motto “Deum Diligite Animalia Diligentes,” which means “Honoring God by honoring His creatures,”.
You couldn’t make this shit up.
::sigh:: Can we have a feature where a thread title turns brown if Bricker’s made more than a dozen posts in it? Or maybe it flashes “Here There Be Bricker”.
I don’t mind hearing his opinion on a subject, but he never stops there. I’d just like some warning to stay away once he starts beating that dead horse (til he feels every single “opponent” has capitulated to his partisan nit-picking).
I love this bit from the article:
Three people can have a well-known secret society if two of them are loudmouths.
Ok, I get it. I think.
I asked, “Do you have any reason to doubt their sincerity,” (emphasis added). You were saying that although you have some reasons to doubt it, ultimately you don’t?
Ok, my mistake, which in fairness I think you helped along instead of clarified, but I agree I misread you.
No. Because here on the SDMB, where people are much more unwilling to call out errors from their side, I refuse to let factual errors go unchecked.
Sometimes, of course, the factual errors are mine. And if they are explained, I am willing to admit them.
Too freaking funny. And this clown sat on the Supreme Court? Sheesh!
When **Bricker **and **Hamlet **get into a pillow fight, I cheer for the pillow.
There are dozens, maybe even hundreds of fraternal societies in the US and around the world. Not seeing what’s so shocking about this, even if Scalia was a member (and there doesn’t seem to be any indication he was). Not my cup of tea, but they seem to be pretty popular.
No. I’m saying they meet the [all but worthless] legal test for sincerity of religious belief.
I’m also saying, based on the evidence provided, I doubt the sincerity of their proclaimed belief. I’m also saying they’re hypocrital, political opportunists who pick and chose the level of the"sincerity" of their religious beliefs based more on politics than faith.
Yep.
Yeah, but who’s to say that worship of the Dollar Almighty is not sincerely religious? Some socialist Jew?